This column, “Point of View,” is devoted to the writings of various people of thought. In it, it is not necessary that the institution agree with the articles published.
The incident of Cain and Abel is not merely the first murder in human history; rather, it is a profound manifestation of the moral crisis within the human self and the inner motives of violence. The Qurʾān, the Old Testament, and the New Testament—all three—relate this incident, though with differences in style, priorities, and aims. The purpose of this writing is to show that all three revealed texts, through this narrative, identify a motive for crime that is generally neglected in modern criminology—namely envy and a wounded ego. This perspective presents inner morality as the fundamental source of peace and security for humanity. Furthermore, the narrative also reflects certain features of the earliest human civilization, which this study seeks to highlight.
THE QURʾĀNIC NARRATIVE: A MORAL AND CIVILIZATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
The Qurʾān relates the incident of Cain and Abel with extreme brevity, yet with extraordinary semantic depth. According to the Qurʾān:
Recite to them the account of the two sons of Adam, in truth. When the two offered a sacrifice, it was accepted from one of them and not accepted from the other. [Then the one whose sacrifice was not accepted] said: I shall surely kill you. The other replied: God accepts only from those of His servants who are God-fearing. Even if you stretch out your hand against me to kill me, I shall not stretch out my hand against you to kill you; indeed, I fear God, Lord of the worlds. I desire that you should bear [the burden of] my sin and your sin, and thus become among the inhabitants of the Fire. Such is the recompense of the wrongdoers. Then his soul at last prompted him to kill his brother, so he killed him and became among the losers. Then God sent a crow, scratching in the earth, to show him how he might conceal the corpse of his brother. He said: Woe to me! Have I been unable even to be like this crow, so that I might conceal the corpse of my brother? So he remained among the remorseful. For that reason We prescribed for the Israelites that whoever kills a soul—without [its being in retaliation for] a soul, or [without its being for] spreading corruption in the land—it is as though he has killed all mankind; and whoever gives life to a soul, it is as though he has given life to all mankind. (Surah Al-Māʾidah 5:27–32)26
Thus it becomes clear that both offered a sacrifice: one was accepted and the other was rejected. The basis of acceptance or rejection was declared to be God-consciousness (taqwā), not merely the outward form of the act. The rejection of the sacrifice gave rise, within Cain, to envy and anger, which ultimately culminated in murder.
Here the Qurʾān does not make the external causes of crime (wealth, women, power) its subject; rather, it highlights the inner state.
THE ROLE OF THE CROW
In the Qurʾān, the mention of the crow is a symbolic addition. From it, the following aspects are worthy of reflection for us:
− The crow teaches Cain the method of burial, upon which Cain admits that he could not even maintain the natural morality possessed by an animal. This scene, in an exceedingly eloquent manner, clarifies the reaction after the sense of crime, the beginning of civilization [burial], and the false remorse after crime. That is, the person who suppresses the voice of his conscience and becomes uncontrolled at the hands of his emotions then receives guidance not from his own people, but from outside—indeed, from crows themselves.
− Here the crow is not a metaphor for an inferior creature; rather, it is an indication of the acceptance of an external element, and it is also shown that the state of crime can even strip a human being of the capacity to think and understand.
− This aspect is also worthy of reflection: that if Cain had felt true remorse and repented, he would have presented himself before his father.
− From this, an indication is also obtained that he had fled from that first settlement of Adam. Although this aspect is not stated verbatim in the Qurʾān, no dialogue of his with Adam is related after the murder. Moreover, the Bible supports this impression.
THE OLD TESTAMENT ACCOUNT
The Old Testament (Book of Genesis 4:1–15) relates the story of Cain and Abel with comparatively greater detail, in a psychological and moral manner. Here too, both offer a sacrifice; one is accepted and the other is rejected:
Adam went in to his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain. She said: “I have acquired a man with the help of the Lord.” Then she bore his brother Abel. Abel was a keeper of sheep and goats, and Cain was a tiller of the soil.
After some time, Cain brought an offering to the Lord from the produce of the land, and Abel also brought [an offering] from the firstborn of his flock and from their fat. The Lord accepted Abel and his offering, but He did not accept Cain and his offering. Thereupon Cain became exceedingly angry, and his face fell. The Lord said to Cain: “Why have you become angry, and why has your face fallen? If you do good, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do good, sin is lying in wait at the door. Its desire is toward you, but you must master it.” And Cain spoke with his brother Abel, and when the two were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him.
Then the Lord said to Cain: “Where is your brother Abel?” He said: “I do not know. Am I my brother’s keeper?” The Lord said: “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying out to Me from the earth. Now you are cursed from the earth, which opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. When you cultivate the land, it shall no longer yield its strength to you. You shall be a wanderer and a fugitive upon the earth.” Cain said to God: “My punishment is greater than I can bear. Behold, today You have driven me out from the face of the earth, and I shall be hidden from Your presence; and I shall be a wanderer and a fugitive on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.” God said to him: “Therefore, whoever kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.” And God appointed a sign for Cain, so that whoever found him would not kill him. So Cain went away from the presence of God and settled in the region of Nod, to the east of Eden.
THE ACCOUNT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Here, the incident of Abel and Cain has not been restated in detail; rather, the wisdom of this incident and its moral lesson have been indicated, and the incident narrated in the Old Testament has been interpreted with great elegance. In various places, the apostles, by citing this incident, have made clear the distinction between righteousness and evil. We present all the interpretations:
An account of the firmness of faith
By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain, and through it testimony was borne concerning him that he was righteous. (Hebrews, 11:4)
Here, Abel’s sacrifice has been presented as firm faith. The emphasis is not upon the sacrifice, but upon the state of the heart and faith. The Qur’an has expressed it as God-consciousness (taqwā).
The contrast between righteousness and evil
We should not be like Cain, who was of the evil [of envy] and killed his brother. And why did he kill him? Because his deeds were evil, and his brother’s were righteous. (1 John, 3:12)
Here, Cain’s envy and the shattering of his ego have been described as a sign of hatred and evil, and Abel’s God-consciousness and self-restraint as a sign of righteousness. And the conclusion drawn is that true faith and God-consciousness produce love, whereas envy leads to murder.
The continuation of Cain’s crime and the killing of prophets
Jesus (PBUH), addressing the Jewish scholars, said:
So that all the righteous [innocent] blood that has been shed on the earth may come upon you—from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah. (Matthew, 23:35)
In this, Abel has been declared the first righteous martyr in history, who was killed due to envy and a wounded ego.
The Qur’an, referring to this very statement, said:
It is for this reason that We prescribed for the Israelites that whoever kills a single human being—without [that person having killed anyone] or [without that person having caused] any corruption on the earth—it is as though he has killed all humankind; and whoever gives life to a single human being, it is as though he has given life to all humankind. (Surah Al-Māʾidah, 5:32)
Declaring Cain’s envy to be the path of misguidance
Woe to them! For they have gone in the way of Cain… (Jude, 1:11)
This statement is noteworthy with reference to the killing of prophets. Here, by “the way of Cain” is meant: self-serving religiosity, envy, rejecting God’s will, outward religion, and inward rebellion. For Cain, instead of submitting before the divine command, disobeyed. Likewise, instead of believing in the prophets, the Israelites adopted rebellion and killed them like Cain. Here, their crimes have been identified.
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION WITH THE QURAN
In the New Testament, the interpretation of this incident that has been transmitted from Jesus (PBUH) is highly meaningful and bears an astonishing resemblance to the Qurʾānic account. In it, Cain is a character marked by outward religiosity, self-interest, envy, hatred, and rebellion; whereas Abel is one who affirms the values of pure faith, righteousness, acceptance, love, and martyrdom. In the Qurʾān, this very point is expressed in Cain’s offering of a sacrifice without God-consciousness and, after its non-acceptance, in his threat to kill Abel; whereas Abel’s statement mentioned in the Qurʾān—“I fear God”—and his resolve not to raise his hand, constitute an articulation of those moral values which Jesus (PBUH) stated verbatim.
The Noble Qurʾān, in Abel’s statement—“I am not one to raise my hand against you”—has additionally made clear that refusing to become prey to the psychology of impatience and reaction can prevent the spread of violence, even if the oppressed must give up his life. Moreover, Abel’s statement that he does not wish to go to Hell shows that if envy and anger can generate negative power, then patience, self-restraint, and a lofty ideal [i.e., avoiding Hell] can become a power capable of preventing the spread of violence.
In the text of the Old Testament, God enters into dialogue with Cain and warns him that sin is lying in wait at the door, yet mastering it lies within human choice. Jesus (PBUH) has explicated this statement. In the Bible, Cain’s words after the murder—“Am I my brother’s keeper?”—are the first clear example of fleeing from human social responsibility and of moral denial.
The religious conception of crime versus modern criminology
Modern criminology generally seeks the causes of crime in these external factors: Financial deprivation; the desire for power and control; and the acquisition of resources and interests.
The religious narrative makes a fundamental addition to this list, namely: envy and a wounded ego; for Cain was neither deprived, nor unemployed, nor oppressed—yet he committed murder. This reality leads to the conclusion that the root of crime also lies within the inner self, not merely in circumstances. This is, in fact, an exposition of this very Qurʾānic claim:
وَ نَفۡسٍ وَّ مَا سَوہ ىہَا. فَاَلۡہَمَہَا فُجُوۡرَها وَ تَقۡوٰها. قَدۡ اَفۡلَحَ مَنۡ زَکہىہَا. وَ قَدۡ خَابَ مَنۡ دَسہىہَا And the soul, and how He proportioned it; then He inspired it with its wickedness and its righteousness. He has succeeded who purified the soul; and he has failed who corrupted it. (Surah Ash-Shams, 91:7-10)
This is the aspect that is not found in modern secular conceptions. It should be made clear that in the original text of the Bible and the Noble Qurʾān there is no mention of any dispute over marriage or a sister; this aspect is found in later Jewish exegetical traditions, in the Midrash, and from there it became part of Muslim religious literature.
Symbols of the evolution of human civilization in the incident of Abel and Cain
From this incident it becomes known that the first human settlement was an advanced settlement, one that knew agriculture or pastoralism; only then could something have been offered as a sacrifice. And in the Bible it is explicit that Abel was a shepherd and Cain was a farmer. That is, these were not humans who lived a life like animals.
It is also clear from the revealed texts that this was the settlement of the first humans, and that they were the sons of the first human, Adam. Now this question is very important: in this first human settlement, how did this civilizational development occur? Who taught them the skills of pastoralism and agriculture? This question invites us to know the realities of civilizational evolution. By it, the theory of direct creation—i.e., creation directly—comes to an end altogether.
In other places in the Noble Qurʾān, after the mention of the breathing of the spirit, it is stated that God Most High commanded Adam and Eve to dwell in a particular garden, that is, Paradise. Can it be understood that agriculture and other civilizational means were taught to Adam there, and that after leaving that garden he taught these skills to his sons?
Abel was killed; Cain fled from there and went to another place. After that, it is stated in the Bible that Seth was born as the third son, and from him the human population expanded further. With whom did Seth marry? From where did his wife come? The revealed texts are silent. The Qurʾān and the Bible do mention the birth of sons, but the question is: why is there no mention of the birth of daughters?
According to the Bible’s account: “So Cain went out from the presence of the Lord and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.” That is, parallel to Adam’s “first human settlement,” a new settlement was established. And this statement of the Bible:
Now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. When you work the ground, it shall no longer yield to you its strength. You shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth. (Genesis 4:11–12) clearly indicate that Cain did not remain in one place, and that the place to which he went was not suitable for cultivation. And he had to seek another livelihood besides farming.
According to the Bible’s account, a direct dialogue between Cain and God is described. Biblical commentators also call it a direct dialogue with God, and they also regard it as Cain’s conscience. In the case of a direct dialogue with God, we should understand the religious form of that era. Was the facility of direct guidance from God available to the early human? Or can some other interpretation of this dialogue be made?
- Al-Bayān, 1/618–623.