Introduction

The most frequently cited verse from the Quran in modern times is, perhaps, Q 5:32. Because Muslims cite this verse so frequently, almost always to demonstrate the impermissibility of terrorist attacks, countless articles have been written in response by non-Muslims in an attempt to dismiss its citation. Furthermore, it has actually been argued that Q 5:32 and 5:33 actually allow terrorism. While I don’t endorse Muslims citing Q 5:32 and instead encourage the citing of Q 60:7-9 (see Quran 60:7, 60:8, 60:9 – In Context), I do think it’s worthwhile to refute the anti-Islam/Muslim apologists and apologetics as it pertains to these verses. Before I list the main questions which derive from the arguments brought forth by the apologists, I will first cite the verses.

Quran 5:32

On account of [his deed], We decreed to the Children of Israel that if anyone kills a person- unless in retribution for murder or spreading corruption in the land- it is as if he kills all mankind, while if any saves a life it is as if he saves the lives of all mankind. Our messengers came to them with clear signs, but many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.

(Abdel Haleem)

Quran 5:33

Those who wage war against God and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land should be punished by death, crucifixion, the amputation of an alternate hand and foot, or banishment from the land: a disgrace for them in this world, and then a terrible punishment in the Hereafter,

(Abdel Haleem)

Now, the main questions are as follows:

1) Was Quran 5:32 “plagiarized” from the Talmud?

2) Is Quran 5:32 only for the “Children of Israel”? Is it not abrogated by later verses? Can Muslims cite it?

3) Does Quran 5:32 exclude non-Muslims?

4) What is the relation of Quran 5:32 to 5:33? What does “wage war against God and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land” mean? Does it provide a loophole for terrorist actions?

There are sub-contentions which can be placed within these four main objections and they will be addressed as well.

Discussion

Was Quran 5:32 “plagiarized” from the Talmud?

A foundational point which must be made regarding such an assertion is that the Quran is from God and Muslims can demonstrate this in different ways (see God’s Testimony: The Divine Authorship of the Qur’an). Since the Quran is from God, we know that Q 5:32 has a Divine origin regardless, therefore, the claim of plagiarism is automatically nonsensical. This is by itself enough to debunk such an assertion.

The basis for this assertion is that Q 5:32 sounds similar to a passage in the Talmud. The first question which must be asked is, what is the Talmud? The “My Jewish Learning” website defines it as follows:

Talmud (literally, “study”) is the generic term for the documents that comment and expand upon the Mishnah (“repeating”), the first work of rabbinic law, published around the year 200 CE by Rabbi Judah the Patriarch in the land of Israel. [1]

The commentary on the Mishnah is called the Gemara and together they make up the Talmud, the passage cited below is found in Mishnah Sanhedrin 37:

For this reason was man created alone, to teach thee that whosoever destroys a single soul of Israel, scripture imputes [guilt] to him as though he had destroyed a complete world; and whosoever preserves a single soul of Israel, scripture ascribes [merit] to him as though he had preserved a complete world. [2]

The question now is if we can ascertain that this specific phrasing could have a Divine origin based on the historical evidence we have at hand.

The claim of plagiarism is based on two things:

1) The story of Cain and Abel is mentioned beforehand to some degree.

2) The phrasing.

Differences between Q 5:32 and this passage from the Talmud are as follows:

1) There is a clause mentioned in the verse before the second part of the phrase, “unless in retribution for murder or spreading corruption in the land”. This is missing in the Talmud.

2) The verse does not say “a single soul of Israel”, rather, it is general and says, “person”.

3) The verse does not say, “destroyed a complete world”, rather, it says, “kills all mankind”.

4) The verse does not say, “scripture imputes” or “scripture ascribes” or anything similar. Rather, the Quran does mention that this was “decreed” for the Children of Israel. Seeing as how the passage from the Talmud mentions “scripture” as well as the events of Cain and his brother beforehand, it is likely that “scripture” is referring to an uncorrupted Torah.

5) The mentioning of Cain and Abel is all that could be considered similar, pretty much nothing else is similar phrasing on this front. Interestingly, the Quran mentions in Q 5:27 to, “recite to them the story of Adam’s two sons, in truth”. This indicates that there could be issues in how it discussed about elsewhere.

It is important to note that there are textual variants of the Talmud regarding this passage with some saying, “destroys a single soul of Israel” whereas others say, “destroys one soul of a human being”. The version which says, “destroys one soul of a human being”, is as follows:

Therefore the man was created singly, to teach that he who destroys one soul of a human being, the Scripture considers him as if he should destroy a whole world, and him who saves one soul of Israel, the Scripture considers him as if he should save a whole world. [3]

This version is unlikely to be the original:

At the same time, however, some Talmud manuscripts faithful to the uncensored original, were saved from destruction, while other Jewish authorities marked new editions so that readers would know something was omitted, printing the omitted sections separately. One such book is called Hesronot ha-Sh”s[58] (“That which is removed from six-orders”) which gives details of the omissions in Babylonian Talmud. It states specifically that the word “from Israel”[59] had been removed due to censorship. Hence the actual reading of Sanhedrin is … he who destroys one human life of Israel, it is accounted to him by Scripture as though he had destroyed a whole universe; and he who saves one human life of Israel, it is accounted to him by Scripture as though he had preserved a whole universe. The authentic quote is thus distinct from the one quoted by Ibn Warraq and the missionaries, which excludes the words “of Israel”. This is also confirmed if we look into uncensored translations of Talmud. In the beginning of 20th century, Lazarus Goldschmidt did a German translation of the uncensored Babylonian Talmud. In the introduction of his translation, he specifically mentions that his Talmud translation is based on the uncensored Bomberg edition. He compares this with the well-known and uncensored Munich Talmud manuscript.[60] If we look into the Sanhedrin 37a, we read: … dass wenn jemand eine jisraelitische Seele vernichtet, es ihm die Schrift anrechnet, als hatte er eine ganze Welt vernichtet, und wenn jemand eine jisraelitische Seele erhalt, es ihm die Schrift anrechnet, als hatte er eine ganze Welt erhalten.[61] The phrase to notice is “eine jisraelitische Seele” meaning “an Israelite soul” and the restriction of a blessing reserved only to saving an Israelite soul. Rabbi Tzvi Marx writing in Tikkun about the “perplexing rulings of Maimonides regarding murder” says: He first ruled in his Laws of Murder and Preservation of Life (1:1) that “whoever kills a human being (ben-adam) transgresses on a negative precept, as it says, ‘Thou shalt not murder’ (Ex. 20:13). And if he murdered intentionally before witnesses, he is to be executed by the sword.” This seems to validate the universal prohibition of murder – against any human beings – and its indiscriminate punitive consequences. This universal implication gets confounded when we realize that this only reflects the censured and amended printed text whereas the original manuscripts have it only as “whoever kills an Israelite…”[62] Further corroboration is obtained from the writings of Maimonides, or Rambam as he is usually called as. In his commentary of Sanhedrin 37a in Mishneh Torah, Rambam specifically mentions the words “of Israel”.[63] Further, it should be mentioned that Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, in his introduction to the translation of the Babylonian Talmud reference guide says: Indeed, almost every passage dealing with non-Jews must be suspected of having undergone some change.[64] Hence it is not surprising to see that the modern day translation of Talmud includes the qualifier, “a soul of Israel”, or something similar to that effect, instead of the older and universalizing version of this passage. [4]

Something which must be noted is that in both cases, the text says, “considered by Scripture”. Therefore, we have implicit affirmation from the Mishnah itself that this was part of some sort of text which was considered Divine revelation, quite possibly the uncorrupted Torah because Cain is mentioned beforehand. It’s also clear from this that Jews corrupted the revelation sent to them as this phrasing cannot be found in the “Torah” or the other books which make up the TaNaKh they have today.

A recurring theme in Surah al-Ma’idah (the fifth chapter of the Quran) and previous Surahs is the corruption of previous scriptures. For example:

Quran 2:79

So woe to those who write something down with their own hands and then claim, ‘This is from God,’ in order to make some small gain. Woe to them for what their hands have written! Woe to them for all that they have earned!

Quran 3:187

God took a pledge from those who were given the Scripture- ‘Make it known to people; do not conceal it’- but they tossed the pledge over their shoulders, they bartered it for a small price: what a bad bargain they made!

Q 4:46 mentions that Jews distort the meanings of revealed words (which seems to have happened here as per the addition of Israel as well as other things) this is then mentioned again in Q 5:13; Q 4:157 mentions that Christians do not have knowledge but follow only “supposition”. Q 5:15 ends with mentioning that the Quran, “has come to make clear to you much of what you have kept hidden of the Scripture, and to overlook much [you have done]. A light has now come to you from God, and a Scripture making things clear”. Q 5:27 mentions reciting the “truth” of what happened to the sons of Adam (AS), this could be alluding to the fact that what is mentioned elsewhere is not entirely true which is consistent with the theme of corruption. Q 5:41-47 was revealed because Jews were hiding the punishment of stoning which was mentioned in the Torah they had in possession and Q 5:48 says that the Quran is the “final authority” over previous scriptures.

Here are some issues with the claim that the Prophet ﷺ was “plagiarizing” from the Talmud:

1) Apparently, he somehow gained access to obscure Hebrew texts, which cost a fortune to produce and were still being edited but were also somehow widely available despite the fact that the TaNaKh itself was probably not widely available in its entirely. There is also no evidence of a TaNaKh or Talmud in Arabic as well at the time.

2) The Prophet ﷺ also somehow gained the ability to read and write in Hebrew even though it is known he could not do so in his native Arabic, see Q 7:157.

3) Why doesn’t the Quran mention “a single soul of Israel” which is in the original manuscripts but rather “a person”? If one were to claim that the Prophet ﷺ learned this from Waraka ibn Nawfal or caravan trips (which other people obviously went on as well) why don’t we see it being cited in pre-Islamic Arabic poetry or have reports of him learning it from either source or any other source which mentions this phrasing? Moreover, why would Waraka also say that he would believe in the Prophet ﷺ if he lived long enough (see: Did Waraqa Ibn Nawfal Teach The Prophet?) Another problem with bringing up Waraka is that even the Quraysh did not bring him up, instead, they said that the Prophet ﷺ learned from a non-Arab servant of the Quraysh. There are multiple problems with this claim as well. For one, as Q 16:103 mentions, the language of this person was not Arabic, so the notion of communication to such a degree between the Prophet ﷺ and this person is already nonsensical, especially considering the accepted eloquence of the Quran as well as its composition, style, cohesiveness, etc. Such an accusation clearly shows the desperation of the Quraysh because it is mentioned in Q 10:2 and other verses that they accused the Prophet ﷺ of “sorcery”. If the Quran and miracles of the Prophet ﷺ were the result of sorcery, why would he need a servant who might have been a Jew or Christian to teach him things when neither of them could properly understand each other and then blatantly condemn some of those beliefs as well as the wrongdoings of Jews and Christians in the same text?

4) Furthermore, one would expect for Rabbi’s to know the origin of this verse if it were taken from the Talmud and if it were widely known and available, but we don’t have any historical record of them or enemies of the Prophet ﷺ citing this against him, such as the Quraysh, who also went on caravan trips (as they were merchants) and would do anything to attack the Prophet ﷺ, though it could have quite easily abolished Islam at its roots. Ironically, we also see that a Rabbi, Abdullah bin Salam, converted to Islam during the lifetime of the Prophet ﷺ.

It might also very well be the case that the editors of the Talmud could have taken this from the Quran, as the author of the previously referenced research paper mentions:

Moreover, there is no evidence of the existence of an Arabic Talmud during the advent of Islam in Arabia especially Makkah. It is also known that the final version of the Talmud came after the advent of Islam.

Perhaps they were referring to the Quran, as they could have known it corrected them and was uncorrupted, when mentioning “scripture”. Either way, the claim of plagiarism has been demonstrated to be nonsensical in every way.

Is it an issue if the Quran contains similar events found in other books?

An assertion that is brought up alongside the first main question is that, “the Quran cannot be revelation from God because it mentions events found in other books”. This is a non-sequitur logical fallacy. The Quran does not claim to contain all-new events unknown to humanity beforehand, rather, it claims to be a “reminder” (Q 20:2-3; note that this verse can be understood in different ways). Moreover, the Quran says that it has come to confirm “the Scriptures that came before it, and with final authority over them” (Q 5:48). This question is discussed in more detail here: Does The Qur’an Mentioning Stories Found In Previous Writings Threaten Its Credibility?. In short, this is not even remotely an issue.

Is Quran 5:32 only for the “Children of Israel”? Is it not abrogated by later verses in the Quran? Can Muslims cite it?

A quick recap of the argument is that the verse mentions that it was decreed for the Children of Israel therefore Muslims do not cite the verse properly. This is, perhaps, the most common argument one hears when Muslims cite the verse and it, like the previous argument, is simply false from many angles. One problem is that the verse does not say that it was decreed only for the Children of Israel, so the notion that it is necessarily not for Muslims is already false, it’s simply a non-sequitur.

Another contention related to this argument is that commands made incumbent on the Children of Israel are not incumbent for Muslims, which is true, for example, Muslims don’t partake in the Sabbath. However, there are also a number of problems with this contention because it is used to argue that Muslims can’t cite Q 5:32. The most obvious is that it, too, is a non-sequitur. Just because there were commands for Jews that Muslims don’t have to follow does not necessarily mean that Q 5:32 is not a command for Muslims. Secondly, there were commands for Jews which were also commanded for Muslims, for example, the prohibition on eating swine (cf. Q 2:173, 5:3, 6:145, 16:115). So, according to this argument, Q 5:32 is also for Muslims because there are commands for Muslims which were also incumbent upon Jews. Thirdly, while Muslims do not partake in the Sabbath, we do have a holy day in the week, which is clearly similar, Jumu’ah. In fact, the Prophet ﷺ referred to Jumu’ah as an ‘Eid.

Sunan Ibn Majah 1098

It was narrated that Ibn ‘Abbas said: “The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: ‘This day is an ‘Eid (festival) which Allah has ordained for the Muslims. Whoever comes to Friday (prayer), let him take a bath and if he has perfume then let him put some on. And upon you (I urge to use) is the tooth stick.”

Grade: Hasan (good) according to Darussalam and al-Albani

To top it all off, Imam Ibn Ajiba (d. 1809) says the following in his Tafsir of Q 2:83 regarding commands given to the Children of Israel:

For every covenant taken from the Children of Israel, a similar one is taken from the nation of the Prophet (umma). This is the wisdom behind mentioning their stories and acts of disobedience; so that we are wary of falling into what they fell into, and perish as they did. [5]

The cousin of the Prophet ﷺ, Ibn Abbas (RA), cited this verse in a way which demonstrates that he knew that it is not just for the Children of Israel:

Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn ‘Abbas said, “It is as Allah has stated, مَن قَتَلَ نَفْساً بِغَيْرِ نَفْسٍ أَوْ فَسَادٍ فِى الاٌّرْضِ فَكَأَنَّمَا قَتَلَ النَّاسَ جَمِيعاً وَمَنْ أَحْيَـهَا فَكَأَنَّمَا أَحْيَا النَّاسَ جَمِيعاً (if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land – it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind.) [6]

Here, we see a companion of the Prophet ﷺ citing this verse. Ironically, it is in a similar fashion to Muslims today. One of the biggest, if not the biggest problem with this argument is the fact that the third Caliph, Uthman ibn Affan (RA), cited Q 5:32 before he was martyred.

Tabaqat Al-Kubra 2871

Abu Huraira reported: I entered upon Uthman on the day he was under siege in his house and I said, “O leader of the believers, I have come to give support or fight.” Uthman said, “O Abu Huraira, would it please you to ‘kill the people altogether’ including me?” I said no. Uthman said, “By Allah, if you have killed one man then it is as if you have killed all the people.” So I returned and I did not fight.

Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to Ahmad Shakir. [7]

Note that Uthman (RA) said, “if you have killed one man then it is as if you have killed all the people”, this is clearly paraphrasing the following part of Q 5:32, “if anyone kills a person…it is as if he kills all mankind”. Again, this is quite similar to how Muslims quote the verse today. This Hadith demonstrates that Q 5:32 was not understood by a Caliph who was one of the closest companions of the Prophet ﷺ to be limited to the Children of Israel.

Furthermore, it also demonstrates that Q 5:32 is not abrogated. Uthman (RA) said this towards the end of his caliphate which was long after the Prophet ﷺ had passed away. In other words, if the verse were abrogated, Uthman (RA) would not have cited it, but he did. This demonstrates that it wasn’t abrogated. If Q 5:32 was understood to be only for the Children of Israel and abrogated, one of the closest companions, and the third Caliph, would not have cited it in such a way.

Dr. Mohamed Fadel says the following regarding what commentators have said regarding this matter:

This verse appears at the end of the story of Cain and Abel, and the Qur’ān describes this rule as having been decreed for the Children of Israel. None of the commentators, however, suggest it is limited to that group but, instead, assume that its significance also extends to Muslims. [8]

Does Quran 5:32 exclude non-Muslims?

The Verse Itself

There are some who said (and others who continue to say) that the verse excludes non-Muslims, however, this is not necessarily consistent with the verse itself. Q 5:32 does not say, “if anyone kills a Muslim- unless in retribution for murder or spreading corruption in the land- it is as if he kills all mankind”, it actually says, “if anyone kills a person…”. The Arabic term used here, which was translated as “person”, is nafs which is defined by the Dictionary of Qurʾanic Usage as follows:

1 soul (31:28) ما خَلقُكُم وَلا بَعثُكُم إِلّا كَنَفسٍ واحِدَةٍ creating and resurrecting all of you is like [creating and resurrecting] only a single soul 2 an individual, a single human being, a person (5:32) مَن قَتَلَ نَفسًا بِغَيرِ نَفسٍ whoever kills a person-not in retribution for [the killing of] another [9]

As far as I am aware of the Arabic language, an indefinite noun in a conditional clause makes the meaning general. Nafs in the verse is a noun that does not have the definite particle which means that it is indefinite. Therefore, the verse is not only concerning the taking of the soul of another person which is not restricting it to a particular race or ethnicity or religion, but it could also include one’s own nafs.

Sahih Bukhari 6871

Narrated Anas bin Malik: The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “The biggest of Al-Ka’ba’ir (the great sins) are (1) to join others as partners in worship with Allah, (2) to murder a human being, (3) to be undutiful to one’s parents (4) and to make a false statement,” or said, “to give a false witness.”

In this Hadith, we clearly see the Prophet ﷺ saying that murdering a human being is the second biggest sin. He does not say, “murdering a Muslim”. This also supports a plain reading of the verse as well.

Quran 5:32 and Muslims Killing Non-Muslims Under Islamic Law

Another point the apologists make regarding Q 5:32 is that, under Islamic law, a Muslim is not killed for killing a non-Muslim. They might cite the following Hadith:

Sahih Bukhari 111 (cf. Sahih Bukhari 3047, Sahih Bukhari 6915, Jami’ at-Tirmidhi 1412)

Narrated Ash-Shu’bi: Abu Juhaifa said, “I asked ‘Ali, ‘Have you got any book (which has been revealed to the Prophet (ﷺ) apart from the Qur’an)?’ ‘Ali replied, ‘No, except Allah’s Book or the power of understanding which has been bestowed (by Allah) upon a Muslim or what is (written) in this sheet of paper (with me).’ Abu Juhaifa said, “I asked, ‘What is (written) in this sheet of paper?’ ‘Ali replied, it deals with The Diyya (compensation (blood money) paid by the killer to the relatives of the victim), the ransom for the releasing of the captives from the hands of the enemies, and the law that no Muslim should be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for the killing of (a disbeliever).

Even if it were the case that all Islamic scholars agreed that a Muslim is not killed for killing a non-Muslim, this does not mean that it is encouraged to do so or that there is no punishment, because there still is. Moreover, this does not mean that Muslims cannot cite Q 5:32 to argue that terrorist attacks are forbidden or that killing a non-Muslim would be as if they killed all mankind to help demonstrate that a Muslim can not do such a thing. This is, yet again, a non-sequitur logical fallacy and it’s also not even accurate.

Regarding this legal position and the Hadith (and those like it) cited above, Dr. Jonathan Brown details this as follows in the context of discussing variants of Hadith narrations:

The minutiae and subtle variations of Hadith narrations could weigh heavily in these calculations. For example, the majority of Sunni scholars understood the Hadith that ‘A believer is not killed in punishment for the death of an unbeliever’ as prohibiting the death penalty for a Muslim who had murdered a non-Muslim. But Hanafi scholars did not accept this Hadith limiting the general Qur’anic edict of ‘A life for a life.’ [Q 2:178, 5:45] They located versions of the Hadith that place it within the restricted context of warfare and treaties, giving it the circumscribed meaning that a Muslim would not be executed if he had killed a non-Muslim from another polity with whom the Muslim state has no treaty arrangement. The uniform principle of ‘A life for a life’ was preserved. [10]

While the Hanafi position might be the minority, it is based on good evidence. Historically speaking (and even today), the Hanafi school was always the majority of Muslims and probably most and the largest Islamic empires. For example, the Abbasid Caliphate, the Ottoman Empire (which was one of the longest lasting as it ruled for 600 years), and the Mughal Empire were associated with the Hanafi school. Moreover, we clearly see that Muslims are threatened quite severely in the afterlife, in addition to worldly punishment, for doing such a thing.

Sahih Bukhari 3166 (cf. Sahih Bukhari 6914, Sunan Abu Dawud 2760, Sunan an-Nasa’i 4747, Sunan Ibn Majah 2686, Sunan Ibn Majah 2687)

Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Amr: The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “Whoever killed a person having a treaty with the Muslims, shall not smell the smell of Paradise though its smell is perceived from a distance of forty years.”

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani commented on this Hadith writing:

Anyone who has a contract with the Muslims, whether by jizya (tax), by truce from a sultan, or by security from a Muslim, is included. [11]

Here is another Hadith reported by Imam al-Bayhaqi which has been cited by Dar al-Ifta al-Missriyyah:

Umar ibn al-Hamq al-Khazaī narrated that the Prophet (ﷺ) said: If a man entrusts another with his life and is killed by him, I have nothing to do with the murderer, even if the murdered man were a non-Muslim. [12]

At a foundational level, non-Muslims under Muslim rule cannot be harmed and are protected by Muslims who give their lives for their protection.

Imam al-Nawawi (d. 1277 CE) writes:

What is meant by dhimma (pact of protective custody for non-Muslims) here is security, meaning that the security of Muslims for non-Muslims is valid. If one of the Muslims gives him security, then it is unlawful for anyone else to expose him to harm as long as he is under the protection of a Muslim. [13]

Imam Ibn Hazm (d. 1064 CE) writes:

If a dhimmi is threatened by an enemy, it is our obligation to fight the enemy with soldiers and weapons. With this, we will be honoring the Covenant of Allah and His Messenger. To hand him over to the enemy would mean to betrayal to the Covenant of Allah and His Messenger. [14]

Imam Shihab ad-Din al-Qarafi (d. 1285 CE) writes:

The covenant of protection imposes upon us certain obligations toward ahl adh-dhimmah. They are our neighbors, under our shelter and protection upon the guarantee of Allah, His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and the religion of Islam. Whoever violates these obligations against anyone of them, by damaging his reputation, or by doing him some injury, has breached the Covenant of Allah, His Messenger, and his conduct run counters to the teachings of Islam [14]

The foundation for Muslims to not harm them can be found in this Hadith:

Sunan Ibn Majah 2340

Ubaida ibn As-Samit reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, issued a decree: Do not cause harm or return harm.

Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to al-Albani

This Hadith is in other collections such as the Muwatta of Imam Malik and the Sunan of Imam al-Daraqutni. It is also Hadith 32 in the famous 40 Hadith of Imam al-Nawawi.

Here is another version:

Sunan al-Kubrā 11070

Abu Sa’eed Al-Khudri reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Do not cause harm or return harm. Whoever harms others, then Allah will harm him. Whoever is harsh with others, then Allah will be harsh with him.” [15]

Grade: Hasan (fair) according to al-Albani

Imam al-Nawawi writes that it is permissible to pray for the health and well-being of non-Muslims:

Know that [it] is not permissible to make du’a’ for the forgiveness of [such a person], or for anything else that is not [due] to disbelievers. But it is permissible to make du’a’ for his guidance, health, well-being, and so on. We relate in the book of Ibn as-Sunni that Anas (RA) said: “The Prophet ﷺ asked for water, and a Jew gave him water to drink. So the Prophet ﷺ said: ‘May Allah make you beautiful.’ He did not have a grey hair for as long as he lived.” [16]

In this Hadith, we see the Prophet ﷺ saying he will plead for non-Muslims (mu’ahid, or, as translated in this Hadith, “the one with whom one has an agreement”) who are mistreated.

Sunan Abu Dawud 3052

It is reported that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “Beware, if anyone oppresses (or wrongs) the one with whom one has an agreement (mu’ahid), or diminishes his right, or forces him to work beyond his capacity, or takes from him anything without his consent, I shall plead for him on the Day of Judgment.”

Grade: Jayyid/Hasan (good) according to Hafiz al-Iraqi and Ajlouni or Sahih (authentic) according to al-Albani.

Here are two Hadiths, which are similar to the one above, the first is reported by al-Khatib al-Baghdadi (as well as Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal) and the second by Imam al-Tabarani in Mu’jam al-Awsat, they are as follows:

Whoever harms a dhimmi [a non-Muslim living under Islamic rule in an Islamic empire], I am his adversary, and I shall be an adversary to him on the Day of Resurrection. Whoever harms a dhimmi, harms me; and whoever harms me, has harmed Allah. [17]

A scholar comments after citing gradings of the Hadith in Sunan Abu Dawud:

The meaning is nevertheless sound as understood from other primary texts. Allah Most High says, “And if thou fearest treachery any way at the hands of a people, dissolve it with them equally; surely God loves not the treacherous.” [Qur’an, 8:58] The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “The signs of a hypocrite are three: when he speaks he lies, when he makes a promise he breaks it, and when he is given a trust he breaches it.’” [Bukhari] In general, the social rights of non-Muslims are the same as those of Muslims; and it is a personal and public duty for Muslims to safeguard the rights of others. The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) was sent as a mercy to humanity, not just the Muslims. [18]

Clearly, this sub-contention is illogical. Note as well that the Hadiths mentioned above can also be used to substantiate Q 5:32 being applicable on non-Muslims as well.

Sahaba and Classical Scholars

Sahaba

It is important to reiterate how Caliph Uthman (RA) paraphrased Q 5:32 in the Hadith cited above, he said:

By Allah, if you have killed one man then it is as if you have killed all the people.

In some sense, this is his Tafsir (commentary) of the verse, note that he doesn’t say, “If anyone kills a Muslim, it would be as if he killed all mankind”, he is consistent with the text and says “one man” and “all the people”. This helps demonstrates that the verse is not limited to Muslims.

The cousin of the Prophet ﷺ, Ibn Abbas (RA), commented on the verse, saying:

Saving life in this case occurs by not killing a soul that Allah has forbidden. So this is the meaning of saving the life of all mankind, for whoever forbids killing a soul without justification, the lives of all people will be saved from him. [19]

Note that he as well does not limit it to Muslims.

Classical Scholars

Imam Abu Mansur al-Maturidi (d. 944 CE), founder of the Maturidi School of Islamic Theology, understood from Q 5:32 that murder could be an act of kufr (disbelief). He writes:

Whoever declares lawful the killing of a person whose killing has been forbidden by God (except when there is a valid reason), it is as if he considers it lawful to kill all of humanity. This is because he disbelieves by his declaring lawful the killing of one whose killing is unlawful, which is akin to declaring lawful the killing of humanity entire; because the one who disbelieves in one verse from God’s Book disbelieves in the whole of it… This verse contains another possible angle of interpretation, and it is as has been said: His murder of one person entails the same burden [in the Hereafter] as if he killed humanity entire. Another possible angle of interpretation is that it is necessary for everyone to make a collective effort to help and save the peaceful person from murder. So, when the murderer kills that harmless soul or attempts to harm it, it is as if he is attempting to do that to everyone…This indicates that the verse was revealed as a ruling for the people of disbelief and the people of Islam together, if they sow corruption in the earth. [20]

Interestingly, this commentator mentions an opinion that non-Muslims are also bound by Q 5:32. Therefore, the verse could be understood as not just for Muslims in terms of not murdering Muslims and non-Muslims, it goes both ways (i.e. a non-Muslim murdering another non-Muslim).

Though Imam al-Sarakhsi (d. 1090 CE) did not write a Tafsir, it is clear from the following passage in one of his books that he probably did maintain that Q 5:32 includes non-Muslims:

As Allah the Exalted created humanity to carry His trusts, He dignified them with reason and sacred inviolability in order to be responsible for the duties and rights of Allah placed over them. Then He granted them sanctity, freedom, and property rights for them to continue carrying out their trusts. Hence, this freedom, sanctity, and right of property are granted to a person at the time they are born. Those capable of discernment and those who are not are equal in this regard, so likewise sacred inviolability is established at birth whether they are of sound mind or not. [21]

Imam al-Baghawi (d. 1122 CE) writes:

Sulayman ibn ‘Ali said: ‘I asked Hasan [al-Basri], ‘Does this apply to us as it applied to the Children of Israel?’ He replied, ‘Yes, indeed! By He who there is no god other than, the blood of the Children of Israel is no nobler to Allah than ours.’ [22]

A similar report is also found in Tafsir at-Tabari. Note that it implies application for non-Muslims as it is assumed that the blood of non-Muslims is itself noble in the first place. This report also explicitly demonstrates that Q 5:32 is not just for the Children of Israel.

Imam al-Nasafi (d. 1142 CE) writes:

They [s: the Children of Israel] were specified with mention even though this applies equally to all because the Torah was the first book within which there were legal rulings stipulated. [23]

Imam Fakr al-Din al-Razi (d. 1210 CE) writes:

When he [a murderer] resolves to intentionally kill an innocent person he has given preference to the dictates of his bloodlust and anger over the dictates of obeying God. When this prioritization occurs, in his heart he has resolved to kill anyone who opposes his demands, were he capable of doing so.

He states elsewhere in his commentary on this verse:

If all of humanity knew that a single individual intends to exterminate them they would undoubtedly try their utmost to prevent him from obtaining his objective. Likewise, if they knew that he intends to kill a single person then their seriousness and exertion in trying to deter him from killing that person should be just as great as it would be in preventing their own mass murder. [24]

Imam al-Qurtubi (d. 1273 CE) writes:

The meaning is that whoever makes it lawful to take the life of a single innocent person has made everyone’s life lawful, because he has rejected the divine law [establishing the prohibition of killing innocents]. [25]

This is consistent with the Imam maintaining that Q 4:36 includes non-Muslims, he writes:

I say on the basis of this counsel on the neighbour, it is commanded and recommended to a Muslim or an unbeliever, and this is the right [opinion]. Good behaviour (iḥsān) comes with the meaning of sympathy and the meaning of good companionship, refraining from harm, and defending him from others

He mentions later on in his discussion on this verse:

The traditions about honouring the neighbour are absolute without restriction, including the unbeliever as we have made clear.” [26]

Imam Ibn Kathir (d. 1373 CE) writes:

The Ayah states, whoever kills a soul without justification — such as in retaliation for murder or for causing mischief on earth — will be as if he has killed all mankind, because there is no difference between one life and another.

He then comments specifically on the part, “while if any saves a life”, and writes:

by preventing its blood from being shed and believing in its sanctity, then all people will have been saved from him, so, … (it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind.) [27]

Dr. Mohamed Fadel details Imam al-Zamakshari’s (d. 1144 CE) implied opinion on Q 5:32:

The question unanswered by al-Rāzī and al-Tabarī, however, is why the sin of murdering one person is morally comparable to killing all humanity. Al-Zamakhsharī (d. 538/1144; Kashshāf, ad Q 5:32) tries to explain why this is so. He argues that all human beings share certain common attributes, namely dignity (karāma) and a personal right to life (hurma). An intentional murder does more than kill a single life; it also destroys a being whom God has honored and to whom God has granted this right to bodily integrity, thereby insulting something that God has honored. Thus, the relevant aspect of the analogy comes from the spiritual dignity humans enjoy as God’s privileged act of creation. Intentional murder, then, is not simply a despicable act for a fleeting gain; it is also a direct assault on God’s creative plan. [28]

Al-Zamakhsharī’s position could be grounded in the following verse of the Quran:

Quran 17:70

We have honoured the children of Adam and carried them by land and sea; We have provided good sustenance for them and favoured them specially above many of those We have created.

(Abdel Haleem)

Modern Scholarship

Shaykh Bediüzzaman (Wonder of the Age) Said Nursi (d. 1960) who is a respected scholar writes:

Pure justice and relative justice may be explained as follows: according to the allusive meaning of the verse, If any one slew a person – unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew the whole people, (5:32) the rights of an innocent man cannot be cancelled for the sake of all the people. An individual may not be sacrificed for the good of all. In the view of Almighty God’s compassion, right is right, there is no difference between great and small. The small may not be annulled for the great. Without his consent, the life and rights of an individual may not be sacrificed for the good of the community. If he consents to sacrifice them in the name of patriotism, that is a different matter. As for relative justice, a particular is sacrificed for the good of the universal; the rights of an individual are disregarded in the face of the community. The attempt is made to apply a sort of relative justice as the lesser of two evils. But if it is possible to apply pure justice, to apply relative justice is wrong and may not be undertaken. [29]

Dar al-Ifta al-Missriyyah, which is affiliated with al-Azhar University, discusses the verse as follows:

The mentioning of the laws of the Torah in this verse indicates the continuity of values in all divinely revealed laws. It is also worth noting that the wording of the verse was set in the broadest terms without any specification of race, religion, age or gender of either the killer or victim. The purpose is to demonstrate that any infringement of this right is tantamount to the destruction of humankind in totality. [30]

Elsewhere they state:

In sum, the Cain and Abel example underscores the sanctity and value of human life in Islam. As the moral of the story, God states, “Because of this did we ordain unto the children of Israel that if anyone slays a human being – unless it be [in punishment] for murder of for spreading corruption on earth – it shall be as though he had slain all mankind; whereas, if anyone saves a life, it shall be as though he had saved the lives of all mankind” (Surah al Maida – The Banquet, 5:32). The value of merely one life is such that it is worth the lives of an entire nation. To murder another person is to murder one’s own brother, since all human beings are the progeny of Adam. [31]

In another article where they refute terrorist groups, they write:

The first ideological flaw is expressed through their unilateral declaration of war against both Muslims and non-Muslims which completely disregards the Quranic concept of diversity, human brotherhood and peaceful relations between Muslims and non-Muslims. God says, “O Mankind. We created you from a single pair of a male and a female and made you into nations and tribes that you may know each other. Verily the most honored of you in the sight of God is the most righteous of you. And God has full knowledge and is well acquainted with all things” (Quran 49:13). Although the Quranic emphasis on embracing diversities and entertaining differences is well established as a basic principle in dealing with people from different religious affiliations, cultural backgrounds and racial origins, the radical groups are adamant on considering anyone who rejects their extremist ideology unjustifiably a legitimate target who may be killed; a thing which stands in total contrast to the clear Quranic message in which God says, “If anyone kills a person-unless in retribution for murder or spreading corruption in the land-it is as if he kills all mankind while if anyone saves a life it is as if he saves the lives of all mankind” (Quran 5:32). [32]

Professor Hayreddin Karaman, former Head of the Islamic Law Department at Marmara University Faculty of Theology, discusses the verse as follows on the “Questions on Islam” website:

According to this verse, which recognizes the right to live without any discrimination and emphasizes its importance, it is wrong to regard killing a person as an issue between two people or an act toward an individual. Either killing a person unjustly will be prevented and right to live will be ensured or the right to live will always be exposed to dangers. The structure called community consists of individuals and what are essential are individuals. If it is not possible to protect the life of the individual, it will not be possible to protect the life of the community. [33]

Shaykh Dr. Abdal Hakim Murad, Dean of Cambridge Muslim College and the Shaykh Zayed Lecturer of Islamic Studies at Cambridge University, writes:

But we need also to re-engage with the principle of rahma, of mercy, which flows from sakina. Why exactly do the hadith suggest that Muslims must not ‘destroy anyone with fire’? [14] Why are believers commanded so strongly to avoid taking the lives of civilians? One reason is because if we do this, we damage the lives of others whom we will probably never even meet. ‘Whosoever kills a human being for other than murder or corruption in the earth, it will be as if he had killed all mankind.’ (5:32) Many suffer when one is killed. Orphans, widows, relations, friends, neighbours; all these are the victims of the single crime. Crime is never against an individual; it never has a single victim. War in the valid shari‘a sense targets only combatants, whose relatives recognise that such was their status. The targeting of civilians, however, is part of the barbarism of modern Western, Clausewitzian conflict, inflicting a deeper sense of loss and alienation; and it is entirely foreign to our heritage. [34]

In his speech on 10 principles for living with non-Muslims, Habib Umar bin Hafiz mentioned:

Protection of the blood, property and honour of all citizens ‘Allah states: ‘On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person – unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people.’ [Qur‘an 5:32] It is reported by ‘Imam Bukhari on the authority of ’Abdullah ‘ibn ’Umar that the Prophet (upon whom be peace) said: ‘One who kills a mu’ahad [one guaranteed with protection, normally referring to a non-Muslim in a Muslim country] will not [even] smell the fragrance of Paradise, even though its scent is perceptible from a distance of forty years [of journeying].’ Hence on the basis of the protection of life, property and honour, it is imperative that relationships are created among all groups of people and communities. [35]

A Key Interpretative Principle

When a scholar was asked about Q 5:32 and its applicability being limited to the Children of Israel, he mentioned an interpretive principle which must be kept in mind:

There is an underlying interpretative principle that states that when analyzing texts consideration is given to the generality of their meanings and not the specificity of their historical contexts or causes. For example, Allah Most High forbade the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) from performing the funeral prayer for hypocrites, a general ruling applicable to all hypocrites despite the verse being revealed in the specific context of ‘Abdullah ibn Ubayy. Similarly, the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) stated that, “Actions are by intentions”, a general principle despite being stated in the specific context of an individual who migrated for the sake of marrying a woman.

After listing two classical commentaries (which were cited in the previous subsection), the author writes:

Thus, it is clear that despite the verse specifically addressing the Children of Israel, the gravity and sin of killing an innocent life applies to everyone across the board, whether from our times or before. This meaning is what is of primary concern to us, not the specific context per se the verse relates to. [36]

What is the relation of Quran 5:32 to 5:33? What does “wage war against God and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land” mean? Does it provide a loophole for terrorist actions?

The former Grand Mufti of Pakistan Muhammad Shafi’ (d. 1976) explains the relation between the two verses as follows:

Mentioned in the previous verses (27-32) was the event of the killing of Habil (Abel) and its gravity as a crime. In the verses cited above [33-34], and in the verses which follow, there is a description of the legal punishments for killing, plundering, robbery and theft. [37]

In the first and second section of his discussion on Q 5:33 Mufti Shafi’ summarizes the views of Qadi Thanaullah Panipati (d. 1810) in Tafsir al-Mazhari (as well as other classical works).

The Explanation of Ayat and Details of Hudud Upto this point, we have dealt with necessary information about the terminology of Islamic Legal Punishments of Hudud, Qisas and Ta’zirat. We can now move to the explanation of verses which carry injunctions Hudud. The first verse (33) begins by stating the punishment of those who fight against Allah and His Messenger and go about spreading disorder in the earth. For the sake of clarity, let us consider two things at this stage. 1. What does ‘fighting’ (Muharabah) against Allah and His Messenger and spreading disorder in the earth mean, and to whom does this apply? The word, Muharabah is derived from Harb and intrinsically means to wrest or snatch away. In Arabic usage, it is used against Salm which means peace and security. Thus, we can see that the sense of Harb (fight) is the spreading of disorder. It is obvious that rare incidents of theft or killing and plundering do not cause public peace to be disturbed. In fact, this happens only when a powerful and organized group stands up to carry out acts of robbery, killing, and plundering. Therefore, according to Muslim jurists, the punishments contemplated in this verse is meant for a group or individual who robs people and breaks the law of the land by the force of arms. This will not include those who indulge in common individual crimes such as thieves and pick-pockets. (Tafsir Mazhari) 2. The second point worth noticing in this verse is that Muharabah (fighting) of the criminals is said to be against Allah and His Messenger, though the confrontation or fighting waged by robbers and rebels is apparently against human beings. The reason is that a powerful group when it elects to break the Law given by Allah and His blessed Messenger with force, it is really at war with the government, even though they are obviously carrying out their aggression against common human beings. But when the government itself is Islamic, a government which subscribes to and enforces the Law of Allah and His Messenger, this act of ‘fighting’ (Muharabah) will invariably be regarded as being ‘against’ Allah and His Messenger. In short, the punishment mentioned in the first verse (33) applies to robbers and rebels who ruin public peace by attacking with armed group force and break the law of the land openly. As obvious, this could appear in many forms. So, everything from aggression against property and honour to killing and bloodshed in included within its sense. It is from here that we find out the difference between Muqatalah and Muharabah. Muqatalah refers to a bloody fight, though with actual killing or without, and though property is also looted as an adjunct. The word, Muharabah is used in the sense of spreading disorder by employing force and causing the destruction of public peace and safety. Therefore, this word is particularly used to denote high-handed and group-led intrusion into anything relating to the life, property and honour of people which is called highway looting, robbery and rebellion. The punishment for this crime has been fixed by the Holy Qur’an itself when it enforced it as the Right of Allah which, in a manner of saying, was a crime against the ultimate authority. In the terminology of the Shari’ah, it is called the Hadd. Let us know find out the Islamic prescribed punishment for dacoity and highway robbery. In the present verse (33), four punishments for highway robbery have been mentioned: أَن يُقَتَّلُوا أَوْ يُصَلَّبُوا أَوْ تُقَطَّعَ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَأَرْجُلُهُم مِّنْ خِلَافٍ أَوْ يُنفَوْا مِنَ الْأَرْض: That they shall be killed off or be crucified or their hands and legs be cut apart from different sides or they be kept away from the land (they live in). [38]

Another popular, if not the most popular, argument that the apologists, and even some self-described “mujahids”, make when Muslims cite Q 5:32 is to say, “read the next verse”. They might also try to cite other verses in the Quran where “spreading corruption in the land” is mentioned along side another action one might do then say that the punishment for that action is necessarily one of the punishments mentioned in Q 5:33. Some mention that Q 7:103 demonstrates that rejecting the Prophet ﷺ necessarily shows corruption, but this isn’t actually the case and they know it because they never show the verse, it is as follows:

After these, We sent Moses to Pharaoh and his leading supporters with Our signs, but they rejected them. See the fate of those who used to spread corruption.

(Abdel Haleem)

This verse is talking about Pharaoh and his chiefs, not necessarily all non-Muslims. Elsewhere, Pharaoh was specifically mentioned to be a corrupter, and his actions had to do with oppressing others in Q 28:4:

Pharaoh made himself high and mighty in the land and divided the people into different groups: one group he oppressed, slaughtering their sons and sparing their women––he was one of those who spread corruption––

(Abdel Haleem)

Spreading corruption is associated with physical violence directly or indirectly in the Quran as well (cf. 2:205, 5:64, 26:183, 27:48-49), though it is not necessarily linked to violence. We know for sure that Q 5:33 cannot allow terrorism (due to unbelief/disbelief in Islam, or otherwise) because of other sources which demonstrate that Islam forbids killing those with whom there is a treaty and non-combatants (note that the Hadiths cited below can be used to demonstrate applicability of Q 5:32 to non-Muslims as well).

Sahih Bukhari 3166

Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Amr: The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “Whoever killed a person having a treaty with the Muslims, shall not smell the smell of Paradise though its smell is perceived from a distance of forty years.”

It is worth sharing Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani’s commentary on this Hadith again:

Anyone who has a contract with the Muslims, whether by jizya (tax), by truce from a sultan, or by security from a Muslim, is included.

Muwatta Imam Malik 963

Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person. Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an inhabited place. Do not slaughter sheep or camels except for food. Do not burn bees and do not scatter them. Do not steal from the booty, and do not be cowardly.

The second Caliph, Umar ibn Al Khattab (RA), reiterated the order of the first Caliph, Abu Bakr as-Siddiq (RA), which is cited above, by commanding:

Sunan Sa’īd ibn Mansūr 2466

Do not steal the spoils, do not be treacherous with the enemy, do not mutilate the dead, do not kill children, and fear Allah regarding the farmers who do not wage war against you.

The Hanbali Jurist Imam Ibn Qudamah said of this decree:

We adhere to the saying of Umar. The companions of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, did not kill farmers when they liberated the lands because they do not fight. In this, they resemble old men and priests. [39]

Musnad Ahmad 6643

Abdullah ibn Amr reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Verily, the worst transgressors to Allah are those who kill in the sacred mosque, those who kill whoever did not fight him, or those who kill with the vindictiveness of ignorance.”

Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to Ahmad Shakir

Musnad Ahmad 15943

Abu Shuraih reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Verily, the most tyrannical of people to Allah the Exalted is he who kills those who did not fight him, or he demands the blood feuds of ignorance be settled by the people of Islam, or he claims his eyes have seen in a dream what they did not see.”

Grade: Rijal al-Sahih (narrators are reliable) according to Al-Haythami

As noted by Imam Ibn al-Qayyim:

Fighting is only necessary to confront war and not to confront unbelief. For this reason, women and children are not killed, neither are the elderly, the blind, or monks who do not participate in fighting. [40]

The point of the apologists doing this is to argue that Q 5:33 is somehow at odds with Q 5:32, which, they and others argue, actually allows terrorism. This is simply not the case as the references above and Imam Zaid Shakir demonstrate:

It is interesting that attention is being called to this verse by a “jihadi” for it specifically indicts those guilty of the atrocities that increasingly are passed off in the name of “jihad,” as exegetes and jurists agree that this verse is an exposition on the punishment for those who are guilty of crimes against public order. The only difference of opinion in this regard is are such crimes against public order Muharabah/Hirabah strictly confined to rural areas or include both rural and urban areas. Imams Malik, al-Awza’i, Layth b. Sa’d, al-Shafi’i, and Ahmad b. Hanbal are of the opinion that such crimes against public order can occur in the rural and urban areas. However, Abu Hanifa and his school are of the opinion that they can only occur in rural areas because in urban areas people can more easily and readily appeal for help and there are police agencies to prevent such crimes under normal circumstances. After an exhaustive study of the occasion for the revelation of this verse (5:33) Ibn Kathir explains the punishment associated with the crime it describes. He says: The majority of scholars say: This verse is revealed for varying situations, as has been mentioned by Abu ‘Abdullah al-Shafi’i. [He says] we were informed by Ibrahim b. Abi Yahya, on the authority of Salih al-Taw’ama, on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas concerning the crime of brigandage: if the criminals kill and take wealth they are killed and crucified; if they kill and do not take wealth they are killed and not crucified; if they take wealth and do not kill their hands and feet are cut off from opposite sides; if they terrorize people, but do not take wealth they are exiled from the land. No one mentions that this punishment can be applied to someone who has not been directly convicted of the crimes Ibn ‘Abbas mentions above. Hence, to claim or imply that this verse can be used to justify the murder of innocent civilians is a baseless misinterpretation. [41]

Here is a direct quote from Qadi Thanaullah Panipati to summarize everything discussed above:

They [the jurists] concurred that ‘those who wage war and sow corruption in the earth’ mentioned in the verse are the brigands, whether they are Muslims or from the non-Muslim citizens. They also agreed that the one who takes up arms for the purpose of spreading fear on the roads outside of the urban areas—as no help can reach there—is an unlawful combatant [muharib] and brigand who is subject to the rulings contained in this verse…Al-Baghawi said, ‘Those who rebel within the urban areas are also subject to the ruling contained in this verse’. [42]

Conclusion

To conclude, we have demonstrated the following:

1) Quran 5:32 was not and cannot be plagiarized.

2) Quran 5:32 was not only for the Children of Israel, it is not abrogated, Muslims can cite it, and they do not cite it out of context.

3) Quran 5:32 does not necessarily exclude non-Muslims as a plain reading of the text, commentaries, as well as various Hadith demonstrate.

4) Quran 5:33 does not negate anything in the previous verse and appeals to it to justify terrorist actions are baseless and the punishments listed in the verse can actually be applied to terrorists.

If I have made any errors, please let me know and I will update the article.

References

[1] https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/talmud-101/

[2] http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_37.html

[3] https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/tractate-sanhedrin-chapter-4

[4] https://www.islamic-awareness.org/quran/sources/bbcanda

[58] “That which is removed from six-orders”: Sh”s or Sha”s (or simply Shas) is often used to designate the Talmud. See W. Popper, The Censorship Of Hebrew Books, op. cit., p. 59, footnote 215. There are six broad divisions of Babylonian Talmud and hence “six orders”. [59] Emmanuel Bambasti (Manuel Benveniste), Hesronot ha-Sh”s: We-Hu’ Sefer Qevusat Ha-Hashmatot, 1893, A Faust: Krakaw, p. 44. [60] L. Goldschmidt, Der Babylonische Talmud: Mit Einschluss Der Vollstaendigen Misnah, 1906, Volume 1, Otto Harrassowitz: Leipzig, see pp. x-xiv. [61] L. Goldschmidt, Der Babylonische Talmud: Mit Einschluss Der Vollstaendigen Misnah, 1906, Volume 7, Otto Harrassowitz: Leipzig, Sanhedrin 37a, pp. 169-170. [62] T. Marx, “A Post-Hebron Letter To My Son Michael Who Just Went From Yeshiva To Basic Training”, Tikkun, 1994, May / June edition, p. 45. [63] F. Rosner, Maimonides’ Commentary On The Mishnah Tracte Sanhedrin: Translated Into English With Introductions And Notes, 1981, Sepher-Hermon Press, Inc.: New York, p. 57, see footnote 62. [64] Rabbi A. Steinsaltz, The Talmud The Steinsaltz Edition: A Reference Guide, 1989, Random House Inc.: New York, p. 50.

[5] Speaking Good to All People, Sanad Network. http://sanad.network/downloads/sanad-Deviance_Issue_05_En.pdf

[6] http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=786&Itemid=60

[7] Sourced from: https://abuaminaelias.com/dailyhadithonline/2012/09/17/uthmans-martyrdom-if-you-kill-one-person-it-is-as-if-you-have-killed-all-the-people/ This is also mentioned by Imam Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir as well: http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=786&Itemid=60 .

[8] Fadel, Mohammad. “Murder.” Encyclopedia of the Quran vol. 3 p. 459

https://archive.org/details/TheQuranOnMuderDr.Fadel

[9] Arabic-English Dictionary of Qur’anic Usage. Elsaid M. Badawi , Muhammad Abdel Haleem p. 954. Other definitions such as “self” (3) and “the inner self” (4) are given but are not really applicable here.

[10] Misquoting Muhammad, One World Publications. p. 98

[11] Hafiz Abu al-Fadl Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Fath al-Bari Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari (vol. 12 p. 259). Sourced from Refuting ISIS, 1st edition, pp. 33, 50

[12] http://dar-alifta.org/Foreign/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=78&text=8:61

[13] Al-Nawawi, al-Minhaj Sharh Sahih Muslim Ibn al-Hallaj (vol. 9 p. 144). Sourced from Refuting ISIS, 1st edition, pp. 34, 50

[14] The quote from Imam Ibn Hazm can found in Marati bal-Ijma and the quote from Imam al-Qarafi can be found in al-Furuq. Sourced from: https://archive.islamonline.net/?p=17603

[15] https://abuaminaelias.com/dailyhadithonline/2016/08/15/hadith-on-harm-there-is-no-harm-or-reciprocating-harm-against-others/

[16] Kitab al-Adhkar (The Book of Remembrances) Turath Publishing Edition p. 454

[17] Both of these Hadiths have been related on “good authority” according to Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi in, “The Lawful and Prohibited in Islam” p. 338

[18] http://seekershub.org/ans-blog/2013/08/16/a-hadith-on-the-rights-of-non-muslims-in-a-muslim-state/

[19] http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=786&Itemid=60 This report can also be found in Tafsir at-Tabari. There is another opinion attributed to Ibn Abbas in Tafsir at-Tabari which Dr. Mohamed Fadel mentions:

Indeed, this latter problem occupies most of the attention of the commentators. Al-Tabarī (d. 310/923; Tafsīr, ad Q 5:32) reports several different opinions on the meaning of this seemingly problematic analogy, beginning with an opinion attributed to Ibn ‘Abbās (d. 69/688). According to this report, nafs, “person,” as used in Q 5:32, does not mean a generic person, but rather connotes either a prophet or a religious leader.

Encyclopedia of the Quran vol. 3 pp. 459-460 https://archive.org/details/TheQuranOnMuderDr.Fadel

This opinion from Ibn Abbas does not square with the report mentioned above in the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir however, nor the verse itself.

[20] Abu Mansur al-Maturidi, Ta’wilat Ahl al-Sunna, 3:501 sourced from Fatwa on Terrorism and Suicide Bombings p. 95

[21] Usul As-Sarakhsi 2/334. Sourced from https://abuaminaelias.com/all-human-life-is-sacred-in-islam/

[22] Ma’alim al-Tanzil. Sourced from: http://seekershub.org/ans-blog/2011/07/03/does-verse-532-of-the-quran-which-is-addressed-to-the-children-of-israel-apply-to-us-as-well/

[23] Madarik al-Tanzil; Imam al-Qurtubi also mentions the same reason in his commentary. Sourced from: http://seekershub.org/ans-blog/2011/07/03/does-verse-532-of-the-quran-which-is-addressed-to-the-children-of-israel-apply-to-us-as-well/

[24] Muhammad b. ‘Umar Fakhruddin al-Razi, mafatih al-ghayb (Beirut: Dar Ihya’ al-Turath al-‘Arabi, 1995), 4:344. Sourced from: https://www.newislamicdirections.com/nid/articles/the_deeper_implications_of_muslims_targeting_innocent_civilians_reprinted#sthash.TCqrxkAb.dpuf

[25] Muhammad b. Ahmad al-Qurtubi, al-jami’ li ahkam al-Qur’an (Beirut: Dar Ihya’ al-Turath al-Arabi, 1995), 3:147. Sourced from: https://www.newislamicdirections.com/nid/articles/the_deeper_implications_of_muslims_targeting_innocent_civilians_reprinted#sthash.TCqrxkAb.dpuf

[26] The Golden Rule in Islam: Ethics of Reciprocity in Islamic Traditions. https://abuaminaelias.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/The-Golden-Rule-in-Islam_FINAL.pdf p. 16

[27] http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=786&Itemid=60 Part of what I quoted can also found here: https://abuaminaelias.com/all-human-life-is-sacred-in-islam/

[28] Fadel, Mohammad. “Murder.” Encyclopedia of the Quran vol. 3 p. 460

https://archive.org/details/TheQuranOnMuderDr.Fadel

[29] The Letters p. 71 http://www.erisale.com/?locale=en&bookId=204&pageNo=677#content.en.202.71

[30] http://www.dar-alifta.org/Foreign/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=552&CategoryID=5

[31] http://dar-alifta.org/Foreign/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=573&text=Is%20brutally%20killing%20people%20a%20part%20of%20an%20Islamic%20state?

[32] http://www.dar-alifta.org/Foreign/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=674&CategoryID=5

[33] https://questionsonislam.com/article/capital-punishment)

[34] http://masud.co.uk/ISLAM/ahm/loyalty.htm#14

[35] http://www.naseemalsham.com/en/Pages.php?page=readDynamicCom&id=9023&comid=96&name=Research%20and%20Articles&sub=Living%20with%20non-Muslims%20and%20the%20ten%20principles

[36] http://seekershub.org/ans-blog/2011/07/03/does-verse-532-of-the-quran-which-is-addressed-to-the-children-of-israel-apply-to-us-as-well/

[37] Maariful Quran Volume 3 p. 129

[38] Maariful Quran Volume 3 pp. 134-36

[39] The Hadith in the Sunan Sa’īd ibn Mansūr and the quote of Imam Ibn Qudama can be found here: https://abuaminaelias.com/dailyhadithonline/2016/04/03/umar-on-war-fear-allah-regarding-children-and-civilian-non-combatants/

[40] Ibn al-Qayyim, Aḥkām Ahl al-Dhimmah, v.1 p.110.

Sourced from: https://yaqeeninstitute.org/en/justin-parrott/jihad-as-defense-just-war-theory-in-the-quran-and-sunnah/#_ftn38

[41] https://www.newislamicdirections.com/nid/articles/answers_to_would-be_mujahids/ This part of the Imam’s Tafsir is not mentioned in the Darussalam edition from which I quoted elsewhere which casts doubt on the way it is framed as this is an important point. The portions of the Darussalam edition from which I quote are backed up by other sources, however. The quote I have from Ibn Abbas is found in the Tafsir of Imam at-Tabari and the citation from Imam Ibn Kathir can also be found here: https://abuaminaelias.com/all-human-life-is-sacred-in-islam/

[42] Al-Qadi Thana’ Allah Panipati, Tafsir al-Mazhari, 3:86. Sourced from Fatwa on Suicide Bombings and Terrorism p. 194

Hadith references for which there is no direct citation can be found on sunnah.com or abuaminaelias.com.