| Based on the Quranic verses, Moses (AS) killed a Copt during a personal conflict while defending a member of his Shia. Scholars, while referring to the legitimacy of Moses’ (PBUH) act of defense, have proposed three interpretive viewpoints regarding this homicide: Tark al-Awlā (abandoning the most preferable course of action) or committing a purely erroneous homicide without any culpability, committing an erroneous homicide accompanied by a minor sin (ṣaghīrah), and committing a rightful or justified intentional homicide (al-qatl al-ʿamd bi-ḥaqq). Examination of the evidence reveals that a common thread among these perspectives is the excessive influence of presuppositions and the neglect of subtle nuances within the Quranic narrative. Consequently, a re-evaluation of scholarly viewpoints surrounding this event, the identification of their strengths and weaknesses, and a precise understanding of Quranic narratives based on the delicate details employed therein, illuminate the necessity of revisiting this account. Analysis of the Quranic verses and a critical review of the aforementioned perspectives suggest: Firstly, the conflict between the Shia and the Copt was so violent that either party could have been killed. Secondly, Moses (AS) was not enraged during this event. Thirdly, the blow inflicted by him was intrinsically capable of causing death. Fourthly, the evidence supporting the unintentional nature of the killing is questionable in several respects. This is while conscious killing in legitimate self-defense, in addition to having the requisites, is not subject to any impediment. |
