لِوَلِیِّہٖ
Appears 2 times in Quran
Occurrences in Quran
Found 2 verses containing "لِوَلِیِّہٖ".
قَالُوۡا تَقَاسَمُوۡا بِاللّٰہِ لَنُبَیِّتَنَّہٗ وَاَہۡلَہٗ ثُمَّ لَنَقُوۡلَنَّ لِوَلِیِّہٖ مَا شَہِدۡنَا مَہۡلِکَ اَہۡلِہٖ وَاِنَّا لَصٰدِقُوۡنَ
قرآن مجید میں وَلِیٌّ کا لفظ ہے اور وَلِیٌّ کے معنے ایسے شخص کے ہوتے ہیں جو کسی کے کاموں ں کا ذمہ وار اور اس کا مددگار ہوتا ہے۔ اسی طرح جو شخص کسی کی موت کے بعد اس کے قتل کے بدلہ کا مطالبہ کرے اس کوبھی عربی میں وَلِیٌّ کہتے ہیں۔ کیونکہ ایسا شخص اس کا مددگار ہوتا ہے۔
Waliyy means, an heir; one who demands retribution for murder; an avenger of blood (Lane).
Important Words:
لنبیتنه (We will surely attack him by night) is derived from بات. They say بات فی المکان i.e. he passed the night in the place.بیت الامر (bayyata) means, he performed the thing at night. بیت العدو means, he came upon the enemy suddenly, took him by surprise, attacked him by night or at night (Lane & Aqrab).
3
قرآن مجید میں وَلِیٌّ کا لفظ ہے اور وَلِیٌّ کے معنے ایسے شخص کے ہوتے ہیں جو کسی کے کاموں ں کا ذمہ وار اور اس کا مددگار ہوتا ہے۔ اسی طرح جو شخص کسی کی موت کے بعد اس کے قتل کے بدلہ کا مطالبہ کرے اس کوبھی عربی میں وَلِیٌّ کہتے ہیں۔ کیونکہ ایسا شخص اس کا مددگار ہوتا ہے۔
2849
Important Words:
لنبیتنه (We will surely attack him by night) is derived from بات. They say بات فی المکان i.e. he passed the night in the place.بیت الامر (bayyata) means, he performed the thing at night. بیت العدو means, he came upon the enemy suddenly, took him by surprise, attacked him by night or at night (Lane & Aqrab).
2178A
Waliyy means, an heir; one who demands retribution for murder; an avenger of blood (Lane).
وَلَا تَقۡتُلُوا النَّفۡسَ الَّتِیۡ حَرَّمَ اللّٰہُ اِلَّا بِالۡحَقِّ ۗ وَمَنۡ قُتِلَ مَظۡلُوۡمًا فَقَدۡ جَعَلۡنَا لِوَلِیِّہٖ سُلۡطٰنًا فَلَا یُسۡرِف فِّی الۡقَتۡلِ ۖ اِنَّہٗ کَانَ مَنۡصُوۡرًا
6:152; 25:69.
6:152; 25:69.
In the preceding two verses reference was made to the two indirect ways of slaying. The verse under comment speaks of direct murder. After the murderer is convicted by a properly constituted court, the heirs of the murdered person have the right either to have the murderer legally executed or accept blood money in lieu of the death of the murdered person. If, however, it is against the interests of public peace or morality to allow blood money to the heirs or if the demand of the heirs be found to be not bona-fide, the court may refuse to accept their option and order the murderer’s execution. In fact, both the heirs and the State equally share the right to pardon or punish the guilty person. This right of the State in regard to the punishment of the guilty person covers all matters to which the injunction about retribution applies. Whereas in the earlier part of the verse the rights of the party offended against have been safeguarded, the words, let him not exceed the prescribed bounds in slay
6:152; 25:69.
Commentary:
In the preceding two verses reference was made to the two indirect ways of killing. The verse under comment, however, speaks of direct murder. It declares it unlawful to kill a soul, the killing of which has been forbidden by God.
The word نفس (soul) means anything which breathes and therefore includes all living things. So the words, which Allah has forbidden, have been added in order to restrict their application to man, it being lawful to kill other animals except under certain conditions when their killing also is forbidden.
The word ولی (heir) is applied to any person who is entitled to inherit another man’s property after the latter’s death. But one may nominate a person other than his legal heir as his ولی. If a person is murdered, his ولی (heir) has the right to demand satisfaction. But after the murderer is convicted by a properly constituted court, the heir of the murdered person has the right either to have the murderer legally executed or accept blood-money in lieu of the death of the murdered person. If, however, it is considered against the interests of public peace or morality to allow blood money to the heir or if the demand of the heir be found to be not bona fide, the court may refuse to accept the option of the heir and order the murderer’s execution. In fact, both the heir and the State equally share the right to pardon or punish the guilty person. This right of the State in regard to the punishment of the guilty person covers all matters to which the injunction of قصاص(retaliation) applies. The Caliph ‘Ali is reported to have punished a guilty person whom the aggrieved party had pardoned on the plea that the dictates of public peace demanded his punishment. ‘Ali was convinced that the fear of being harmed by the offender had made the aggrieved person pardon him. See also 2:179.
Whereas in the earlier part of the verse the rights of the party offended against have been safeguarded, the words, let him not exceed the prescribed bounds in slaying, safeguard the interests of the offender. They mean to say that the aggrieved party should not exceed legitimate bounds by adopting a cruel method of killing. In fact, these words imply a recommendation in favour of the murderer. They also show that although "life for life" is the general rule, the heirs of the murdered person may not always act upon this rule. The murderer is to suffer the extreme penalty of the law only when the dictates of equity, retaliation, public peace and morality absolutely demand it. His life should be spared if this act of grace is calculated to lead to his moral reformation. In the words, for therein he is helped by law, the aggrieved person is reminded of his responsibilities. He is told that he, too, is responsible for the maintenance of peace. As God has safeguarded his rights, he should have regard for the rights of others—he should not always insist upon his "pound of flesh".
d
6:152; 25:69.
b
6:152; 25:69.
1963
Commentary:
In the preceding two verses reference was made to the two indirect ways of killing. The verse under comment, however, speaks of direct murder. It declares it unlawful to kill a soul, the killing of which has been forbidden by God.
The word نفس (soul) means anything which breathes and therefore includes all living things. So the words, which Allah has forbidden, have been added in order to restrict their application to man, it being lawful to kill other animals except under certain conditions when their killing also is forbidden.
The word ولی (heir) is applied to any person who is entitled to inherit another man’s property after the latter’s death. But one may nominate a person other than his legal heir as his ولی. If a person is murdered, his ولی (heir) has the right to demand satisfaction. But after the murderer is convicted by a properly constituted court, the heir of the murdered person has the right either to have the murderer legally executed or accept blood-money in lieu of the death of the murdered person. If, however, it is considered against the interests of public peace or morality to allow blood money to the heir or if the demand of the heir be found to be not bona fide, the court may refuse to accept the option of the heir and order the murderer’s execution. In fact, both the heir and the State equally share the right to pardon or punish the guilty person. This right of the State in regard to the punishment of the guilty person covers all matters to which the injunction of قصاص(retaliation) applies. The Caliph ‘Ali is reported to have punished a guilty person whom the aggrieved party had pardoned on the plea that the dictates of public peace demanded his punishment. ‘Ali was convinced that the fear of being harmed by the offender had made the aggrieved person pardon him. See also 2:179.
Whereas in the earlier part of the verse the rights of the party offended against have been safeguarded, the words, let him not exceed the prescribed bounds in slaying, safeguard the interests of the offender. They mean to say that the aggrieved party should not exceed legitimate bounds by adopting a cruel method of killing. In fact, these words imply a recommendation in favour of the murderer. They also show that although "life for life" is the general rule, the heirs of the murdered person may not always act upon this rule. The murderer is to suffer the extreme penalty of the law only when the dictates of equity, retaliation, public peace and morality absolutely demand it. His life should be spared if this act of grace is calculated to lead to his moral reformation. In the words, for therein he is helped by law, the aggrieved person is reminded of his responsibilities. He is told that he, too, is responsible for the maintenance of peace. As God has safeguarded his rights, he should have regard for the rights of others—he should not always insist upon his "pound of flesh".
c
6:152; 25:69.
1616
In the preceding two verses reference was made to the two indirect ways of slaying. The verse under comment speaks of direct murder. After the murderer is convicted by a properly constituted court, the heirs of the murdered person have the right either to have the murderer legally executed or accept blood money in lieu of the death of the murdered person. If, however, it is against the interests of public peace or morality to allow blood money to the heirs or if the demand of the heirs be found to be not bona-fide, the court may refuse to accept their option and order the murderer’s execution. In fact, both the heirs and the State equally share the right to pardon or punish the guilty person. This right of the State in regard to the punishment of the guilty person covers all matters to which the injunction about retribution applies. Whereas in the earlier part of the verse the rights of the party offended against have been safeguarded, the words, let him not exceed the prescribed bounds in slay