His saying, exalted and majestic is He:

"O you who have believed, prescribed for you is legal retribution for those murdered - the free for the free, the slave for the slave, and the female for the female. But whoever overlooks from his brother anything, then there should be a suitable follow-up and payment in good conduct. This is an alleviation from your Lord and a mercy. But whoever transgresses after that will have a painful punishment." "And there is for you in legal retribution a saving of life, O you who possess intellect, that you may become righteous." "Prescribed for you when death approaches any one of you, if he leaves wealth, is to make a will for the parents and near relatives, according to what is acceptable - a duty upon the righteous."

"Prescribed" means: it is made obligatory and established, and 'prescribed' is often used in matters that are permanent and lasting. It is said that "prescribed" in this context is an announcement of what has been written in the preserved tablet and has been decreed beforehand.

The essence of the obligation of legal retribution is that the killer is obliged - if the guardian of the murdered wishes for retribution - to submit to the command of Allah and to comply with the prescribed retribution. The guardian is obliged to refrain from killing the killer of his relative and to avoid transgressing against others, as the Arabs used to transgress and kill a man from the tribe of his killer for his killed. And the judges and those in authority are obliged to uphold legal retribution and to establish the limits. Legal retribution is not obligatory; rather, the obligation is that it should not exceed retribution into transgression. However, if reconciliation occurs without retribution, whether through blood money or pardon, that is permissible. The verse indicates that legal retribution is the goal in cases of dispute.

"And legal retribution" is derived from following the trace, as if the killer has taken a path of killing and has followed his trace in it, and has walked in his way regarding that.

And "the murdered" is the plural of "murdered person," a term that is feminine in the sense of the collective, and it is something that people enter into with reluctance. Therefore, it has come in this form, like the terms for the wounded, the disabled, the foolish, the fallen, and the drowned.

There is a difference of opinion regarding the reason for this verse; it was said by Al-Sha'bi that the Arabs, who were people of honor and protection, when a slave was killed among them, they would kill a free person in retaliation, and when a woman was killed, they would kill a male in retaliation. Thus, the verse was revealed to establish equality in the sight of Allah and to abolish the matter of ignorance.

It has been narrated that a group of Arabs fought a blind fight, then some of them said: 'We will kill our slaves in retaliation for our free people,' and the verse was revealed.

It is said that it was revealed due to a conflict that occurred between two tribes of the Ansar, or from others, where these killed from those men, slaves, and women. The Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him, commanded that they reconcile among themselves and retaliate against each other with blood money in equality: the free for the free, the women for the women, and the slaves for the slaves.

It has been narrated from Ibn Abbas that the verse was revealed necessitating that a man not be killed for a woman, nor a woman for a man, and that one category should not enter upon another. Then it was abrogated by the verse of Al-Ma'idah: "That a soul for a soul" [Al-Ma'idah: 45].

The judge Abu Muhammad, may Allah have mercy on him, said:

Thus it has been narrated, and the verse of Al-Ma'idah is merely a report about what has been written upon the Children of Israel. Therefore, abrogation only occurs by what has been transmitted from the Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him, that our ruling in our Shari'ah is like their ruling.

It has been narrated from Ibn Abbas regarding what Abu Ubaid mentioned, and from others: that this verse is definitive, and it contains a generality that the verse of Al-Ma'idah has explained. And that His saying here: ﴿The free for the free﴾ encompasses men and women. This was said by Mujahid.

And Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, said: The best I have heard regarding this verse is that it refers to the gender, where male and female are equal in it. The mention of the female is repeated for emphasis and concern for abolishing the matters of ignorance.

It has been narrated from Ali ibn Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him, and from Al-Hasan ibn Abi Al-Hasan: that the verse was revealed clarifying the ruling of those mentioned, to indicate the distinction between them and between killing a free person and a slave, or a male and a female, or a female and a male. They said: If a man kills a woman, then if her guardians want, they kill him and pay his guardians half the blood money from him. And if they want, they spare him and take the blood money of the woman from him. And if a woman kills a man, then if his guardians want, they kill her and take half the blood money, otherwise they take the blood money of their companion and spare her. And if a free person kills a slave, then if the master of the slave wants, he is killed, and he gives the blood money of the free person, except for the value of the slave. And if he wishes, he spares him and takes the value of the slave. This is mentioned from Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, and from Al-Hasan, and it has also been denied from them.

And the Ummah has agreed on killing a man for a woman, and a woman for a man, and the majority do not see returning anything. And a group sees following the preference of blood money. Malik and Al-Shafi'i said: And likewise, retribution between them in matters less than life. Abu Hanifah said: There is no retribution between them in matters less than life, but it is for life for life. And Al-Nakha'i, Qatadah, Sa'id ibn Al-Musayyib, Al-Sha'bi, Al-Thawri, Abu Hanifah, Muhammad ibn Al-Hasan, and Abu Yusuf said: The free person is killed for the slave. And Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, and the majority of scholars said: The free person is not killed for the slave, and their evidence is the consensus of the Ummah that the slave does not resist the free person in matters less than life. Thus, life is the measure for that. Also, the consensus regarding one who kills a slave accidentally is that he is only liable for the value. Just as the free person does not resemble him in accidental killing, he does not resemble him in intentional killing. Also, the slave is a commodity among commodities that is bought and sold. And if a man kills his son, if he intended to kill him, like lying him down and slaughtering him, or torturing him in a manner for which he has no excuse, and there is no doubt in claiming accidental killing, then he is killed for it unanimously in the school of Malik. And if he kills him in a manner that he throws or strikes and kills him, then there are two sayings in the school: he is killed for it, and he is not killed and the blood money is increased.

And His saying, the Exalted, ﴿So whoever is pardoned by his brother anything﴾ has four interpretations.

(p-425) One of them is that 'from' refers to the killer, and 'was forgiven' includes the forgiver, who is the guardian of the blood, and 'the brother' is the killed. It is correct that he can be the guardian according to this interpretation, and it is the brotherhood of Islam. And 'something' is the blood that is forgiven, and it returns to taking the blood money. This is the saying of Ibn Abbas and a group of scholars, and forgiveness in this saying is in its original sense. The two pronouns refer back to 'who' in every interpretation.

The second interpretation - which is the saying of Malik - is that 'from' refers to the guardian, and 'was forgiven' means facilitated, not in its original sense of forgiveness, and 'the brother' refers to the killer, and 'something' is the blood money. The brotherhood in this case is the brotherhood of Islam, and it is possible that the killed is intended by 'the brother' in this interpretation, meaning that he is facilitated by his killed brother and because of him. Thus, the brotherhood is a kinship and Islamic brotherhood. According to this interpretation, Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, said: If the guardian inclines towards forgiveness in exchange for the blood money, then the killer is given the choice between giving it or surrendering himself. Sometimes it is facilitated, and sometimes it is not facilitated. Others besides Malik say: If the guardians are satisfied with the blood money, then the killer has no choice, rather it is obligatory upon him. This saying has also been narrated from Malik, and many of his companions preferred it.

The third interpretation is that these words pertain to the specific individuals upon whom the verse was revealed, and the blood money is exchanged among them in compensation, as we mentioned earlier. The meaning of the verse is: So whoever has a surplus from the two groups over the other, something from that blood money. And 'was forgiven' means surplus, from their saying: 'Something was forgiven when it increased,' meaning the situation was favorable for him, or the account, or the measure.

The fourth interpretation is according to the saying of Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, and Hasan ibn Abi Hasan regarding the preference between the blood money of a woman and a man, and a free person and a slave, meaning whoever has that preference, then it is to be followed (p-426) with what is good. And 'was forgiven' in this context also means preferable, as if the verse from the beginning clarified the ruling, if the types do not overlap, then the wisdom if they do overlap. And 'something' in this verse is an object whose doer is not named, and that is permissible. And 'was forgiven' does not exceed the past that it was built from in terms of estimating 'something' as an estimation of the source, as if the speech is: he was forgiven for him from his brother a forgiveness, and 'something' is a general name for this and others, or in terms of estimating 'was forgiven' as meaning left, so it acts as it acts, and the first is better, and it has parallels in the Book of Allah, such as His saying, the Exalted: 'And you do not harm him in anything' [Hud: 57]. Al-Akhfash said: the estimation is that you do not harm him with harm, and from that is the saying of Abu Khirash:

I opposed something, and the dris is as if it is shaken by a watering from the mumin, a barrier.

And His saying, exalted is He: ﴿So, following﴾ is raised as a report of an implied beginning, the estimation of which is: the obligation and the ruling is following. This is the way of the obligatory acts, as His saying, exalted is He: ﴿So, holding on in a good manner﴾ [Al-Baqarah: 229]. As for that which is recommended, it comes in the accusative, like His saying, exalted is He: ﴿So, striking at the necks﴾ [Muhammad: 4]. This verse is an encouragement from Allah, exalted is He, for the good fulfillment from the seeker and the good execution from the performer. Ibn Abi Abla read " , " in the accusative.

And His saying, exalted is He: ﴿That is a relief from your Lord﴾, is a reference to what He has legislated for this nation regarding taking the blood money. The Children of Israel had no blood money; rather, it was only retribution.

And the aggression that is warned against in this verse is that a man takes the blood money of his relative and then kills the murderer after the blood has been shed. There is a difference of opinion regarding the painful punishment that befalls him. A group of scholars, including Malik, said: it is like one who was killed initially. If the guardian wishes, he may kill him, and if he wishes, he may forgive him, and his punishment is in the Hereafter. Qatadah, Ikrimah, Al-Suddi, and others said: his punishment is that he should be killed outright, and the judge does not allow the guardian to forgive. It has been narrated that the Prophet, blessings and peace be upon him, said: 'We swear that no one will be forgiven who forgives for blood and takes the blood money, then transgresses and kills.' Al-Hasan said: his punishment is that he only returns the blood money, and his sin remains until the punishment of the Hereafter. Umar ibn Abdul Aziz said: it is up to the imam to do what he sees fit in it.

And His saying, exalted is He: ﴿And for you in retribution is life﴾ is similar to the saying of the Arabs: 'Killing is a deterrent to killing.' It is narrated: 'It preserves' with a ب and ق, and it is narrated: 'It expels' with a ن and ف. The meaning is that when retribution is established and the ruling is realized, it deters one who intends to kill someone out of fear that he will be retaliated against, so both live by that together. This arrangement is what has preceded for them in eternity. Also, when an Arab killed another man, his tribe would become enraged and fight, and that would lead to the death of many. When Allah legislated retribution, everyone was satisfied with it, and they ceased fighting, so they have life in that.

And 'the people of understanding' are specifically mentioned to alert them, for they are the knowledgeable ones who accept the commands and prohibitions, and others are subordinate to them.

And 'you take precautions' means: killing, so you are safe from retribution, and then that will be a cause for various types of piety in other matters, for Allah, exalted is He, rewards for obedience with obedience. Abu Al-Jawza, Aws ibn Abdullah Al-Rib'i, read: 'And for you in the stories' meaning in the Book of Allah in which He legislated retribution and ruled it. It is possible that it is a source like retribution, meaning that he followed the trace of the murderer as a story, so he was killed as he killed." :

And His saying, exalted is He: ﴿It has been prescribed for you﴾, is as if the verse is connected to His saying: ﴿O you who have believed﴾. Therefore, the conjunction 'wa' has been omitted. And 'It has been prescribed' means it has been made obligatory and established. Some of the scholars said: The bequest is obligatory. And some said: It was obligatory and has been abrogated. And a group said: It is recommended. And 'It has been prescribed' is a factor in raising 'the bequest' as the object whose doer has not been named in some interpretations. And the sign of femininity has been omitted from 'It has been prescribed' due to the length of the speech, so its omission is appropriate. Sibawayh has narrated: 'A woman stood', but the goodness of that is only with the length of the intervening phrase.

And it is not correct according to the majority of grammarians for the bequest to act in 'if' because it is in the ruling of the connection for the source which is 'the bequest', and it has preceded, so it is not permissible for it to act in a preceding manner. And the direction in the parsing of this verse is that 'It has been prescribed' is the factor in 'if', and the meaning is the obligation of Allah upon you and the implication of His prescription when the time comes. Thus, He expressed the direction of obligation with 'It has been prescribed' to indicate that it is written from eternity. And 'the bequest' is an object whose doer has not been named by 'It has been prescribed'. And the response to the two conditions: 'if' and 'if'. It is implied by what has preceded from His saying: ﴿It has been prescribed for you﴾, as you say: I thanked your action if you came to me if it was like this.

And it is directed in its parsing that the estimation is: He has prescribed for you the bequest, and this estimated bequest which is indicated by the mention of the bequest afterwards is the factor in 'if', and 'the bequest' rises with the beginning, and in it is the response to the two conditions as Sibawayh has recited:

Whoever does good deeds, Allah will preserve them.

Or its rising may be with the beginning with the estimation: So the bequest is upon him, or with the estimation of 'fa' only, as if it were said: So the bequest is for the parents.

And it is directed in its parsing that 'the bequest' is raised by 'It has been prescribed' as the object whose doer has not been named, and 'the bequest' is the factor in 'if', and this is according to the school of Abu al-Hasan al-Akhfash, for he permits that what is in the connection precedes with two conditions which are in this verse. One of them is that the connected is not a pure connection, but resembles the connected, and that is like the definite article where it is connected, or like the source, and this in the verse is a source which is 'the bequest', and the second condition is that the preceding is an adverbial phrase, for in the adverbial phrase the extension is easy, and 'if' is an adverbial phrase, and this is the view of Abu al-Hasan in the saying of the poet:

You say and she struck her face with her right hand, is this my husband who is lazy?

For he sees that 'with the millstone' is related to his saying: 'the lazy one' as if he said: Is this my husband who is lazy with the millstone? And the response to the two conditions in this saying is as we mentioned in the first saying.

And in His saying, exalted is He: ﴿When the time comes﴾, there is a metaphor, for the meaning is, when he fears and the signs of it have come. And the good in this verse is: wealth.

The proponents of the will disagreed on the amount that is obligatory from it. Al-Zuhri and others said: It is obligatory in what is little and in what is much. Al-Nakhai said: It is obligatory in five hundred dirhams and above. Ali ibn Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him, and Qatadah said: It is obligatory in one thousand and above.

The scholars disagreed regarding this verse. A group said: It is decisive, its apparent meaning is general, and its meaning is specific to the parents who do not inherit, like the disbelievers and the two slaves, and in the kinship that does not inherit. Ibn Abbas, Al-Hasan, and Qatadah said: The verse is general, and it establishes the ruling by it for a period, and all who inherit were abrogated by the verse of the obligatory shares. In this statement, the saying of Ibn Abbas, Al-Hasan, and others enters: that it abrogated the parents and established the closest relatives who do not inherit. It clarified that the verse of the obligatory shares in Surah An-Nisa is abrogating this; the mutawatir hadith states: "Indeed, Allah has given every rightful person his right, so there is no will for an heir." Ibn Umar, Ibn Abbas, and Ibn Zayd also said: The entire verse is abrogated, and the will remains as a recommendation. This is similar to the saying of Malik, may Allah have mercy on him. Al-Rabi' ibn Khuthaym and others said: There is no will for an heir. Al-'Urwah ibn Thabit said to Al-Rabi' ibn Khuthaym: Bequeath to me your mushaf. Al-Rabi' looked at his son and recited: "And those of kinship are closer to one another in the Book of Allah" [Al-Anfal: 75]. Ibn Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, did likewise. Some of the people of knowledge said: The abrogator of this verse is the mutawatir Sunnah in the previously mentioned hadith. The explanation of the abrogation of the Sunnah for the Book has been presented in the interpretation of His saying, the Exalted: "Whatever verse We abrogate" [Al-Baqarah: 106]. A group of scholars said: The will for kinship is more deserving. If it is for a foreigner, then it is with them, and it is not permissible for others with their abandonment. When Abu Al-Aliyah died, people said: How strange for him! A woman from the Riyaḥ freed him and bequeathed his wealth to the Banu Hashim. Al-Shabi said: That was not for him nor an honor. Al-Tawwus said: If he bequeaths to someone outside of his kinship, the will is returned to his kinship, and his action is nullified. This was also said by Jabir ibn Zayd, and Al-Hasan, and Jabir ibn Zayd again, and Abd al-Malik ibn Ya'la: One third of the will remains where he placed it, and two thirds are returned to his kinship. Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, and a group of scholars said: The will is valid where the deceased placed it.

"The closest relatives": the plural of closest. And "with kindness" means: with the intention that the souls recognize without harming the heirs and without squandering the will. And "right" is an emphatic source, and the pious are specifically mentioned to honor their rank so that people may hasten to it.