Manslaughter has several degrees of seriousness depending on the victim, as exemplified through the story of Adam's 2 sons, whom the Quran does not name as it eloquently and concisely draws its audience's attention to the story's core precepts without distracting it with names of persons and places
5:27"And relate to them the story of the two sons of Adam with truth".
It is interesting to note the repetitve stress on re-establishment of the truth, most often when the Quran recounts an incident already known for long by its addressees but transmitted in a convoluted and/or purposefully obscured manner.
As will be shown below, the Quran sheds light on at least 2 crucial events within the whole narrative that are strikingly absent from the HB. These details have important implications and ramifications not only for the protagonists but for all mankind; the reason for the rejection of one brother's offering, derogatorily referred to with al akhar. It means "remaining", he remains after first introducing the virtuous brother. The word also creates a kind of disdain and distancing between the sinful character and the audience/reader. The second issue the Quranic narrative tacles is the killing of the other brother, how it was unjustifiable from every possible angle.
For brevity's sake, the 2 brothers will be given their Biblical names.
Abel first sought reforming his brother. He pointed that the offering was rejected due to his sinfulness or lack of piety (the divine approval/disapproval might have manifested itself through inspiration, either to Abel or his father the prophet Adam). He should thus focus on his inner self, reassessing his spirituality and mend his ways instead of being envious 5:27. The nature of the offering in itself is not important, so long as it is done with sincerity and God-consciousness, hence the Quran's silence on the things both brothers offered
22:37"There does not reach Allah their flesh nor their blood, but to Him is acceptable the guarding (against evil) on your part; thus has He made them subservient to you, that you may magnify Allah because He has guided you aright; and give good news to those who do good (to others)".
This is a major point driven through by the Quran. In the HB, God disdainfully rejects Cain's offering for no other reason that
Gen4:3"Cain brought the fruit of the soil"
while Abel
"brought the firstborn of his flocks and the fattest, and the Lord turned to Abel and to his offering"
This sacrificial rite is no more than a symbol of a conscious, selfless offering in God's name of something one cherishes as necessary and valuable. It is not an attempt to "appease" Him who is far above anything that resembles human emotion, nothing of His creation can disturb Him 35:44. Ultimately anything offered to Allah in God consciousness counts as of equal value and merit than a blood offering as stated in 22:37 above. The primary issue is to remain aware of Allah during this universal rite
22:34"To every people did We appoint rites, that they might celebrate the name of God over the sustenance He gave them"
The Quran recognizes the universality of this rite, and then restores it to the right, original course; glorifying God alone, first and foremost.
It is when one loses Allah's pleasure from sight in the process, such as by having one's intentions polluted with sinfulness as occured to Cain, or by having other deities or motives in mind, that the offering is invalidated. The merit does not lie in the intrinsic value or nature of the offering. Even fasting for Allah's sake by the one who cannot afford an offering is a valid substitute 2:196.
Although the HB echoes that reality when it says
Ps50:8-14"..Will I eat the flesh of bulls or do I drink the blood of he-goats? Slaughter for God a confession and pay the Most High your vows".
Yet in other places, YHWH is depicted as physically delecting with the offering
Lev1:9"Then, the kohen shall cause to [go up in] smoke all [of the animal] on the altar, as a burnt offering, a fire offering, [with] a pleasing fragrance to the Lord".
This is reminiscent of ancient mythologies, more particularily Babylonian, where the gods would partake in the offering together with the offerer. In the HB numbers18 the priests making the offering are the only ones allowed to eat from the dead animal. Gods do not sit on the same table as the laymen. The Quran in sharp contrast allows to
22:28-36"eat of them and feed the poor man who is contented and the beggar; thus have We made them subservient to you, that you may be grateful".
Finally, regardless of Cain's decision, Abel said he will not attempt murdering his brother in return, on account of his deep God-consciousness. Cain is now left with no reason to carry on with his death threats. Abel this way left the entire burden of manslaughter on his brother, not sharing any responsibility for having caused this action, for example by threatening Cain back with death, or fighting back so fiercely that he puts Cain's life in danger
5:28"If you will stretch forth your hand towards me to slay me, I am not one to stretch forth my hand towards you to slay you surely I fear Allah, the Lord of the worlds".
Cain apparently did not show any sign of reform, prompting Abel, despite his initial pleas, to openly declare his enmity towards his brother, making it clear to him what would be the eternal consequences of what he was about to commit
5:29"Surely I want that you should bear my sin and your sin, and so you would be of the inmates of the fire, and this is the recompense of the unjust".
Abel wanted his brother to carry the burden of "my sin and your sin". It is speaking of 2 specific sins, in the singular. The context shows what these 2 specific sins are; Abel's unjust murder ie "my sin", and Cain's sinfulness, his refusal to reform himself despite the repeated pleas of his brother, leading to him being bent on murdering his brother ie "your sin". Certain commentators have erroneously assumed the word was in the plural, concluding that the murder transfered the victim's past sins to the criminal.
The singular "your sin" is used in the same sense in certain ahadith. The prophet tries diffusing a situation where one whose brother was murdered, is about to seek his right to retaliation. He is explained that he could achieve more in terms of personal vengence in the long run in a different way
"Don’t you like that he should take upon him (the burden) of your sin and the sin of your companion (your brother)? He said: Allah’s Apostle, why not? The Messenger of Allah said: If it is so, then let it be. He threw away the strap (around the offender) and set him free".
The criminal is described in the full hadith as an outcast, quick in shedding blood and thus with a potential of comitting more murders. But instead of giving him the benefit of the doubt in case, during a fight, he killed the brother who is now openly seeking blood retaliation, and thus lessening to severity of his sin, the brother could forfeit his right entirely. On top of that, this "throwing away of the strap" symbolizes forgiveness as reflected in another version of the hadith
"If you forgive him, he will bear the burden of his own sin and the sin of the victim. He then forgave him. He (the narrator) said: I saw him pulling the strap".
Just as Abel did with Cain, he would be leaving the entire burden of responsibility of his own potential murder upon the criminal, adding on top of that the sin of refusing to reform himself despite the victim's brother forfeiting his right upon his life and forgiving him. This would push the potential killer's awareness to its maximum while committing his crime. The whole idea is to avoid triggering potential criminals based on suspicion, even when they declare their intentions, trying to reform them if possible by making the first step, and this way puting the entire burden of the sin upon them if they act upon it.
In a similar situation the prophet advised not provoking people known for their violent intent even if they should enter one's house
“...O Messenger of Allah, what if they enter my house?” He said: “If you are afraid that the flashing of the sword will dazzle you, then put the edge of your garment over your face, and let him carry his own sin and your sin, and he will be one of the people of the Hellfire”.
The prophet here is teaching the most basic and pragmatic approach both in a wordly and spiritual sense. Any security expert would advise to diffuse a situation where one is confronted to very dangerous individuals in such a way, even if they should enter one's home. In addition, the prophet gives the assurance that in case one falls victim due to not trying to kill as the agressor is trying, then one would receive maximum vindication by leaving the full blame upon the criminal.
Again, Abel at no point denies he will defend himself just as the prophet in those ahadith nowhere denies the right to self defense. What is denied is fending off the attacker with the same murdering intent. Abel does not say he will not fight back if he sees Cain coming with the purpose of realizing his death threats. He didnt say "I wont defend myself and will let you do whatever you want with me" he only said "I do not intend, under any circumstances, to kill you".
Despite his brother's increased admonitions, from gentle pleas and pointing the wrong ways, to threatening him with hellfire should he commit the crime, Cain slew Abel. The victim was not only innocent of any wrongdoing, but did not even raise his hand with the intention of killing him while he defended himself. What made matters worse, Cain knew beforehand that Abel would never under any circumstance pose a threat to his life. With his crime, Cain had established an evil precedent among the sons of Adam.
This precedent has found its way all throughout the history of mankind, down to our present days
"The Prophet said, "None is killed unjustly, but the first son of Adam will have a part of its burden." Sufyan said, "...a part of its blood because he was the first to establish the tradition of murdering".
The hadith speaks of the concept of misleading others into sin. We will never establish the chain of events linking our current experiences and actions all the way to the first sons of Adam. But this hadith tells us the connection exists, so much so that whenever an unjust murder is comitted, Cain is burdened with SOME of that sin, not all of it. This is simple common sense as one cannot be held fully responsible for a crime he was enticed into comitting. It does not take away one's responsibility in the sin, rather determines the level of involvement of every individual.
The Quran explains in many places that a person's good deeds are means of obtaining God's forgiveness in the hereafter. But the person who comes to the hereafter with few good deeds as compared to his sins will inevitably have a spiritual debt to pay, and this is done in the Fire for an appropriate time. If his sins were comitted against others, then in addition to having to account for the sin itself, he will have a share of some of his victims' sins.
Abu Hurairah narrated that the Messenger of Allah said: “Do you know who the bankrupt is?” They said: “O Messenger of Allah! The bankrupt among us is the one who has no Dirham nor property.” The Messenger of Allah said: “The bankrupt in my Ummah is the one who comes with Salat and fasting and Zakat on the Day of Judgement, but he comes having abused this one, falsely accusing that one, wrongfully consuming the wealth of this one, spilling the blood of that one, and beating this one. So he is seated, and this one is requited from his rewards. If his rewards are exhausted before the sins that he committed are requited, then SOME of their sins will be taken and cast upon him, then he will be cast into the Fire.”
This "some" doesnt refer to some of the total sins, ie 2 out of 5 sins. Rather some part of some specific sins, as with Cain's example above.
Simple observation shows that many times victims become offenders due to past trauma, or various circumstances caused by the sin originally comitted against them. Again, as with the hadith about Cain's partial responsibility for the murders among Bani Adam, there is a chain of causality behind each human action. It is possible that some of his victims' sins were enticed by his deeds against them. These specific sins will then naturally be partially shared with the criminal, without taking away the due share of responsibility of those that committed them. Another similar hadith says
"Had it not been for Bani Isra'il, food would not have become stale, and meat would not have gone bad; and had it not been for Eve, a woman would never have acted unfaithfully toward her husband".
The prophet, and anyone else who heard this, knew there werent Israelites going around causing food to spoil. With or without them, food decay occurred anyway. But because an undeniable character trait of theirs, whether in the prophet's time, the time of Jesus, or our very capitalist era, is greed and hoarding of surplus wealth, the notion of spoilage is here associated to them among all the people of the earth. They established a pattern on an unprecedented scale whose repercussions are seen till this day. As to Eve, the nature of her betrayal isnt indicated, but it has to do with something her husband entrusted her with. Being the first among all the women vicegerent of the earth, her actions, good or bad, left a mark on subsequent women vicegerents, who learned from her. This doesnt mean that without her, women would have always been faithful. Eve had at some point a choice to make but made the wrong one, even though she wasnt influenced by a previous pattern. This means woman will always have the choice between faithfulness and betrayal to their husbands, just like Eve had. But to the women that came after Eve, a pattern of bad conduct in a particular matter preceded them, influencing to some instinctive degree their own conduct, without it being a decisive factor beyond their freewill. The association of certain traits with particular people is therefore hyperbolic, as is so common in the manner of speech of the Arabs
God knows very well those who conceal or misconstrue the Truth 41:40 and such sin causes the rejection from God's grace, rejection by men and angels alltogether 2:161. This type of human and spiritual injustice is "fitna", not based on any reasonable evidence and knowledge but instead on inner desires, worldly interests, blind attachement to inherited ways, and the Quran logically explains that the misleaders shall bear their own burden of sins as well as the responsibility of misleading others -intentionally or not- into sin 4:85,16:25,29:12-13 without diminishing from the moral responsibility and consequent requital of those they mislead 14:21,43:36-9. Once more, misleaders do not take away the share of responsibility of a person in his sin, because none bears the burden of other people's sins 17:13-15,53:38-42. Misleaders share their own burdens in those specific sins which they enticed others into committing. Thus each one shares his full burden of responsibility within one and the same sin. This why the Quran keeps warning to guard
36:45"against that which is before you and that which is behind you"
the "before" referring to the action one is about to perform and "behind" is the consequence of this action, referred to as the footsteps one leaves behind
36:12,37:69-70,43:22"they say: We found our fathers on a course, and surely we are guided by their footsteps".
There is a reason why, in sura fatiha, we seek example from people of the past confirmed to have succeeded spiritually, hence the use of the past alladhina anaamta alayhim.
This story of Adam's 2 sons establishes that in the next life, punishment is a matter of degrees, where a murderer can get a more severe punishment depending upon the person he killed. The one slain was innocent of any wrongdoing, even warned his brother that was about to kill him, tried reforming him, and finally pointed the grave consequences of his sins. But this familial tragedy was about to repeat itself, as the murderous Israelites were trying by all means to put an end to their Ishmaelite brother's life, despite his calls to reforms, there being no reasons for them to threaten and attack him, and his warnings of hellfire should they carry on with their deadly intentions. The Jews of the prophet's time were not only trying to kill a man innocent of any wrongdoing against them and in general, but were trying to kill a prophet of God as their forefathers tried doing and sometimes succeeded against the prophets raised from among themselves and who called them to adhere to their own Books which they had thrown behind their backs and forgotten. The story of the 2 sons of Adam ends with a reminder of a lesson they knew very well
5:32"For this reason did We write upon the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men".
Further reading answering Sam Shamoun "Do They Bear Another’s Burdens Or Not?"
No comments:
Post a Comment