His saying - exalted and glorified is He -:

﴿And We prescribed for them therein that a soul is for a soul, and an eye for an eye, and a nose for a nose, and an ear for an ear, and a tooth for a tooth, and wounds are [subject to] retaliation. And whoever gives up [his right as] charity - it is an expiation for him. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the wrongdoers.﴾

The writing in this verse is a reality; it was written on the tablets; and it means the writing of obligation and enforcement. The pronoun in "upon them" refers to the Children of Israel; and in "therein" refers to the Torah. Ibn Kathir, Abu Amr, and Ibn Amer read: "that a soul is for a soul"; with "the soul" in the accusative case, as the subject of "that"; and what follows is also in the accusative case, based on "the soul"; and they raise "and the wounds are [subject to] retaliation"; as it is an independent sentence. Nafi, Hamza, and Asim read all of that in the accusative case; and "retaliation" is the predicate of "that"; and Al-Waqidi narrated from Nafi that he raised "and the wounds"; and Al-Kisai read: "that a soul is for a soul" in the accusative; and he raised what follows. So whoever placed "and the eye" in the accusative made the conjunction of the waw inclusive in the action of "that"; and did not cut off the speech from what preceded it; and whoever raised "and the eye" indicates that this is from the grammatical interpretation that it has been cut off from what preceded it; and the conjunction of the waw is the conjunction of an independent sentence; not a conjunction of inclusion in an action. It is possible that the waw is a conjunction in meaning; because the meaning of His saying: ﴿And We prescribed for them therein that a soul is for a soul﴾; we said to them: the soul is for a soul; and similarly: when the meaning in His saying - exalted is He -: ﴿They will be served with a cup from a flowing spring﴾ [As-Saffat: 45]; they are given a cup from a flowing spring; "and beautiful maidens" was joined to that; and it is possible that His saying: "and the eye" is joined to the hidden mention in the way that is the report; even if the conjunction is not confirmed by a separate pronoun, as it was confirmed in His saying - exalted is He -: ﴿Indeed, he sees you, he and his tribe, from where you do not see them﴾ [Al-A'raf: 27]; and similar instances have come unconfirmed in His saying: ﴿We did not associate anything, nor did our forefathers﴾ [Al-An'am: 148].

The judge Abu Muhammad - may Allah have mercy on him - said: And for Sibawayh - may Allah have mercy on him - in this verse that the conjunction is permissible without confirmation by a separate pronoun; because the speech was prolonged with "and not" in His saying: and not our forefathers; so "and not" was a substitute for confirmation; just as the speech was prolonged in their saying: "The judge attended today a woman"; Abu Ali said: And this only becomes valid to be a substitute if it occurs before the conjunction; for there it would be a substitute for the pronoun occurring before the conjunction; but if it occurs after the conjunction, it does not suffice in place of the pronoun; do you not see that if you said: "A woman attended the judge today"; the length of the speech in a place other than the one it should occur in does not suffice?

The judge Abu Muhammad - may Allah have mercy on him - said: And the words of Sibawayh are directed towards grammatical consideration; although the length before the conjunction is more complete, it is certainly influential after the conjunction; especially in this verse; because 'and not' has connected the meaning; as there has preceded a negation; and it also negated concerning the fathers; thus the conjunction was established. Abu Ali said: And whoever raised 'and the wounds are retribution' has detached it from what preceded; for that allows for these three interpretations that the raising of 'and the eye' could imply; and it is permissible for 'and the wounds' to be initiated; not on the basis that it is from what was prescribed for them in the Torah; but rather on the basis of initiating an obligation and the beginning of a new law; and it is strengthened that it is from what is prescribed for them by the establishment of whoever established it.

And it was narrated that Anas ibn Malik said: 'The Prophet - blessings and peace be upon him - read: 'that the soul is for the soul' with the lightening of 'that' and the raising of 'the soul'; then he raised what followed it to the end of the verse; and Ubayy ibn Ka'b read with the accusative of 'the soul' and what followed it; then he read: 'and that the wounds are retribution' with the addition of the light 'that'; and the raising of 'the wounds'.

And the meaning of this verse is the news that Allah, the Exalted, has prescribed an obligation upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul, then retribution is required for that; then these mentioned limbs likewise; and this ruling has continued in this nation as known from the law of the Prophet - blessings and peace be upon him - and his rulings; and the consensus of the people has proceeded upon it.

And a group of scholars went to generalize his saying: 'the soul for the soul'; so they killed the free man for the slave; and the Muslim for the dhimmi; and the majority hold that it is a generality intended for the specifics in the similar cases; and this is the position of Malik; and in it is the hadith from the Prophet - blessings and peace be upon him -: 'A Muslim is not to be killed for a disbeliever'; and Ibn Abbas - may Allah be pleased with him - said: Allah has permitted for this nation; and has made it easier for them with the blood money; and did not prescribe for the Children of Israel a blood money in what was revealed to Musa - peace be upon him - and was prescribed for them.

The judge Abu Muhammad - may Allah have mercy on him - said: And in this verse is a clarification of the corruption of the actions of the Children of Israel in the oppression of some of them over others; and the fact that the Banu Nadir were stronger in the blood money than the Banu Qurayzah; or that they would not be avenged among themselves; rather they would be satisfied with the blood money; so Allah exposed them with this verse; and informed that they contradicted their Book; and Al-Tabari narrated from Ibn Abbas: There was fighting between two tribes of the Ansar; and there were casualties between them; and one of them had an advantage over the other; so the Prophet - blessings and peace be upon him - came and established the free man for the free man; and the slave for the slave; and Al-Thawri said: It has reached me from Ibn Abbas that he said: Then it was abrogated by: 'the soul for the soul'.

The judge Abu Muhammad - may Allah have mercy on him - said: And likewise His saying, the Most High: "And the wounds are a legal retribution"; it is a generality intended to mean specificity in the wounds of [qisas]; which are those from which there is no fear for the soul; as for what is feared from it, like the [ma'muma]; and a broken thigh; and the like of that; there is no legal retribution in it; and "legal retribution" is taken from following the trace; it is its pursuit; so it is as if the perpetrator's trace is followed; and what he has established is followed; and he is killed as he killed.

And His saying, the Most High: "So whoever gives charity from it, it is an expiation for him"; it can bear three meanings; one of them: that "whoever" refers to the wounded person; or the guardian of the slain; and the pronoun in His saying: "for him"; also returns to him; and the meaning is: Indeed, whoever gives charity for his wound; or the blood of his guardian; and pardons his right in that; then indeed, that pardon is an expiation for him for his sins; and Allah magnifies his reward by that; and expiates for him; and Abdullah ibn Umar supported this interpretation; and Jabir ibn Zayd; and Abu Darda; and it was mentioned that he heard the Prophet - blessings and peace be upon him - say: "There is no Muslim who is afflicted with anything from his body and gives it as a gift; except that Allah raises him by that a degree; and removes a sin from him"; and Makki mentioned a hadith through Al-Sha'bi that it is removed from his sins in proportion to what he pardoned from the blood money; and Allah knows best; and this was also said by Qatadah; and Al-Hasan.

And the second meaning is that "whoever" refers to the wounded person or the guardian of the slain; and the pronoun in "for him"; returns to the injurer; or the killer; if the wounded person gives charity to the injurer for his wound; and pardons him; then that pardon is an expiation for the injurer for that sin; just as legal retribution is an expiation; so likewise, pardon is an expiation; and as for the reward of the one who pardons, it is upon Allah, the Most High; and the pronoun returns to one who has not been previously mentioned; because the meaning necessitates it; this interpretation was said by Ibn Abbas; and Abu Ishaq Al-Sabi'i; and Mujahid; and Ibrahim; and Amir Al-Sha'bi; and Zayd ibn Aslam.

And the third meaning is that "whoever" refers to the injurer; or the killer; and the pronoun in "for him"; also returns to him; and the meaning is: "If a perpetrator commits a wrong and is unknown; and his matter is concealed; and he gives charity by acknowledging it; and allows the right from himself; then that act is an expiation for his sin; and those who said this interpretation went to argue that Mujahid said: If a man injures another man; and the injured does not know who injured him; then if the injurer acknowledges it to him, it is an expiation for the injurer; and it has been narrated that Urwah ibn Al-Zubair struck the eye of a man at the corner while they were performing the rites; and the injured did not know who struck him; then Urwah said to him: I struck you; and I am Urwah ibn Al-Zubair; if there is a harm in your eye, then I am responsible for it.

The judge Abu Muhammad - may Allah have mercy on him - said: And note that "gave charity"; in this interpretation; it is possible that it is from "charity"; and from "truthfulness".

And Makki ibn Abi Talib and others mentioned that a group interpreted the verse to mean: "And the wounds are a legal retribution; so whoever gives the blood money for the wound; and gives charity for that, it is an expiation for him; if it is accepted from him."

The judge Abu Muhammad - may Allah have mercy on him - said: And this is a shaky interpretation; and the statement has preceded regarding His saying, the Most High: "And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed"; and in the Mushaf of Ubayy ibn Ka'b: "And whoever gives charity from it, then it is an expiation for him."