Surah Al-Baqarah: 282
"O you who have believed" (in Allah the Exalted and in what has come from Him), "when you contract a debt" — meaning when you deal and lend to one another — "for a specified term" — the benefit of mentioning this [debt] is to specify the shared object and definitively dispel ambiguity, for tadayantum (contracting a debt) can mean "you deal with each other by way of debt" or "you recompense one another." It cannot be objected that the context clarifies this, for discourse regarding textual precision is paramount, and context is not always grasped except by the sagacious. It is said it was mentioned so the pronoun could return to it; otherwise, one would have to say, "Write down the debt," and the composition would lack the elegance sought by those with a refined taste for the styles of language. This was challenged on the grounds that tadayantum indicates it, making it akin to "Be just; that is nearer to righteousness." The response is that "debt" here is not intended as the verbal noun, but as one of the two equivalents, and tadayantum provides no indication of it except through context, which is insufficient in a passage of legal exposition—especially when it is susceptible to ambiguity. It is also said it was mentioned to better categorize debt into deferred and immediate, as the indefiniteness [in the original phrasing] implies generality and partiality regarding what is specified by the limit. Had it not been mentioned, it could be suggested that debt is only of one type.
"For a specified term" — that is, a time — is linked to tadayantum. It is also permissible for it to be an adjective for "debt," meaning "delayed or deferred to a specified term," measured by days, months, or their likes, which yield knowledge and remove ignorance; it should not be by way of "harvest time," lest it result in the nullification of its own subject matter.
"Then write it down" — the debt and its term — for it is more accommodating and more reliable. The majority hold that this is [a command] for recommendation, based on His saying: "If one of you entrusts the other." According to some, the verse is explicit that this is the ruling for every debt. Ibn Abbas limits the debt to salam (forward sales); Al-Bukhari reported from him that he said: "I bear witness that the guaranteed salam for a specified term is something Allah the Exalted has deferred and permitted," then he recited the verse. Imam Malik used this as evidence for the permissibility of deferring a loan.
"And let a scribe write [it] between you with justice" — this is a clarification of the manner of writing commanded, and a designation of who is to undertake it following the general command. The object of "write" is omitted, trusting in its intelligibility or due to the intent of focusing on the act itself. The qualification by the adverb [with justice] serves to notify that the scribe should not be a single party among those dealing, in order to avert suspicion. The prepositional phrase is linked to an omitted term serving as an adjective for the scribe, meaning: "Let the scribe be one whose state is equity and lack of inclination toward either side by increase or decrease." It may also be an adverb linked to "scribe" or "his act." The intent is to command the contracting parties, by way of metonymy, to employ a just, scholarly, and religious scribe so that what he writes is trustworthy and agreed upon among the people of knowledge. Thus, the discourse, as At-Tibi said, is driven by one meaning while incorporating another through textual indication—which is the prerequisite of jurisprudence in the scribe; for no one can attain equity in dangerous matters except one who is a jurist. Hence, some use this verse as evidence that only one who is knowledgeable, just, and trustworthy should write documents, and whoever is not such, it is the duty of the Imam or his deputy to prevent him, lest corruption occur and conflict multiply, "and Allah does not like the corruptors."
"And let no scribe refuse to write" — meaning, let none of the scribes described as mentioned abstain "as Allah has taught him." This is linked to "write," and the discourse follows the pattern of "Do good as Allah has done good to you"—that is, do not refuse to favor people with your writing, because Allah the Exalted has favored you and distinguished you. It is also permissible for the kaf (as) to be linked to "write" as an adjective for an omitted verbal noun or as a state of the verbal noun, according to Sibawayh's view. The estimation is: "Let him write in a manner like what Allah taught him," or "Let him write the writing like what Allah taught him." He clarified this by His saying: "with justice." It is also permitted that it be linked to "then let him write," where the fa is not an impediment, as in "and your Lord glorify," because it is a connector in meaning. The command to write after the prohibition of refusing is for the sake of emphasis, necessitated by the fact that prohibition of a thing is not, according to the more accurate view, an explicit command for its opposite. Thus, He emphasized it by mentioning it explicitly, out of concern for the status of writing. Based on this, some hold that the command is for obligation and from the communal duties; but because the command is "for us" and not "against us," it is diverted from that [obligation] so that it does not return to what preceded in the issue of the ambiguity of the term. As for the second view, there is no emphasis, but rather it is a command for writing qualified after the prohibition against refusing the absolute. This does not imply emphasis, for prohibiting the refusal of an absolute does not indicate a command for the qualified, such that its mention after it would be an emphasis. Some claimed it is, for if refusal of absolute writing is prohibited, then refusal of religious writing is prohibited a fortiori, and the prohibition against refusing religious writing is a command for it, so the command for religious writing is explicitly for emphasis. Furthermore, when an absolute and a qualified [command] arrive regarding the same incident, the absolute is carried upon the qualified, whether the absolute precedes or follows. Just as the command for absolute writing in the first view was carried upon the qualified to constrain the emphasis, why was the prohibition against refusing absolute writing not carried upon the qualified for emphasis? Is the differentiation between the two commands anything but pure arbitrariness?
"And ma," it is said, is either the verbal particle or a restrictive particle; it is also allowed to be a relative pronoun or a descriptive one. The pronoun [in "taught him"] would then return to the scribe. Some estimated the second object of "taught" as "writing documents," so understand this.
"And let the one upon whom is the right dictate" — from imlal (dictation), meaning casting to the scribe what he writes. The verb is amlaltu, and sometimes one of the two identical consonants is replaced by a ya, and the verbal noun follows it, and the hamza is replaced due to its position at the end after an extra alif, so it is called imla’an. It means: let the one upon whom is the right dictate to the scribe what is to be written of the debt, which is the required [act], because he is the one against whom the testimony is held, so he must be the one who confesses, and none other. The exclusivity is understood from attaching the ruling to the description, for arranging the ruling upon the description implies causality, and the basis is the absence of another cause.
"And let him fear Allah, his Lord" — He combined the Majestic Name and the beautiful attribute as an exaggeration in inciting piety by mentioning what implies Majesty and Beauty. "And do not decrease from it" — meaning do not diminish anything of the right he dictates to the scribe, even if it is trivial. It is recited as shiyan (dropping the hamza) and shiyan (with tashdid). This is the interpretation transmitted from Sa'id ibn Jubayr. It is said the pronoun "fear" could return to the scribe, but that is invalid because the pronoun in "decrease" is for the one upon whom is the right, as he is the one from whom the decrease is expected. As for the scribe, an increase is expected from him just as a decrease is, so if his prohibition were intended, he would have been prohibited from both, and that has already been done where he was commanded to be just. Returning each of them to the other is a decomposition for which there is no evidence. The one dictating is strictly tasked, being gathered in a command to fear and a prohibition against decreasing, because of the incentives present to do the prohibited—for man is naturally inclined to repel harm from himself as much as possible. Regarding "from it," there are two views: one, that it is linked to "decrease" with min for the beginning of the end; two, that it is linked to an omitted [term] because it was originally an adjective for an indefinite noun, so when it was moved before it, it became a state. "Anything" is either a direct object or a verbal noun.
"If the one upon whom is the right is a fool" — meaning unable and foolish, as Ibn Zaid said; or ignorant of how to dictate, as Mujahid said; or a squanderer of his wealth and a corrupter of his religion, as Al-Shafi'i said. "Or weak" — meaning a child or a senile old man. "Or is unable to dictate himself" — a sentence conjoined to a singular noun; it is the predicate of kana by interpreting it as a singular, i.e., or unable to dictate by himself due to muteness, as is reported from Ibn Abbas, or for what is broader than that, including ignorance of the language and other preventive hindrances. The explicit pronoun is an emphasis for the hidden pronoun in "to dictate." The benefit of the emphasis is to remove the metaphor that the attribution of the action to the pronoun might have suggested, and the specification that he is unable by himself. It is said the pronoun is the subject of "dictate," and the change of style is out of concern for the negation. It is known that the assimilation here is elegant, unlike the separation mentioned previously; similar is the separation in His saying: "let his guardian dictate." This means whoever handles his affairs, even if it is not the specific legal guardian, so it includes the custodian, the agent, and the translator. Confession on behalf of another in such a case is acceptable, and there is a difference between it and confession against another, so know it. "With justice" — between the owner of the right and the one under guardianship, so he neither increases nor decreases, and he is not tasked with what the one upon whom the right is not tasked with, because an increase is expected from him just as a decrease is. Some used the verse as evidence that it is not permissible for the guardian to be a dhimmi or a sinner, and that it is permissible for him to be a slave or a woman, because nothing was stipulated for the guardians except justice. Ibn al-Faras mentioned this, but it is nothing, as is obvious.
Some people used His saying "then let him write" and "let no scribe refuse" as evidence for the obligation of writing. Al-Sha'bi, Al-Jubba'i, and Al-Rummani went to this, except that they said it is a communal obligation. The speech of Al-Hasan inclines toward this. Mujahid and Ad-Dahhak said: It is an obligation upon him to write if commanded. It is said it is recommended. It is reported from Ad-Dahhak that it was an obligation and then abrogated.
"And bring to witness two witnesses" — meaning seek them to bear witness to what occurred between you. It is also allowed that the sin and ta are extra, meaning "take as witnesses." In choosing the exaggeration form [witnesses], there is an allusion to seeking one from whom testimony has been repeated, for he is knowledgeable of its placement and capable of performing it. It seems there is a signifier toward justice, for it is not repeated from a person before the rulers unless he is accepted by them. Perhaps he did not say "two men" for that reason, and the command is for recommendation or obligation based on the disagreement. "From your men" is linked to "bring to witness," and min is for the beginning of the end, or linked to an omitted [term] as an adjective for two witnesses, and min is for partitivity. The address is to the believers, whom the verse is about. In mentioning "men" added to the pronoun of the addressed, there is an indication of the requirement of Islam, maturity, masculinity, and freedom in the two witnesses, because what is immediately understood from "men" are the perfect ones, while slaves are in the status of beasts. Also, the commands of the Law do not encompass slaves by way of literal expression, as explained in its place. The Imamiyyah went to the view of not requiring freedom for the acceptance of testimony; the condition for them is only Islam and justice. Shurayh, Ibn Sirin, Abu Thawr, and Uthman al-Batti went to this, which is contrary to what is reported from Ali—may Allah ennoble his countenance—for he did not permit the testimony of a slave in anything. The verse did not address the testimony of disbelievers against each other, and Imam Abu Hanifah—may Allah be pleased with him—permitted that by analogy, even if their religions differ.
"And if there are not two men" — meaning if you did not intend to take them as witnesses, even if they were present. The ruling is of the category of negating the generality, not the generality of the negation; otherwise, His saying "then a man and two women" would not be valid. That is, if they are not two men together, then let a man and two women be witnesses, or a man and two women witness, or are sufficient, or the witnesses are a man and two women, or let a man and two women be summoned. If "are" is taken as complete, there is no need to estimate "witnesses." The sufficiency of a man and two women in testimony, in matters other than hudud (prescribed punishments) and retaliation, is our view and that of Al-Shafi'i regarding property only, not in others like the marriage contract. Malik said: Their testimony is not valid in hudud, retaliation, lineage, or chastity; it is valid in agency and will, if there is no emancipation in them. As for accepting the testimony of women alone, they have said so in cases of childbirth, virginity, and crying at birth, and what follows this course, as explained in the books of jurisprudence. It is recited "and two women" with a silent hamza, perhaps due to the gathering of vowels.
"From whom you approve" — linked to an omitted [term] serving as an adjective for "a man and two women," meaning "being from those you approve of." Expressing this here, despite its realization in every witness, is because of the rarity of women being so described. Therefore, the objection in Al-Bahr that making it an adjective for the mentioned implies the absence of this description for two witnesses does not hold. It is said it is an adjective for two witnesses, but it is weakened by the separation that occurred between them. It is said it is a substitution for "your men" by repeating the governing agent, but it is weakened by the separation also. Abu Hayyan chose its link to "bring to witness" so that it becomes a constraint on all, but this necessitates a separation between the requirement of two women and its rationale, which is as you can see. The address is to the believers; it is said [to] the rulers. He did not say "from those approved of" to imply the requirement of their being so in the reality of the matter, and we have no way to know that, for we have the apparent, and Allah the Exalted handles the secrets. "From the witnesses" — linked to an omitted [term] as a state of the omitted referent, meaning "from those you approve of, in the state of their being some of the witnesses," due to your knowledge of the absence of suspicion, and the inclusion of women in the plural by way of generalization.
"That one of them might err, and one of them remind the other" — a statement of the ruling's wisdom, the legislation, and the requirement of the number in women. That is, this was legislated out of the desire that one of them might remind the other if one errs, because forgetfulness is prevalent in the nature of women due to the excess of moisture in their temperaments. The "desire" (will) was estimated because the constraint of the request must be an act of the Commander and a motive for it, and it is here nothing but the will of Allah the Exalted, to definitively cut off that the error and the subsequent reminding is the motive for the command, but rather the will of that. It was objected that forgetfulness and lack of guidance to testimony should not be desired by Allah the Exalted with a legislative will, especially since He commanded the taking of witnesses. The response is that the will was not attached to the error itself—meaning the lack of guidance to testimony—but to the error upon which reminding is arranged. It is a rule of theirs that the constraint is the target of the purpose; it is as if He attached the will to the reminding caused by the error and arranged upon it. Thus the explanation leads to what we have mentioned. This is better than what some went to in the answer—that what is meant by "error" is "reminding"—because error is a cause for reminding, so the cause was used and the effect intended, for it is obvious that "then she reminds" would not remain in its literal meaning. It is said the point in preferring "that one might err" over "if she errs" is to allude to the intensity of concern for reminding, such that what is disliked became as if it were desired for its sake, from the aspect of it being a means leading to it.
"One of them" — the second—may be the subject of "reminds." It is not a case of putting the explicit in place of the pronoun, as the reminder is not the forgetful one. It is also allowed that it be the object of "reminds" and the other be the subject; this is not of the category of "Musa struck Isa" as some imagined, necessitating the first, but rather of the category of "The younger suckled the elder," because the precedence of one of them in the attribution of error removes the ambiguity. The reason for putting the object before the subject is to call attention to the concern for reminding the one who erred. For this reason, as it is said, He turned from the pronoun to the explicit, because the precedence in that case would not alert [the reader] to the concern as the explicit object does, which, if it were delayed, nothing would be required other than putting it in its original place. More than one mentioned that turning from "then she reminds her, the other" (which is Ibn Mas'ud's recitation, as narrated by Al-A'mash) to what is in the noble composition is to emphasize the ambiguity and exaggerate in avoiding the suspicion of the error being restricted to one of them specifically, and the reminding to the other.
Al-Husayn ibn Ali al-Maghribi went far in this place, making the pronoun of "one of them" (the first) return to the two testimonies, and the pronoun of "one of them" (the other) to the two women. The meaning is that one of the two testimonies might err—i.e., be lost through forgetfulness—so one of the two women reminds the other of them. Al-Tabarsi supported this by saying that the one who forgets the testimony is not called "one who errs"; rather, it is said "the testimony erred" if it is lost, as He said: "they have erred from us," meaning they are lost from us. Upon this, the discourse is bare of the trace of suspicion of using the pronoun in the place of the explicit entirely. This is nothing, as there is no "other" for one of them in the discourse, with the result of decomposition and lack of regularity. What was mentioned in support indicates a lack of acquaintance with the language. In Nihayat of Ibn al-Athir and others, the term "errant" is used for the forgetful one, and this is narrated in the verse from Sa'id ibn Jubayr, Ad-Dahhak, Ar-Rabi', As-Suddi, and others. This approaches in strangeness what was said—that it is among the innovations of interpretation, which is what was narrated from Ibn Uyaynah: that the meaning of "then she reminds," etc., is "she makes one of them the other a memory," meaning when they meet, they are in the status of a male. This is deficient from the aspect of meaning and expression, because reminding in opposition to forgetting is a revealed meaning and a clear purpose, and the observance of the number is because women are the place of forgetfulness. Furthermore, making her a "male" is a metaphor for setting her in the place of a male, then he used it metaphorically a second time, as they are the two standing in his place, so he did not make one of them set in his place. After the metaphor, it is not on its literal meaning because of the need for the accompaniment of a male at all with them. His saying "if there are not two men" indicates their deficiency for that as well. Binding the direction of such [an interpretation] and presenting it in the market of acceptance is not considered a virtue; rather, it is in the view of the people of taste the essence of meddling. I have seen in Tiraz al-Majalis that Al-Khafaji asked the Chief Justice Shihab al-Din al-Ghaznawi about the secret of repeating "one" while ignoring what Al-Maghribi mentioned. He said: "O head of the people of sciences, the masters, the righteous, whose fame is spread over all mankind! What is the secret of the repetition of 'one' without [the pronoun] 'reminds her' in the verse for those who bear witness in Al-Baqarah? The apparent situation is the brevity of the pronoun over repeating 'one of them'; if he had mentioned it, and carried 'one' upon the testimony itself in the first of them, it is not pleasing to the skilled. So be gentle with the solutions to extract its jewel from the sea of your knowledge, then send us its pearls." The Judge answered: "O you whose benefits are spread with knowledge, and whose virtues are famous in existence! O you who is unique in revealing the sciences, your request has arrived and the secrets are hidden. 'That one of them errs'—the saying is capable of both, so it is in need of clarification. If he had brought a pronoun, it would have required specifying one for the ruling, which is considered. And whoever you rejected the solution from, it is as you pointed out, not pleasing to those who examined it. This is what the dull mind permitted; and Allah knows best in the implication of what he mentioned."
"And let not the witnesses refuse when they are called" — for the performance of testimony or for bearing it, which is narrated from Ibn Abbas and Al-Hasan—may Allah be pleased with them. Mujahid and Ibn Jubayr restricted it to the first, which is the apparent, for it does not require committing the metaphor unless what is narrated from Ar-Rabi' is true: that the verse was revealed when a man would go around among many people and call them to testify, but none would follow him. If so, its apparent meaning demands the statement of the metaphor of proximity. And ma is a connector, and it is a fixed rule after "if." "And do not be weary" — meaning do not grow bored or annoyed, from which is the saying of Zuhair: "I am weary of the burdens of life, and whoever lives eighty years, no father to you, will be weary." "To write it" — meaning the debt or the right or the book implied by the action, and [it] is linked as a direct object to "be weary," and it is transitive by itself. It is said it is transitive by a preposition, but omitted due to its being known. It is said the intent of sa'm (weariness) is laziness, but it was used as a metonymy for it because it occurred in the Qur'an as an attribute for the hypocrites, like His saying: "And when they stand for prayer, they stand lazily." Thus it occurred in the hadith: "The believer does not say 'I am lazy,' but says 'I am heavy'." It is recited "and they do not be weary to write it" with ya in both. "Small or large" — two states from the pronoun, meaning in every case, little or much, summarized or detailed. It is said they are accusative as they are predicates of an omitted kana. The small was put before the large out of concern for it, and moving from the lower to the higher. "To its term" — a state from the ha (it) in "write it," meaning settled in the debtor's liability until the time of its maturity which he confessed, and it is not linked to "write it" due to the lack of continuity of writing until the term, for it is something that ends in a short time. "That" — meaning the writing, which is the nearest, or the taking of witnesses, which is the farthest, or all that was mentioned, which is the best. The address is to the believers. "Is more just in the sight of Allah" — meaning in His ruling. "And more upright for testimony" — more established for it and more helpful to its performance and fulfillment. They are derived from "most just" and "most upright" according to Sibawayh's view, for he permits forming af'al from verbs without anomaly. It is said [it is derived] from qasit, meaning one who possesses equity. Abu Hayyan said: Qist can be in the meaning of justice only, as Ibn al-Qatta' narrated, and upon this there is no need for Sibawayh's view in "most just." It is said it is from qasuta (on the scale of karuma), meaning "he became possessor of equity," i.e., just. The waw in "most upright" was kept sound, and he did not say "most established," because it was not turned in the verb of amazement like "how upright it is," due to its frozen state, as it does not conjugate, and the superlative fits its meaning, so it was carried upon it. "And more likely that you might not doubt" — meaning closer to the negation of your suspicion and doubt in the genus of the debt, its amount, its term, and the like. It is said this is the ruling of the creation of the Preserved Tablet and the Noble Recording Angels, even though He is the Perfect Rich beyond all things, as a teaching for the servants and a guidance for the rulers. The preposition is estimated here, which is "to" as you heard; it is said [it is] "for," and it is said "from," and it is said "in," and for each there is its viewpoint.
"Except that it is an immediate trade which you conduct between you" — an interrupted exception from the command to write; so His saying "let a scribe write" to here is a sentence interrupted between the exception and the excepted. That is: "But when your contracting or trading is an immediate trade, by the presence of the two equivalents, which you conduct between you by handling it hand to hand..." So it is said. In Ad-Durr al-Masun, it is allowed that it be a continuous exception from the taking of witnesses, so He has commanded the taking of witnesses in every case except in the case of the presence of trade. It is said it is an exception from this and that, and it is also interrupted, meaning: "But immediate trade is permitted in it [to have] no witness and writing." Others said differently. Perhaps the first is better. Asim recited "trade" as the predicate of takuna, and its subject is hidden in it returning to the trade, as Al-Farra' said, and the return of the pronoun in such to a delayed [term] in word and rank is current in eloquent speech. Some said: it returns to the contracting and the dealing understood from the discourse, and upon this, trade is a verbal noun so that it is not required to inform about the meaning with the concrete. The rest raised it as the name of takuna, and the predicate is the sentence "you conduct it." It is allowed that takuna be complete, so the sentence "you conduct it" is an adjective.
"Then there is no blame upon you that you do not write it" — meaning there is no harm upon you or no sin in your not writing it, due to its distance from conflict and forgetfulness, or because tasking you with writing at that time is a great hardship. The introduction of the fa is to notify the attachment of what is after it to what is before it. "And take witnesses when you trade" — meaning this trade mentioned, or absolutely. "And let no scribe or witness be harmed" — a prohibition against harming, and the verb is capable of being passive or active. The evidence for it is the recitation of Umar—may Allah be pleased with him—"and let no harm be done," with assimilation and kasra, and the recitation of Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with them—with assimilation and fatha. The meaning, in the first, is a prohibition to the scribe and the witness against refusing to answer what is asked of them, and against distortion, increase, and decrease. In the second, it is [a prohibition] against harming them by rushing them away from a need, or not giving the scribe his right of payment, or burdening the witness with the trouble of coming from a city. This meaning is supported by what Ibn Jurayj narrated from Ar-Rabi', who said: When this verse "let no scribe refuse..." was revealed, one of them would come to the scribe and say: "Write for me," and he would say: "I am busy or have a need, so go to someone else," and he would compel him and say: "You have been commanded to write for me," and he would not let him go and would harm him by that, while he found another. So Allah the Exalted revealed "and let no scribe or witness be harmed." Some carried the form upon both meanings, but it is nothing, as is obvious. Al-Hasan recited it with kasra, and it is recited with rafa as a negation in the meaning of prohibition.
"And if you do [that]" — what you were prohibited from of harming, or from it and other than it, and its occurrence from you is remote—"then indeed it is" — that act—"disobedience within you" — meaning an exit from obedience, attached to you. It is allowed for the ba to be for containment; it is said it is more eloquent, as they were made a place for disobedience. "And fear Allah" — in what He commanded you and prohibited you from—"and Allah teaches you" — His rulings which contain your interests—"and Allah is Knowing of all things."
[282] "And nothing is hidden from Him, and He will recompense you for that." If it is said: How did He repeat the Majestic Name in the three sentences, and they disliked such as the saying: "What is for the separation, may the roots of the nut be cut; the cut of the nut," until it was said: "Allah the Exalted empowered a sheep to eat the nut." The answer is that repetition from Him is what is deemed good and what is deemed ugly. What is deemed good is every repetition that occurs by way of glorification or belittlement in consecutive sentences, each sentence being independent in itself. What is deemed ugly is for the repetition to be in one sentence or in sentences with the same meaning, and it does not contain glorification or belittlement. What is in the verse is a pearl of the crown of the first category, because "fear Allah" is an incitement to fear Allah, "and Allah teaches you" is a promise of His bounty, and "and Allah is Knowing of all things" is a glorification of His affair—exalted is His affair. From here you know the aspect of the conjunction in it, from the difference in the apparent, [as] a statement and a beginning. Some allowed the middle sentence to be a state from the subject of "fear," meaning: "Fear Allah, while the teaching is guaranteed for you." It is allowed that it be an anticipated state, and the first is what we preceded due to the rarity of the pairing of the confirmed present verb occurring as a state with the waw.
