QIRĀN (قران). Lit. “Conjunction.” (1) The conjunction of two planets. (2) The performance of the Ḥajj and the ʿUmrah at the same time.
QIṢĀṢ (قصاص). From qaṣaṣ. Lit. “Tracking the footsteps of an enemy.” The law of retaliation. The lex talionis of the Mosaic law, with the important difference that in the Muslim law the next of kin can accept a money compensation for wilful murder.
The subject of retaliation must be considered, first, as to occasions affecting life, and, secondly, as to retaliation in matters short of life.
(1) In occasions affecting life, retaliation is incurred by wilfully killing a person whose blood is under continual protection, such as a Muslim or a Ẕimmī, in opposition to aliens who have only an occasional or temporary protection. A freeman is to be slain for a freeman, and a slave for a slave; but according to Abū Ḥanīfah, a freeman is to be slain for the murder of a slave if the slave be the property of another. A Muslim is also slain for the murder of a ẕimmī, according to Abū Ḥanīfah, but ash-Shāfiʿī disputes this, because the Prophet said a Muslim is not to be put to death for an infidel. A man is slain for a woman, an adult for an infant, and a sound person for one who is blind, infirm, dismembered, lame, or insane. A father is not to be slain for his child, because the Prophet has said, “Retaliation must not be executed upon the parent for his offspring”; but a child is slain for the murder of his parent. A master is not slain for his slave, and if one of two partners in a slave kill such a slave, retaliation is not incurred. If a person inherit the right of retaliating upon his parent, the retaliation fails. Retaliation is to be executed by the next of kin with some mortal weapon or sharp instrument capable of inflicting a mortal wound.
If a person immerse another, whether an infant or an adult, into water from which it is impossible to escape, retaliation, according to Abū Ḥanīfah, is not incurred, but his two disciples maintain otherwise.
(2) Of retaliation short of life. If a person wilfully strike off the hand of another, his hand is to be struck off in return, because it is said in the Qurʾān ([Sūrah v. 49]), “There is retaliation in case of wounds.” If a person strike off the foot of another, or cut off the nose, retaliation is inflicted in return. If a person strike another on the eye, so as to force the member, with its vessels, out of the socket, there is no retaliation; it is impossible to preserve a perfect equality in extracting an eye. If, on the contrary, the eye remain in its place, but the faculty of seeing be destroyed, retaliation is to be inflicted, as in this case equality may be effected by extinguishing the sight of the offender’s corresponding eye with a hot iron. If a person strike out the teeth of another, he incurs retaliation; for it is said in the Qurʾān, “A tooth for a tooth.” ([Sūrah v. 49].)
Retaliation is not to be inflicted in the case of breaking any bones except teeth, because it is impossible to observe an equality in other fractures. There is no retaliation, in offences short of life, between a man and a woman, a free person and a slave, or one slave and another slave; but ash-Shāfiʿī maintains that retaliation holds in these cases. Retaliation for parts of the body holds between a Muslim and an unbeliever, both being upon an equality between each other with respect to fines for the offences in question.
If the corresponding member of the maimer be defective, nothing more than retaliation on that defective member, or a fine; and if such member be in the meantime lost, nothing whatever is due.
There is no retaliation for the tongue or the virile member.
(3) Retaliation may be commuted for a sum of money. When the heirs of a murdered person enter into a composition with the murderer for a certain sum, retaliation is remitted, and the sum agreed to is due, to whatever amount. This is founded upon an express injunction of the Qurʾān: “Where the heir of the murdered person is offered anything, by way of compensation, out of the property of the murderer, let him take it.” And also in the Traditions, it is related that Muḥammad said (Mishkāt, book xiv.): “The heir of the murdered person is at liberty either to take retaliation, or a fine with the murderer’s consent.” Moreover, it is maintained by Muḥammadan jurists that retaliation is purely a matter which rests with the next of kin, who are at liberty to remit entirely by pardon, and that therefore a compensation can be accepted which is advantageous to the heirs and also to the murderer.