They are the sons of Adam from his loins, Qabil and Habil. Allah revealed to Adam that each of them should marry the twin sister of the other. The twin sister of Qabil was more beautiful, and her name was "Iqlima," so he envied his brother and became angry. Adam said to them: "Bring a sacrifice, and whichever of you has it accepted, let him marry her." The sacrifice of Habil was accepted when fire descended and consumed it, which increased the envy and anger of Qabil, and he threatened him with death. It is said that they were two men from the Children of Israel, with the truth being a recitation mixed with truth and correctness. Or it is a story mixed with truth that corresponds to what is in the books of the earlier ones, or with the correct purpose, which is to condemn envy, because the polytheists and the People of the Book were all envious of the Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him, and bore ill will towards him.

Or recite to them while you are truthful and sincere. And when they brought near is an accusative governed by the news, meaning their story and their words at that time.

It may also be an alternative to the news, meaning recite to them the news of that time, assuming the omission of the added phrase.

And the sacrifice is the name of what one draws near to Allah with, whether it be a sacrificial offering or charity, just as the sweetening is the name of what is sweetened or given.

It is said: "Bring forth charity and draw near with it," because drawing near is a form of bringing forth. Al-Asma'i said: "To draw near is to bring forth the top of the head." It is transitive with the preposition so that it means to come close. If you say: How was his saying "Indeed, Allah only accepts from the righteous" a response to his saying: "I will surely kill you"? I say: Since the envy of his brother for the acceptance of his sacrifice was what led him to threaten him with death, he said to him: "You have only come from yourself due to your shedding of the garment of righteousness, not from me. So why did you kill me?"

And why do you not admonish yourself and compel it towards the righteousness of Allah, which is the reason for acceptance? So he responded to him with wise words that are concise and encompass meanings. And it is evidence that Allah, glorified and exalted is He, does not accept obedience except from a believer who is righteous, so what he reproached most of the doers of deeds with. And from Amir ibn Abdullah: He cried when death approached him, and it was said to him: What makes you cry, for you used to be and you used to be? He said: I hear Allah saying: "Indeed, Allah only accepts from the righteous." I am not one to extend my hand to you to kill you. It was said: He was stronger than the killer and more forceful than him, but he refrained from killing his brother and submitted to him out of fear of Allah, for repelling was not permissible at that time. This was said by Mujahid and others. "Indeed, I want you to bear my sin and your sin," meaning to bear the sin of killing me if you kill me and the sin of your killing me. If you say: How can he bear the sin of killing him while no bearer of burdens bears the burden of another? I say: The meaning of my sin is like in the broadness of speech, just as you say: I read the reading of so-and-so, and I wrote the writing of so-and-so, meaning the like, and this is a common and widespread expansion that is hardly used otherwise.

And similar is his saying, blessings and peace be upon him: "The two who are arguing, what they said is upon the initiator unless the oppressed has exceeded." It is upon the initiator to bear the sin of his insult, and the like of the sin of insulting his companion because he was the cause of it, except that the sin is lifted from his companion and forgiven for him, because he is equivalent to one defending his honor. Do you not see his saying: "Unless the oppressed exceeds"? Because if he goes beyond the limits of retaliation and exceeds, he will not be safe. If you say: So when Habil refrained from killing his brother and submitted and was cautious about what was prohibited in his law from repelling, where is the sin so that his brother bears the like and the two sins come together? I say:

He is predestined, so he bears a sin that is predestined, as if he said: I want you to bear a sin like mine if I were to extend my hand to you. It was said ( بِإِثْمِي) means with the sin of my killing (وَإِثْمِكَ) for which your offering was not accepted. If you say: How could he intend the misfortune and torment of his brother? [[Mahmoud said: "If you say: How could he intend the misfortune and torment of his brother... etc." Ahmad said: This is from his introducing the corrupt belief in explaining his words, and the corrupt belief is his conviction that there are things in existence that are not intended by Allah, glorified and exalted is He, and those evils in their entirety, as he claims, occur contrary to divine will, and this is the hidden polytheism. So beware of approaching his polytheism, and seek refuge with Allah. As for his intention of his brother's sin and punishment, its meaning is: I do not want to kill you and be punished. Since it was necessary to intend one of the two matters: either his sin by assuming he defends himself and kills his brother, or the sin of his brother by assuming he surrenders, and since he did not intend the first, he was compelled to the second. Thus, he did not intend his brother's sin for its own sake, but he intended that the sin arises from the defense leading to killing, and at that time it was not permissible, so it necessitated the intention of his brother's sin. This is like a person wishing for martyrdom. Its meaning is that the disbeliever bears the sin of his killing and what comes with it of sin, but he did not intend the sin of the disbeliever for its own sake; rather, he intended to offer himself in the way of Allah, hoping for the sin of the disbeliever by killing him implicitly and as a consequence. What indicates this is that there is no difference in attaining the rank of martyrdom and its virtue between the killer dying in disbelief and his being sealed with faith, as the sin of killing that made the martyr a martyr is either retained by his killer or absolved from him. This does not diminish the virtue of his martyrdom nor increase it. If the sin of the disbeliever in killing were intended, the wish would differ based on its retention or absolution, which indicates that it is a necessary consequence, not an intended goal. And Allah knows best.]] in the Fire? I said: He was unjust, and the recompense for the unjust is good, and it is permissible to intend it. Do you not see His saying, 'And that is the recompense of the unjust'? And if it is permissible for Allah to intend it, it is permissible for the servant to intend it, for he does not intend except what is good [[The saying "for he does not intend except what is good" is the doctrine of the Mu'tazila, but according to the people of the Sunnah, Allah intends every existent, whether good or evil, as established in the science of monotheism. (A)]] . The intended meaning of sin and the burden of killing and what it entails of deserving punishment. If you say: Why was the condition stated in the form of a verb? [[He returned to his speech. He said: "If you say: Why was the condition stated in the form of a verb and the recompense in the form of a participle... etc." Ahmad said: The participle is distinguished from the verb by this particularity in that the verb form does not convey anything other than the occurrence of its meaning from the doer alone. As for the attribute of the essence with it, that is something that the participle grants. Hence, they say: Zayd stood, so he is standing, making his attribute of standing arise from his action. For this reason, His saying, 'You will surely be among the stoned,' is a shift from the verb, which is 'We will stone you,' to the noun for emphasis. They mean that they make this for its permanence and occurrence with him as a mark and a fixed sign, and they do not limit themselves to merely performing it with him.]] and the recompense in the form of a participle, which is His saying: (لَئِنْ بَسَطْتَ.....) (What am I to extend?). I said: To indicate that he does not do what would earn him this disgraceful description. Therefore, he emphasized it with the confirming 'b' for negation. His soul compelled him to kill his brother, and it made it easy and facilitated it for him, from 'طاع' to him, meaning it expanded. And Al-Hasan read: 'فطاوعت.' In it are two aspects: that it is from what came from the doer meaning the action, and that it is intended that killing his brother is as if his soul called him to proceed to it, and it obeyed him and did not refrain.

I preserved for Zayd his wealth. It is said: He was killed when he was twenty years old, and his killing was at the foot of the mountain of Hira, and it is said in Basra at the place of the great mosque. Then Allah sent a raven, which is narrated to be the first one killed on the face of the earth from the children of Adam. When he was killed, he was left in the open, not knowing what to do with him. He feared for him from the wild beasts, so he carried him in a bag on his back for a year until he became tired, and the wild beasts surrounded him. Then Allah sent two ravens, and they fought, and one killed the other. One of them dug a hole with its beak and feet, then threw it into the pit. He said, "Oh woe to me! Have I become incapable of being like this raven?" It is narrated that when he was killed, his body turned black, whereas it was white. Adam asked him about his brother, and he said: "I was not a guardian over him." He said: "But you killed him, and that is why your body turned black." It is narrated that Adam remained after his killing for a hundred years without laughing, and he lamented him in poetry, which is a pure lie, and the poetry is nothing but fabricated and miscomposed. It has been established that the prophets, peace be upon them, are protected from poetry. To show him, to show him Allah, or to show him the raven, meaning to teach him, because when he was the cause of his teaching, it is as if he intended to teach him metaphorically the shame of his brother, the private parts of his brother, and what should not be exposed of his body. The shame is the disgrace due to its ugliness. He said: "Oh my people, for the shame is great." [The saying "Oh my people" is narrated as "Oh my people."] Meaning for the great disgrace, and he used it as a metaphor for it. "So I will cover it" is in the accusative as a response to the question. It is read with a pause as: "So I will cover." Or it is paused in the place of the accusative for the sake of ease from the regretful ones for killing him, due to the fatigue he experienced from carrying him and his confusion about the matter, and it became clear to him from his incapacity, and his learning from the raven, and the blackening of his color, and the anger of his father, and he did not regret the regret of the repentant ones because of that due to that and his condition. It is said: Its origin is due to a wrongdoing if he commits it, he is given a term. From it is his saying: "And the people of the good tent, whose relations are good among them... they have fought in a matter that I am delaying." [And the people of the good tent, whose relations are good among them... they have fought in a matter that I am delaying.] This is for Khawat bin Jubayr, describing himself as one who stirs up evils and wars, he says: "By the Lord of the tent," meaning closely situated houses as if they are one house. Or he used it as a metaphor for their closeness in lineage, good among them. Meaning the state that is good among them, they have fought because of an immediate evil that I am delaying, meaning I have delayed it before the war and its instigator. In it is a semblance of opposition. It is said: "I delayed the evil" if he committed it and instigated it, so their fighting was because of it and due to it, so the evildoers were defeated, and I came asking about them, like your asking about the matter: meaning about the matter that you are ignorant of. He implied by the analogy that he was not ignorant of them when he asked, but he was showing them that he was with them and loved them, not for their enemy. As if you said: "For your sake, I did such and such," meaning from what I have committed and made it obligatory. It is indicated by their saying: "From your dragging, I did it," meaning from what I dragged it, meaning I committed it. This refers to the mentioned killing, meaning from what the killing was committed and dragged. We have decreed upon the children of Israel, and "from" is for the beginning of the limit, meaning it began, and the decree arose because of that. It is said: "I did such and such for such and such." It may be said: "For such and such," by omitting the preposition and connecting the verb. He said: "For Allah has preferred you." It is read: "For that reason," by omitting the hamzah and opening the noon to place its movement upon it. Abu Ja'far read: "For that reason," by breaking the hamzah, and it is a dialect. If it is softened, the noon is broken, placing the kasrah of the hamzah upon it without a soul, without killing a soul, not in the manner of retribution, or corruption, attached to the soul, meaning or without corruption in the earth, which is polytheism. It is said: "Cutting the road" and "whoever revives it" and "whoever rescues it from some causes of destruction, killing, drowning, burning, collapsing, or otherwise." If you say: How can one be compared to all and his ruling be like their ruling? You say:

Because every person speaks of the honor before Allah and the sanctity that is established, if he kills, he has dishonored what is honored before Allah and violated its sanctity. Conversely, there is no difference then between one and all in this matter. If you say: What is the benefit of mentioning this? I say: It is to emphasize the gravity of killing a soul and reviving it in the hearts so that people may recoil from being bold against it and strive to protect its sanctity. For the one who is about to kill a soul, if he imagines killing it as if he is killing all people, that makes it greater upon him and deters him. Likewise, for the one who intends to revive it. And from Mujahid: The punishment for killing a soul is Hell, and the anger of Allah, and the great torment. Even if he killed all people, it would not increase beyond that. And from Al-Hasan: O son of Adam, do you see if you killed all people, would you hope to have an action that is equivalent to that for which you could be forgiven? No, it is something that your soul and the devil have made alluring to you. So likewise, if you killed one after that, after we have decreed upon them and after the messengers came with the signs, they are indeed transgressors, meaning in killing, not caring about its gravity.