مِنْ أَجْلِ ذَٰلِكَ كَتَبْنَا عَلَىٰ بَنِىٓ إِسْرَٰٓءِيلَ أَنَّهُۥ مَن قَتَلَ نَفْسًۢا بِغَيْرِ نَفْسٍ أَوْ فَسَادٍ فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ فَكَأَنَّمَا قَتَلَ ٱلنَّاسَ جَمِيعًا وَمَنْ أَحْيَاهَا فَكَأَنَّمَآ أَحْيَا ٱلنَّاسَ جَمِيعًا
Min ajli dhālika katabnā ʿalā banī Isrāʾīla annahū man qatala nafsan bi-ghayri nafsin aw fasādin fi'l-arḍi fa-ka-annamā qatala'n-nāsa jamīʿā · Wa man aḥyāhā fa-ka-annamā aḥya'n-nāsa jamīʿā · Wa laqad jāʾathum rusulunā bi'l-bayyināti thumma inna kathīran minhum baʿda dhālika fi'l-arḍi la-musrifūn
"For this reason We wrote for the Children of Israel: whoever kills a soul — other than for a soul or for corruption in the land — it is as though he had killed all mankind; and whoever gives one life, it is as though he had given life to all mankind. Our messengers came to them with clear proofs; then, even after that, many of them went to excess in the land."
This verse contains one of the most cited sentences of the Qurʾān, and for that very reason it is often quoted cut loose from its frame. The verse itself lays down three elements of frame, and all three are in the text:
| Element | Expression | What it does |
|---|---|---|
| 1. The cause | Min ajli dhālika | Ties the sentence to the preceding narrative |
| 2. The addressee | Katabnā ʿalā banī Isrāʾīl | Says for whom the ruling was written |
| 3. The qualification | Bi-ghayri nafsin aw fasādin fi'l-arḍ | States what falls outside the ruling |
The root أ-ج-ل: the end of a thing, its term; and a cause. Ajal — an appointed span. Min ajli — "on account of…".
And this link explains the scale of the sentence. I record this as my own reading; its ground is the connective itself: in the narrative a single person was killed. The sentence that comes immediately after says "all mankind". That is, the sentence draws a generalisation from the event before it: the first murder is not a single event but the opening of a door.
The verse says openly for whom it wrote the ruling. This qualification usually drops out when the sentence is quoted, and it ought not to.
| View | What the phrase ʿalā banī Isrāʾīl conveys |
|---|---|
| First | The ruling had been laid down thus in the earlier scripture; the verse transmits that ruling |
| Second | The phrase conveys not that the ruling belongs to them alone but that it was first written down there; the principle is general |
| Third | The phrase is there to establish continuity with the addressee of the preceding section (12-14); the sūra is carrying on the same thread |
I do not impose a preference. But this much can be seen from the text: the continuation of the verse (wa laqad jāʾathum rusulunā…) returns to the same addressee. That is, the sentence does not stand cut off from its context.
The root ك-ت-ب and the pattern katabnā ʿalā were treated at al-Baqara 2/2 and 2/183: this pattern conveys obligation. I rely on that treatment.
This is the part of the sentence most often passed over, and passing it over turns the sentence into a different sentence.
The verse does not say "whoever kills a soul". It says "whoever kills a soul other than for a soul or for corruption in the land".
That is, the sentence does not proclaim an absolute prohibition of killing; its subject is killing that falls outside the law. Two exceptions are named:
| Exception | Expression | What |
|---|---|---|
| First | Bi-ghayri nafsin | For a soul — that is, retaliation |
| Second | Aw fasādin fi'l-arḍ | Corruption in the land |
The scope of these two exceptions and the conditions of their application are the subject of law and are not settled in this section. What is recorded here is only this: the one that enters the qualification is the verse itself.
The root ف-س-د: a thing's going bad, its order breaking down. Its opposite is iṣlāḥ — setting right. The word was treated in detail at al-Baqara 2/11-12 (innamā naḥnu muṣliḥūn); I rely on that treatment. And the construction fasād fi'l-arḍ will come again in the next verse (5/33).
The predicate of the sentence comes with fa-ka-annamā, and this is a linguistic detail that must be recorded.
كَأَنَّ — a particle of comparison: "as though". The sentence establishes not an equality but a likeness.
| What could have been said | What is said |
|---|---|
| Fa-qad qatala'n-nāsa jamīʿā — he has killed all mankind | Fa-ka-annamā qatala'n-nāsa jamīʿā — it is as though he had killed all mankind |
- Had it been a sentence of equality, no distinction at all would remain between one who kills a single person and one who kills a thousand — a conclusion untenable both in law and in morals.
- A sentence of likeness takes the measure out of number and moves it to the kind of the act. What is said is this: to take a life is to take at what is called "the human being". The number may change; the kind of the act is the same.
The classical commentaries give several explanations of how this likeness is to be understood, and I transmit them:
| Explanation | The respect in which the likeness holds |
|---|---|
| First | Likeness in the gravity of the sin: the magnitude of the punishment |
| Second | In respect of the oneness of inviolability: the inviolability of every life comes from the same source; whoever tramples one has trampled the principle |
| Third | In respect of the social consequence: one murder shakes the safety of all lives at once |
The second half of the sentence is usually left in the shadow of the first; yet in point of word order the real emphasis lies there.
أَحْيَا — root ح-ي-ي, Form IV: to keep alive, to give life. The scope of the word here is a classical disagreement:
| View | What iḥyāʾ means |
|---|---|
| First | Refraining from killing — that is, sparing a life |
| Second | Saving a person from death (from drowning, from hunger, from danger) |
| Third | Pardoning in retaliation, remitting the blood claim |
| Fourth | Giving life in an inward sense — being the occasion of someone's guidance |
I do not impose a preference. What the four views share is this: to give life is to be the cause of a life's continuing.
And the pronoun is striking: aḥyā-hā — "gives it life". The pronoun returns to the word nafs; that is, "a soul".
A point of word order — I record this as my own reading: the two halves are exactly symmetrical; the same structure, the same particle, the same close. The only difference is in the verb: qatala / aḥyā.
| The first half | The second half | |
|---|---|---|
| Condition | Man qatala nafsan… | Wa man aḥyāhā |
| Answer | Fa-ka-annamā qatala'n-nāsa jamīʿā | Fa-ka-annamā aḥya'n-nāsa jamīʿā |
What the symmetry means is this: the sentence does not only lay down a prohibition; it opens a door to the same extent. Giving one person life is weighed on the same scale. And in the second half there is no qualification at all — there is no counterpart in the second half to the bi-ghayri nafsin aw fasādin of the first. No exception is written for the giving of life.
وَلَقَدْ جَآءَتْهُمْ رُسُلُنَا بِٱلْبَيِّنَٰتِ ثُمَّ إِنَّ كَثِيرًا مِّنْهُم بَعْدَ ذَٰلِكَ فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ لَمُسْرِفُونَ
Having laid down the ruling, the verse also says that the ruling was not kept. And it says this with two qualifications:
- Kathīran minhum — "many of them". Partitive. Not all of them.
- Baʿda dhālika — "after that". That is, after the knowledge.
The root س-ر-ف: to overstep the measure, to go beyond what is needed. Isrāf — passing beyond the limit. The word does not concern property alone; in the Qurʾān it is used of excess of every kind. The root was treated at Ṭāhā 20/127 and at Ghāfir (al-Muʾmin) 40/28.
I record this as my own reading; its ground is the last sentence of the verse: the verse lays down a ruling and then says that the ruling was trampled. This shows not that the ruling is void but that a ruling does not do its work merely by being written. The text draws its own limit: what is written is not what is obeyed.
This verse is very often quoted in present-day political debate, and usually without its qualifications. This section does not enter those debates.
1. The verse writes its own exception (bi-ghayri nafsin aw fasādin fi'l-arḍ); dropping this part when quoting turns the verse into a different sentence. 2. The verse establishes a likeness (ka-annamā), not an equality. 3. The verse says that it wrote the ruling for a particular addressee, and it does not hide this. 4. The second half of the verse (giving life) is as important as the first, and it carries no qualification. 5. The close of the verse also records that the ruling was trampled — and in doing so it divides again, saying kathīran minhum.