Appearance
Verses 106–109
بِسۡمِ ٱللَّهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ
In the name of Allah, the most Merciful, the most Compassionate
The first three verses deal with affairs of testimony, and the last one is not without some connection with it in meaning.
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا شَهَادَةُ بَيْنِكُمْ إِذَا حَضَرَ أَحَدَكُمُ الْمَوْتُ حِينَ الْوَصِيَّةِ اثْنَانِ ذَوَا عَدْلٍ مِنْكُمْ أَوْ آخَرَانِ مِنْ غَيْرِكُمْ إِنْ أَنْتُمْ ضَرَبْتُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ فَأَصَابَتْكُمْ مُصِيبَةُ الْمَوْتِ ۚ تَحْبِسُونَهُمَا مِنْ بَعْدِ الصَّلَاةِ فَيُقْسِمَانِ بِاللَّهِ إِنِ ارْتَبْتُمْ لَا نَشْتَرِي بِهِ ثَمَنًا وَلَوْ كَانَ ذَا قُرْبَىٰ ۙ وَلَا نَكْتُمُ شَهَادَةَ اللَّهِ إِنَّا إِذًا لَمِنَ الْآثِمِينَ ١٠٦ فَإِنْ عُثِرَ عَلَىٰ أَنَّهُمَا اسْتَحَقَّا إِثْمًا فَآخَرَانِ يَقُومَانِ مَقَامَهُمَا مِنَ الَّذِينَ اسْتَحَقَّ عَلَيْهِمُ الْأَوْلَيَانِ فَيُقْسِمَانِ بِاللَّهِ لَشَهَادَتُنَا أَحَقُّ مِنْ شَهَادَتِهِمَا وَمَا اعْتَدَيْنَا إِنَّا إِذًا لَمِنَ الظَّالِمِينَ ١٠٧
(5:106–107) O you who believe! Call to witness between you when death draws nigh to one of you, at the time of making the will, two just persons from among you, or two others from among others than you, if you are travelling in the land and the calamity of death befalls you; the two witnesses you should detain after the prayer; then if you doubt (them), they shall both swear by Allah, (saying): “We will not take for it a price, though there be a relative, and we will not hide the testimony of Allah, for then certainly we should be among the sinners.” Then if it becomes known that they both have been guilty of a sin, two others shall stand up in their place from among those who have a claim against them, the two nearest in kin; so they two should swear by Allah: “Certainly our testimony is truer than the testimony of those two, and we have not exceeded the limit, for then most surely we should be of the unjust”
The gist of the two verses is as follows: If a Muslim is on journey and wants to make a will, he must call to witness, at the time of will, two just witnesses from among the Muslims; if he does not find them, then he should call two witnesses from among the People of the Book. If the near relatives of the deceased feel some doubt about the will, the two witnesses shall be detained after the prayer, they shall swear by God for their truth in witnessing, and the discord will be removed. Then if it becomes known that the two witnesses have lied in testimony, then two other witnesses shall stand up in the place, and testify against them swearing in the name of God.
This apparently is the connotation of the two verses. The phrases: “O you who believe,” addresses the believers and the law is reserved to them. “Call to witness between you when death draws nigh to one of you, at the time of making the will, two just persons from among you”: It means, witness between you is witness of two just persons from among you; there is an omitted but understood muḍāf (first construct of a genitive), that is, two just persons from among you. It means that the required number of witnesses is two; thus the maṣdar here gives meaning of active participle, as they say, a just man, two just men.
The phrase: “when death draws nigh to one of you,” is an allusion for drawing near to you the cause for making will, because people naturally do not get involved in such things unless there appears something which indicates death’s nearness; usually it means serious illness which brings man nearer to death.
The clause: “at the time of making the will,” is an adverbial phrase of time, related to “witness,” that is, witness at the time of making the will. The maṣdar, al-’adl means probity, and the context shows that it means probity and rectitude in religious affairs. This, in its turn, ascertains (the phrase) “from among you” and (the phrase) “from among others than you” means from among the Muslims and the non-Muslims respectively, and not near relatives and clan; God has mentioned “two” parallel to “two others,” then has described the former as “just persons” and “from among you,” while the latter has only been described as “from among others than you” without the qualification of justice. The qualification of probity or otherwise in religious affairs differs in the Muslim and the non-Muslim; there is no reason why probity in religious affairs should be necessary if the witnesses were from among the relatives or clan of the principal, but unnecessary if the witness were a non-relative.
Accordingly, the phrase: “or two others from among others than you,” presents an alternative with sequence. The meaning is: If there are Muslims, two of them shall be made witnesses; but if there is none other than non-Muslims then two of them will be called to witness; all this is understood from the associations.
This very association gives the understanding that the clause: “if you are travelling in the land and the calamity of death befalls you,” is a restriction related to the words: “or two others from among others than you”; a Muslim usually lives in a Muslim society, and normally in a Muslim environment there does not arise a need to call two non-Muslims to act as witnesses; contrary to the condition of travelling when such chances or emergencies may occur and the need may arise to approach non-Muslims for witnessing, etc.
The same association, that is, affinity between the subject and the order, joined with the taste perceived from the divine speech, proves that the word, non-Muslims, here exclusively points to the People of the Book, because the divine speech does not bestow any nobility to the polytheists.
The clause: “they shall both swear by God,” that is, the two witnesses shall swear; the clause: “then if you doubt,” that is, if you are in doubt about what the executor of the will describes concerning the will, or about the property governed by the will, or about its condition; what they shall swear to, is explained in the next sentence: “We will not take for it a price though there be a relative …,” that is, We will not accept any big or small price for testifying for the claim of the executor of the will, even if he be a relative of ours. Selling the testimony for a price indicates that the witness turns aside from the truth in his testimony for a worldly goal, like wealth, prestige or feeling of relationship; thus he offers his testimony in exchange of a worldly price, and it is a small price indeed.
An exegete has said that the pronoun, it, (in the phrase: We will not take for it) refers to the oath, that is, We will not take for our oath a price; but it would entail swearing twice by God, and the verse does not give any such hint.
The clause: “and we will not hide the testimony of God,” that is, by testifying against the reality and truth; “for then certainly we should be among the sinners,” that is, carriers of sin. This sentence is in conjunction with, “We will not take for it a price, …” as an explicative apposition.
In the possessive case: “the testimony of God,” ‘the testimony’ is related to “God,” because God testifies for the reality as the two witnesses do it; therefore it is the testimony of God as it is the testimony of the two witnesses; and God has more right to possession; thus it is His testimony by right and primarily, and the testimony of the two witnesses follows it secondarily. God has said: … and Allah is sufficient as a witness. (); … and they cannot comprehend anything out of His knowledge except what He pleases; … ().
Alternatively, it may be because witnessing it is a right of God imposed on His servants and it is incumbent on them to offer it with truth without alteration, without hiding it. It is as we say, religion of God, thus we ascribe the religion to God although it is the servants who are covered by it. God says: … and give upright testimony for Allah… . (); … and do not conceal testimony, ().
The clause, “Then if it becomes known …”: al-’uthūr followed by preposition ‘alā means to get something, to find something. This verse elaborates the law if it becomes known that the two witnesses have lied and testified wrongly.
The clause, “that they both have been guilty of a sin”: Istiḥqāq (to be entitled; to deserve); al-ithm (sin); to be entitled to a sin means to commit a sin or crime; it is said: The man deserved a sin, that is, he committed a sin; Zayd deserved a sin against Bakr, that is, Zayd committed a crime against Bakr. That is why in the coming sentence it has taken the preposition ‘alā, as it says: two others shall stand up in their place “from among those who have a claim against them,” that is, those against whom the two witnesses have sinned by giving false testimony and perfidy. The basic meaning of istaḥaqqa al-rajul is as follows: The man demanded that the sin or its punishment be established and confirmed against him. Accordingly it is here an extended metaphor in which demand is used for describing the thing demanded, and path is mentioned in place of destination. The word, sin, in the clause: “that they both have been guilty of a sin,” is inferred from the preceding clause: “for then certainly we should be among the sinners.”
The words: “two others shall stand up in their place,” that is, if it is found that the two witnesses have committed perjury and perfidy, then two other witnesses shall stand in their place for swearing that the first two have committed perjury and perfidy.
The clause: “from among those who have a claim against them,” denotes situation, that is, while these two new witnesses against whom the first two had committed perfidy, and who are nearest in kin to the deceased according to the will, as al-Rāzī has stated in his tafsīr. In short, it denotes that if it was known that the two witnesses have committed perjury and perfidy against the near relatives of the deceased, then two other witnesses shall stand up in their place from among those against whom the first two have committed that perjury, before their guilt was known.
This interpretation is based on the recital of ‘Āṣim from Ḥafṣ who has recited ustuḥiqqa in passive voice; then the apparent context would make, “the first two” the subject and its predicate would be, “two others shall stand up in their place.” The meaning: If it becomes known that the two witnesses have committed perjury and perfidy against the near relatives of the deceased, then two near relatives of the deceased shall stand up in their place against whom the perfidy was committed.
In the recital of ‘Āṣim through Abū Bakr, Ḥamzah, Khalaf and Ya’qūb, al-awlayān is recited al-awwalīn (the first ones, opposite to the last ones), and apparently it means the nearest of kin who have first claim (on the deceased’s estate); it is adjective or appositional substantive standing for “those who.”
The exegetes have written much numerous modes and aspects so far as the construction of various parts of the verse is concerned; so much so that if some aspects are multiplied by the others in order to infer the full meaning of the verse, it would result in hundreds of aspects. al-Zajjāj has reportedly said that it is the most complicated verse of the Divine Book so far as its construction is concerned.
What we have written in its explanation is manifestly clear from the context, without any aberration or arbitrariness; we have avoided thoroughly looking at all the possibilities, which they have mentioned, because it would only increase the vagueness of the word, leaving a scholar bewildered.
From the clause: “two others shall stand up in their place,” sprouts the clause: “so they two should swear by God”; it means the two other witnesses, nearest in kin to the deceased; they should swear by God that certainly our testimony (which unmasks the falsity and perfidy of the first two witnesses) is truer than that of the first two concerning the aspects of the will; and we have not exceeded the limit against them by testifying contrary to what they had testified, otherwise, most surely we should be among the unjust people.
ذَٰلِكَ أَدْنَىٰ أَنْ يَأْتُوا بِالشَّهَادَةِ عَلَىٰ وَجْهِهَا أَوْ يَخَافُوا أَنْ تُرَدَّ أَيْمَانٌ بَعْدَ أَيْمَانِهِمْ ۗ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَاسْمَعُوا ۗ وَاللَّهُ لَا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الْفَاسِقِينَ ١٠٨
(5:108) This is more proper in order that they should give testimony truly or fear that other oaths be given after their oaths; and fear Allah, and hear; and Allah does not guide the transgressing people.
The verse describes the underlying reason of the preceding rule. It says that this law, with the sequence prescribed by God, is the safest way of arriving at the truth in this place, and is the nearest method of ensuring that the first two witnesses would not commit injustice in their testimony, as they would be afraid that, otherwise their testimony would be refuted and rejected.
Man is entangled in his desire; the desire invites him to enjoy whatever he can, and grasp to whatever he longs for, provided there is nothing to divert him from it; it makes no difference whether he has any right to that desired item or not, whether it is based on justice or injustice even by nullifying someone else’s right. The man desists from that transgression and exceeding the limit either because of some exterior thing which prevents him from it through punishment or chastisement, or because of some inner prohibition from his own soul; and the strongest psychological prohibitive factor is the belief in God to Whom the servants have to return and Who takes reckoning of the deeds, decides with justice and awards full recompense.
If, as is supposed at this juncture, the reality about the deceased’s will is unknown and the only way to find it is through the testimony of the two witnesses whom the deceased had appointed, then the strongest way of keeping their testimony nearer to truth is to compel them to swear by God, and to make the nearest of kin of the deceased swear by God if it transpires that the first two witnesses have committed perjury and perfidy. Thus, these two methods, that is, their oaths in the beginning and then returning the oath to the nearest of kin, are the most effective ways to keep the first two witnesses on truth, as they would be afraid to be ignominiously exposed and their oaths refuted. These two are the strongest factors to prevent them from deviation from truth.
Then God ended the speech with the admonition and warning: and fear Allah, and hear; and Allah does not guide the transgressing people.
يَوْمَ يَجْمَعُ اللَّهُ الرُّسُلَ فَيَقُولُ مَاذَا أُجِبْتُمْ ۖ قَالُوا لَا عِلْمَ لَنَا ۖ إِنَّكَ أَنْتَ عَلَّامُ الْغُيُوبِ ١٠٩
(5:109) On the day when Allah will assemble the messengers, then say: “What answer were you given?” They shall say: “We have no knowledge, surely Thou art the great Knower of the unseen things.”
The verse is not averse to be connected with the previous subject; al-though the end part of the preceding verse: “and fear God, and hear,” is general, yet the context denotes that it contains prohibition of deviation, committing injustice in witnessing or disdaining the oath by the name of God. Thus it is appropriate to describe what is to take place between God and His messengers, who shall be witnesses over their nations, and what an excellent witnesses they are! God shall ask them what answer they were given by their people, and although they knew very well what their people had done, and they were appointed by God to be their witnesses, yet they will reply by saying: “‘We have no knowledge, surely Thou art the great Knower of the unseen things.’”
The matters being like this and with God being the Knower of everything, it is appropriate for the witnesses to be afraid of divine majesty, and not to deviate from the truth which God has given them the knowledge of; they should not conceal the testimony of God, otherwise they would be one of the sinners, unjust and tyrants.
The divine words: “On the day when God will assemble …,” is an adverb of time, related to the preceding clauses: “and fear God …” The verse speaks of assembling of the messengers (instead of saying, when God will say to the messengers), as it has more affinity with gathering of the witnesses for testimony, as shown by the words: the two witnesses you should detain after the prayer; … they shall both swear by Allah.
As for the messengers’ negating the knowledge from themselves, when they shall say: “We have no knowledge, surely Thou art the great Knower of the unseen things.” They restrict the knowledge of all unseen things exclusively to God, and it proves that the negated is not the knowledge per se, because the clause: “surely Thou art the great Knower of the unseen things,” apparently aims at explaining the reason of negation; and it is understood that confinement of the knowledge of all unseen things does not entail removal of all knowledge from other than God, especially so when it is a knowledge of testimony; and what will be asked, that is, how the people answered their messengers, is related to the testimony not to the unseen.
Their reply: “We have no knowledge,” does not negate knowledge in general; it negates the truly inside knowledge which is not without some relationship with the unseen. It is known that the knowledge discloses to the knower the reality as much as it is related to a certain affair concerning its causes and concomitants; and the reality is interconnected with all parts present externally, whether they precede the reality in external existence or are found simultaneously; knowledge of any external affair, in true sense, does not occur except by comprehending all parts of its existence and acquiring comprehension of its Maker—far be it from His majesty that anything could ever comprehend Him, and it is an affair beyond the human power. Thus, man has not been given knowledge in this universe —the universe thinking on whose vast dimension leaves him flabbergasted, looking at the magnitude of its stars and galaxies makes him scared, if he observes its minute items his reason is bewildered, and if he wants to walk between these two extremes he becomes giddy —except a little that is needed by him in the journey of his life, just as a walker in utterly dark night carries a small candle which gives him only enough light to see where to put his next step.
What the human knowledge is connected to, adheres with its being, and attaches with its reality to its fringes and then to the fringes of the fringes and so on. All of it is unperceived by human perceptions. Knowledge, in its true meaning, cannot be attached to anything except when it is connected to all its unseen factors of existence, and this is not possible for any limited creature, be it human or something else, except God, the One, the Subduer, with Him are the keys of the unseen, none but He knows them. God says: and Allah knows, while you do not know (). The verse shows that man’s nature is ignorance, and he is not given knowledge except to a limited measured quantity. God says: There is not a thing but its treasures are with Us, and We do not send it down but according to known measures (). The same is the connotation of the infallible’s reply when he was asked, “Why God is concealed from His creatures?” He said: “Because surely He has built their structure on ignorance.” God has also said: … and they cannot comprehend anything out of His knowledge except that which He pleases; (). It shows that knowledge, all of it, belongs to God and man comprehends out of it only what God wills. Also He says: … and you have not been given the knowledge but a little (). This proves that there is a multitude of knowledge, but man has not been given except a little.
So, the reality is this: knowledge, the real one, is not found except with God. When the Day of Resurrection comes, the things will appear in their true forms and shapes, as the related verses show. Thus, there would not be on that day any place except for the true speech, as God says: they shall not speak except he whom the Beneficent Lord gives leave, and he will speak the truth. That is the certain day, ().
That is why when the messengers shall be asked, “What answer were you given?” the true reply will be to repudiate from themselves all knowledge as it will be a part of the unseen, and to affirm it to their Load, by saying: “We have no knowledge, surely Thou art the great Knower of the unseen things.”
This reply of theirs, emanates from their humility before His Grandeur and Majesty; it is a confession of their personal neediness and essential nullity vis-à-vis their True Master; keeping the manner of His audience and displaying the truth of the matter. However, it is not a final answer shutting the door to further replies, because:
First: Because God has made them witnesses for their people, as He says in this Book: How will it be, then, when We bring from every people a witness, and We bring you as a witness over those (witnesses)? (); … and the book (of deeds) shall be set up, and the prophets and the witnesses shall be summoned … (). And there is no meaning of making them witnesses except that they should be witnesses over their people—as the witnessing should be on that day. Inevitably they will testify on that day as God has ordained it. Thus, their reply, “We have no knowledge,” is based on the manner of worshipful homage vis-à-vis the True King in whose hand is command and kingdom on that day. It also explains the reality of the affair, that is, God possesses knowledge by Himself, and others possess it only as much as He makes them have it; and there is no wrong if, after this reply, they disclose what knowledge they had of the conditions of their people. This supports what we have previously written in the first volume of this book, under the verse: And thus we have made you a justly medium nation so that you may be witnesses over mankind, and so that the Messenger may be a witness over you, … (), where we have explained that this knowledge and witnessing are not of the type of knowledge and witnessing as we understand them; rather they are of the knowledge which is particularly reserved to God and which is bestowed to a group of His honored servants.
Second: Because God has confirmed that a group of his nearer servants will possess knowledge on the Day of Resurrection. He says: And those who have been given knowledge and faith will say: Verily you have tarried according to the decree of Allah till the Day of Resurrection, …” (); … and on the heights shall be men who know them all by their marks (); And those whom they invoke beside Him do not own any power of intercession, save he who bears witness to the truth, and they know the truth (); and Jesus son of Mary is included in this verse, and he was a messenger; therefore he is among those who bear witness to the truth and they know the truth; And the Messenger shall say: “O my Lord! Verily my people took this Qur’ān as a thing abandoned.” (). The ‘Messenger’ refers to the Messenger of God, and his speech quoted in this verse is exactly the reply to the question contained in the verse under discussion, that is, the divine words: “What answer were you given?” Now, it is clear that the words of the Messengers: “We have no knowledge, …” is not the final answer, as described above.
Third: Because the Qur’an mentions that the questioning will cover both the Messengers and those to whom they were sent. God says: Then surely We shall question those to whom (Our messengers) were sent, and certainly We will also question the messengers (). Also, He mentions many replies given by the people to whom the messengers were sent of many questions asked of them; and replying entails knowledge and questioning confirms it. Also, God says: Certainly, you were heedless of this (day), now We have removed from you your veil, so your sight is sharp today (); And could you but see when the guilty will stand before their Lord, heads hung low, (and say): “O our Lord! We have seen and we have heard; now send us back; we will do good; verily now we are convinced.” (). There are many verses of similar theme. Now, when the people—and especially the guilty among them—were having knowledge on that day, how could it be imagined that the honored messengers would be lacking that knowledge. Thus the end result is the same as we have said.
Discourse
The discussions “A Talk on the Meaning of Testimony”; “A Talk on Justice”; “A Talk on Oaths” appear here in the printed volume. Read them in the Al-Mizan App.
Examining Narrations
- ʿAlī b. Ibrāhīm narrates through his people a marfū’ ḥadīth: He says: “Tamīm al-Dārī, Ibn Bandī and Ibn Abī Māriyah went forth on a journey. Tamīm al-Dārī was a Muslim and the other two were Christians. Tamīm al-Dārī had a box, which contained his merchandise together with a pot with golden design and a necklace; he had taken to sell it in an Arabian market.
“Then Tamīm al-Dārī became very sick. With the approach of death he gave all that he had to Ibn Bandī and Ibn Abī Māriyah, ordering them to convey it to his heirs. When they returned to Medina, they took out from the merchandise the pot and the necklace, handing over the rest to his heirs. The heirs found the two items missing. So, the family of Tamīm said to the two, ‘Was our man sick for a long time in which he spent a lot of money?’ They said, ‘No. He was not sick but for a few days.’ (The family) said, ‘Then was he robbed of something in this journey?’ They said, ‘No.’ (The family) said, ‘Then did he do some trade in which he suffered a loss?’ They said, ‘No.’ Then, the family said, ‘But (here) we find missing the best things which he had, ‘A pot with golden design ornamented with gems and a necklace.’ They said, ‘Whatever he gave to us we have given to you.’
“The family brought the two to the Messenger of God, and the Messenger of God asked them to take oath; they swore and the Messenger of God let them go free. Thereafter, that pot and necklace appeared with them, so the heirs of Tamīm came to the Messenger of God and said, ‘O Messenger of God! Indeed, has appeared with Ibn Bandī and Ibn Abī Māriyah what we had claimed against them.’ So, the Messenger of God waited for an order from God, to Whom belong Might and Majesty, about it.
“Then God, the Blessed, the Sublime, revealed: O you who believe! Call to witness between you when death draws nigh to one of you, at the time of making the will, two just persons from among you, or two others from among others than you, if you are travelling in the land—Thus, God, to Whom belong Might and Majesty, allowed witnessing of the People of the Book in will only when one is on journey and does not find Muslims; then He said:—and the calamity of death befalls you; the two witnesses you should detain after the prayer; then if you doubt (them), they shall both swear by Allah (saying): ‘We will not take for it a price, though there be a relative, and we will not hide the testimony of Allah, for then certainly we should be among the sinners.’—This is the first witnessing, which the Messenger of God had administered.—Then if it becomes known that they both have been guilty of a sin,—that is,they have perjured themselves;—two others shall stand up in their place—that is, from among the heirs of the deceased;—from among those who have a claim against them,—that is, against the first two;—the two nearest in kin; so they two should swear by Allah:—that is, they should swear in the name of God, that they (the two) have more right to this claim than them, and that they have perjured themselves in swearing by God;—‘Certainly our testimony is truer than the testimony of those two, and we have not exceeded the limit, for then most surely we should be of the unjust.’
“So, the Messenger of God ordered the heirs of Tamīm al-Dārī to swear by God as he directed them; they did swear and the Messenger of God took the necklace and the pot from Ibn Bandī and Ibn Abī Māriyah, and returned them to the heirs of Tamīm al-Dārī.—This is more proper in order that they should give testimony truly or fear that other oaths be given after their oaths.” (al-Kāfī)
Author’s comment: al-Qummī has likewise narrated it in his al-Tafsīr; but there is in it after the clause: the two witnesses you should detain after the prayer, the word, “that is, the afternoon prayer.”
The word of the Imām: “who have a claim against them, against the first two”: Apparently, it is in dual form, and if means the first two witnesses; it explains the Qur’anic word, “the first two.” We have stated in the preceding commentary that it is the clearest of all probable meanings, according to this recital.
- al-Tirmidhī (who has said that it was a weak tradition), Ibn Jarīr, Ibn Abī Ḥātim, al-Naḥḥās (in his al-Nāsikh), Abu al-Shaykh, Ibn Marduwayh and Abū Nu’aym (in al-Ma’rifah) have narrated, through the chain of Abu al-Naḍr (and he is al-Kalbī), from Bādhān (mawlā of Umm Hānī), from Ibn ‘Abbās, from Tamīm al-Dārī, that he said about this verse: “The people became clear of the two, except me and ‘Udayy b. Badā’; and they were Christians frequenting to Syria before Islam. So, they came to Syria for their trade, and there came to them for trade mawlā of Banū Sahm, Badīl b. Abī Māriyah by name. He had a silver bowl, and it was his main merchandise. Then he became sick, and he appointed them as his executor of the will and enjoined them to convey what he had left to his family.” Tamīm said, “When he died, we took that bowl and sold it at a thousand dirham; then ‘Udayy b. Badā’ and I divided it among ourselves. When we came to his family, we gave to them what was with us; but they missed the bowl and they asked us about it; we said: ‘He did not leave anything else nor did he give to us any other thing.’”
Tamīm said, “Thereafter, when I accepted Islam after arrival of the Messenger of God at Medina, I felt guilty about it; so I came to his family, gave them the information and paid to them five hundred dirham, and told them that a similar amount was with my companion. So, they brought him to the Messenger of God; he asked them for proof which they did not find; then he ordered them to adjure him by what is held sacred by his co-religionists, and he took oath. Then God revealed: O you who believe! Call to witness between you … or fear that other oaths be given after their oaths. Then ‘Amr b. al-’Āṣī and another man stood up and swore (to it); so five hundred dirhams were extracted from ‘Udayy b. Badā’.” (al-Durru al-manthūr)
Author’s comment: Apart from its weakness, the tradition does not conform fully to the verse, and this non-conformity is clear. al-Suyūṭī has narrated from Ibn ‘Abbās and ‘Ikrimah what is near to the preceding tradition of al-Qummī.
- al-Fāriyābī, ʿAbd b. Ḥamīd, Abū ‘Ubayd, Ibn Jarīr, Ibn al-Mundhir and Abū al-Shaykh have narrated from ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib that he recited mina al-ladhī staḥaqqa (with vowel a after t), (as is the common recitation.)
Ibn Marduwayh and al-Ḥākim (who has said it is correct) have narrated from ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib that the Prophet recited: al-ladhīna staḥaqqa ‘alayhimu al-awlayān (with a after t). (ibid.)
- Ibn Jarīr has narrated from Ibn ‘Abbās that he said: “This verse is abrogated.” (ibid.)
Author’s comment: There is no proof of abrogation as claimed here.
- Muḥammad b. Ismā’īl has narrated from al-Faḍl b. Shādhān, and ʿAlī b. Ibrāhīm has narrated from his father, from Ibn Abī ‘Umayr, from Hishām b. al-Ḥakam, from Abū ʿAbdillāh that he said about the word of God: or two others from among others than you: If the man is in a town where there is no Muslim, the witness of a non-Muslim is allowed in will. (al-Kāfī)
Author’s comment: The tradition’s meaning is inferred from the verse.
- (al-Kulaynī) narrates through his chain from Yaḥyā b. Muḥammad that he said, “I asked Abū ʿAbdillāh, about the word of God, to Whom belong Might and Majesty: O you who believe! Call to wit-ness between you when death draws nigh to one of you, at the time of making the will, two just persons from among you, or two others from among others than you. He said, ‘The two from among you means two Muslims; and those from among others than you, means (from) the People of the Book; and if they did not get from the People of the Book, then from the Magians, because the Messenger of God had followed about the Magians the system of the People of the Book regarding jizyah.
“‘And it is (like this:) When a man dies in a place away from home
and does not find two Muslims, he will call to witness two men from among the People of the Book; they will be detained after the afternoon prayer, and they both shall swear by God, to Whom belong Might and Majesty, (saying:) “We will not take for it a price, though there be a relative, and we will not hide the testimony of Allah, for then certainly we should be among the sinners.”’ The (Imām) said: “‘And it is when the heir of the deceased feels doubt about their (the two’s) testimony, then it becomes known that they both have testified falsely, he has no right to refute their testimony until he brings two other witnesses; so they shall stand up in the place of the first two witnesses, so they two should swear by Allah: “Certainly our testimony is truer than the testimony of those two, and we have not exceeded the limit, for then most surely we should be of the unjust.” If he did so, the testimony of the first two would be set aside and that of these two would be allowed (that is, accepted). God says: This is more proper in order that they should give testimony truly or fear that other oaths be given after their oaths.’” (ibid.)
Author’s comment: As you see, the tradition fits the earlier given explanation of the verse. There are other traditions of the same meaning in al-Kāfī and al-Tafsīr of al-‘Ayyāshī narrated from Abū ʿAbdillāh and Abu al-Ḥasan (peace be upon both.)
And in some traditions, the Divine Words: or two others from among others than you, have been interpreted as, ‘the unbelievers’; and it is more general than ‘the People of the Book’, as is narrated in al-Kāfī from Abu al-Ṣabāḥ al-Kinānī, from Abū ʿAbdillāh, and in al-Tafsīr of al-‘Ayyāshī from Abū Usāmah from the same Imām about this verse: (I asked him:) “What (means): or two others from among others than you?” He said, “They are two unbelievers.” “I said, ‘(What means:) two just persons from among you?’ He said ‘They are two Muslims.’”
Although the preceding tradition which confines it to the People of the Book is not capable of putting any restriction on this generality, according to the rules of generality and restriction because both are in positive case, yet the first tradition’s context may explain the generality of the second one in a way that conforms with restriction.
- al-Ṣadūq has narrated through his chain to Abū Zayd ‘Ayyāsh b. Yazīd b. al-Ḥasan from his father, Yazīd b. al-Ḥasan that he said: “Narrated to me Mūsa b. Ja’far (peace be upon both), he said: ‘al-Ṣādiq, said about the words of God, to Whom belong Might and Majesty: On the day when God will assemble the messengers, then say:
“What answer were you given?” They shall say: “We have no knowledge.”’ He said: ‘al-Ṣādiq, said, “They shall say, ‘We have no knowledge through other than Thee.’”’ He also said: ‘al-Ṣādiq, said, “The Qur’an, all of it, is rebuke, and its interior is approximation.”’ (Tafsīr al-Burhān)
The author of al-Burhān says: “Ibn Bābawayh has said, ‘The Imām means that behind the verses of rebuke and threat there are verses of mercy and forgiveness.’”
Author’s comment: What he has quoted from al-Ṣadūq (may God have mercy upon him) regarding the meaning of the Imām’s saying: ‘The Qur’an, all of it, is rebuke, and its interior is approximation,’ does not fit on it: Neither in view of the beginning of the tradition, because the interpretation of the messengers’ word, ‘We have no knowledge,’ as, ‘We have no knowledge through other than Thee’, has no relation with the Qur’an containing two types of verses, those of promise and those of threat; nor in view of the context of the sentence itself, that is, ‘The Qur’an, all of it, is rebuke, and its interior is approximation;’ because this speech apparently means that the whole Qur’an is rebuke and the whole of it is approximation, and the matter differs from the point of view of interior and exterior; it does not mean that the Qur’an is divided into two categories, one is of the verses of rebuke, and another besides it is the verses of approximation.
Pondering on the Imām’s talk, we come to understand that ‘rebuke’, inasmuch as it stands parallel to ‘approximation’ means its concomitant, that is, to remove far as opposed to bring near; the Qur’an, all of it, is cognizance and reality; its exterior separates realities from one another and categorizes its parts, and its interior brings them nearer to each other, perfects them and unifies them. In short, it means that the Qur’an, in its exterior shows various realities of cognizance, which are separate one from the other, yet in spite of its numerousness and separateness of its components, in its interior its ingredients are quite near to each other, and its various meanings are interconnected, until it is unified and becomes one single reality, pervading the whole body like spirit—and it is nothing but the reality of oneness, monotheism. God says: A Book whose verses are firmly arranged then separated, from the All-Wise, All-Aware ().
At this juncture, it becomes clear how it fits on what the Imām has said at the beginning of the tradition that the messengers’ reply, ‘We have no knowledge,’ means: ‘We have no knowledge through other than Thee.’ It is because man, or any knower we suppose, knows whatever he knows through God; God is known through Himself, and all other things are known through Him. In other words, when knowledge connects with anything, it connects first of all with God, as deserves His sublime status and majesty, and then it connects through Him with that thing; because with Him is the knowledge of everything, He gives out of it to whomsoever He wishes from among His servants, as much as He wishes. God says: … while they cannot comprehend anything out of His knowledge except that which He wills; His throne extends over the heavens and the earth … (). We have quoted earlier the narration of ʿAbd al-A’lā mawlā Āl Sām from al-Ṣādiq and some other traditions in this regard.
Accordingly, the messengers’ reply: ‘We have no knowledge, surely Thou art the great Knower of the unseen things,’ would mean in the light of the Imām’s explanation, as follows: We have no knowledge of anything leaving Thee aside; we know whatever we know because of our knowledge about Thee; it is because all the knowledge belongs to Thee; and as such Thou knowest it better than us; after all, whatever we know comes out of Thine knowledge and Thou hast given us a part of it by Thine will and Thine sustenance.
Accordingly, another meaning is understood of the words: ‘surely Thou art the great Knower of the unseen things’; and it is more sublime than the previously given explanation: Everything in this creation has an existence separate from the others’ being. As such it is ‘unseen’ vis-à-vis the others, because its existence is limited and foreordained, it does not comprehend except what God wills it to comprehend; and God comprehends everything, and knows every unseen; thus nothing knows anything except through God, Sublime and Glorified is He from every shortcoming.
Now, we understand that division of the things into unseen and seen, actually means their division into an unseen which God wills that we should comprehend it and an unseen which He has kept hidden from us. Probably, this meaning is supported by the apparent meaning of the divine words: He is the Knower of the unseen, and He does not reveal His unseen (secrets) to any one except to the messenger whom He chooses (), as is implied by relating the ‘unseen’ to the pronoun. You should deeply ponder on this matter.
- Yazīd al-Kanāsī narrates from Abū Ja’far, that he said about the verse: On the day when Allah will assemble the messengers … “ He will say, ‘What answer were you given about your awṣiyā’ (successors) whom you left behind in your ummah?’ They will say: ‘We have no knowledge of what they (the ummah) did after us.’” (al-Tafsīr, al-‘Ayyāshī)
Author’s comment: al-Qummī has narrated it in his al-Tafsīr, from Muḥammad b. Muslim from the same Imām.
- (al-Kulaynī) has narrated in al-Kāfī a tradition of similar theme, from Yazīd, from Abū ʿAbdillāh, and it is based on the principle of the flow of meaning, or gives its interior explanation.
If anybody wants to know those details, he should refer to the Tafsīr Rūḥu al-ma’ānī, vol.7 (by al-Ālūsī), Majma’u al-bayān (by al-Ṭabrisī), Mafātīḥu al-ghayb (by al-Rāzī) and other detailed books. (Auth.) ↩︎