the traditions narrated by the Sunnis, that this verse was revealed concerning suppli‌ cation, the recommended forms of worship for a traveler, the prayer of a confused person, and the prayer toward a direction other than the qibla by mistake.٨ More‌ over, we have already noted that the Imams cited this verse in more than one context.
Second, [for the claim to be valid], the revelation of the verse should have oc‌ curred prior to the verse that commanded the turning toward the Kaba. This also is unsubstantiated. It is for this reason that the claim to its abrogation is definitely un‌ founded. In some of the narrations related on the authority of ahl al-bayt, it is clearly stated that the verse has not been abrogated. However, it may be true that abrogation here is intended in the very general sense that includes the fact that the verse in ques‌ tion is qualified by subsequent verses. If this is what is intended here, then there is no objection to it, and it is not improbable that perhaps this was the intention of Ibn
Abbas when he spoke about the abrogation in this connection, and we alluded to
this signification of the word naskh earlier.

(٣) ٠ you who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female. (Q. ٢:١٧٨)

It has been claimed that this verse was abrogated by Gods saying, "And We pre‌ scribed for them therein: the life for the life, and the eye for the eye, and the nose for the nose, and the ear for the ear, and the tooth for the tooth" (Q. ٥:٤٥).
For this reason, the majority of Sunni scholars maintain that if a man is killed in retaliation for the killing of a woman, nothing reverts to his heirs in the form of com‌ pensation.٩ However, al-I:Iasan and At i
tained that a man may not be killed for killing a woman. According to al-Layth, if a man kills his wife, he may not be killed only for killing her. ١٠ The Imami Shiites have maintained that the avenger of a womans blood has an option between asking for blood money or punishment of the killer, provided that [if he chooses the latter], he would pay [the killers heirs] a mans indemnity. The widespread opinion among Sunni scholars is that a freeman cannot be killed for killing a slave, and the Imami scholars have reported a consensus on this issue. However, Abui:Ianifa, al-Thawri, Ibn AbiYala, and Dawud [al-Zahiri] have expressed their opposition to them in this matter and have maintained that a freeman can be killed for killing a slave who does not belong to him. ١١ A group of isolated scholars among them have upheld the view that a freeman can be killed by a slave, even if he happens to be his own. ١٢
In actuality, the first verse is precise and, as such, an abrogating verse cannot re‌
peal it. There is a guiding principle in it: The second verse is unqualified regarding a slave and a freeman, and a male and female. Accordingly, it does not have a clear ruling concerning slaves and women. Above all, the verse does not aim at clarifying the characteristics of the killer and the killed; rather, it aims at clarifying that the retaliation should be equal to the offense, as is implied in what God, the Exalted, says, "And one who attacks you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you" (Q. ٢:١٩٤).
The [second] verse is devoid of any point and in general has no clear meaning;
hence, it cannot serve as an abrogating verse for the first verse. If,however, its intent