Tafsir of An-Nisa' 4:135

(O you who believe, be upholders of justice): meaning, persistent in justice in all matters, exerting every effort in that, with no distraction diverting you from it. Al-Raghib mentioned that by the term al-qawwamin (upholders), He, the Exalted, signaled that observing justice once or twice is not sufficient; rather, it must be constant. Religious matters are not considered valid unless they are continuous and permanent, and one who acts justly only once or twice is not, in reality, just—that is, the term should not be applied to him.

(Witnesses for God): meaning, that you perform your testimonies for the sake of God the Exalted, not for any worldly purpose. The accusative case of shuhada (witnesses) indicates that it is a second predicate for "be," and the elegance of placing the first predicate before it is not hidden. It is also permissible for it to be a state (hal) from the implied pronoun within [the verb], and this is supported by what was narrated from Ibn Abbas (may God be pleased with them both), who said regarding the meaning of the verse: "Be those who speak the truth in testimony, regardless of whom it is against or for, whether it be a relative or a stranger." It is said: It is an attribute of qawwamin. It is also said: It is the predicate of kunu (be), and qawwamin is the state.

(Even if against yourselves): meaning, even if the testimony is against your own selves. Testimony is interpreted metaphorically as the manifestation of the truth, thus encompassing admission—which is what is intended here—and testimony in the literal sense, which is what is intended later; therefore, there is no need to combine literal and metaphorical meanings. It is said: The speech is expressed in the mode of hyperbole, and its literal meaning is not intended, so there is no need to assert the generality of the metaphor to include admission, as a person's testimony against himself is not customarily known [in the sense of formal testimony]. The prepositional phrase regarding what is indicated is a stable predicate acting as a predicate for an omitted kana (to be), even if it is originally a connecting phrase, for the dependent of a verbal noun may be made a predicate for it, becoming like "Praise be to God." You are not permitted this with the active participle and the like. It is permissible for it to be a redundant prepositional phrase related to an omitted predicate, meaning: "even if the testimony is a burden upon yourselves." Abu al-Baqa linked it to the verb indicated by shuhada, meaning: "even if you testify against yourselves." He also allowed its relation to qawwamin, though there is remoteness in that. Law (if/even if) is either in its original sense or in the sense of "even if" (in), and it is concessive. It is said: Its response is implied, meaning: "it would be mandatory for you to testify against them."

(Or the parents and the kinsmen): meaning, even if it is against your parents or the people closest to you or your relatives. The first is conjoined with aw (or) because it is a contrast to "yourselves," and the second is conjoined to it with wa (and) because there is no contrast.

(If he is): meaning, the one against whom the testimony is given, (rich): whose favor is hoped for by custom, and whom one fears, (or poor): for whom one is usually compassionate and feels pity. Abdullah [Ibn Mas'ud] read: in yakun ghaniyun aw faqirun (if there is a rich or poor [person]) in the nominative, based on kana being complete [not requiring a predicate]. The response to the condition is omitted, indicated by His saying, the Exalted: (God is more worthy of both): meaning, do not refrain from testifying against the rich in pursuit of his pleasure, or against the poor out of sympathy for him, because God the Exalted is more worthy of both categories and more compassionate toward them than all other people. If the right of testimony were not a benefit to them, He would not have legislated it. So observe the command of God, for He is more knowledgeable of the servants' interests than you. Ubayy [ibn Ka'b] read: f’Allahu awla bihim (God is more worthy of them) with the plural pronoun, which is evidence that what is intended is the genus of the rich and the poor, and that the dual pronoun does not refer back to the [previously mentioned] rich and poor specifically, because the rule for a pronoun returning to something conjoined with "or" is singular, as it is said: "because it is for one of the two things or things." It is said that "or" is in the sense of "and," and the pronoun returns to the mentioned ones; this was narrated from al-Akhfash. It is also said that it is in its literal sense, and here it is for detailing what was vague in the speech, and that is based on the idea that the intention by "testimony" is that which encompasses testimony for a man and testimony against him. Thus, each of the one for whom testimony is given and the one against whom it is given may be rich or poor; they may both be rich, both be poor, or one may be poor and the other rich. Since the categories were not mentioned, "or" was used to indicate this. The dual pronoun refers to the one for whom testimony is given and the one against whom it is given, in whatever state they may be. Other things are said, and al-Radi said: The pronoun returning to the multiple mentioned [entities] which have been conjoined by "or" may be singular or match the multiple, and that depends on the intention. It is permissible to say: "Zayd or Amr came to me, and they were going to the mosque." Based on this, there is no need for the justification [given] for the invalidity of the dual or the necessity of the singular in such a pronoun. Yes, it is said that the apparent meaning is the singular, not the dual, even if both are permissible, so departing from the apparent meaning requires a point. Some claimed that it is the generalization of worthiness and the refutation of the illusion that it is restricted to one; so contemplate it.

(So follow not [personal] inclination): meaning, the inclination of your souls, (lest you deviate): from al-'udul (turning away/swerving from the truth) or from al-'adl (justice), the opposite of injustice. It is in the place of a verbal noun indicating cause (maf'ul lahu), either for the "following" that is prohibited or for the "prohibition" itself. The possibilities are four: First, that it is in the sense of al-'udul (swerving), and it is the cause of the prohibited action, so there is no need for estimation. Second, that it is in the sense of al-'adl (justice), and it is the cause of the prohibited action, so an addition is estimated, meaning: "out of dislike that you act justly." Third, that it is in the sense of al-'udul, and it is the cause of the prohibition, so it requires estimation as in the second possibility, meaning: "I forbid you from following inclination out of dislike of swerving from the truth." Fourth, that it is in the sense of al-'adl, and it is the cause of the prohibition, so it does not require estimation as in the first possibility, meaning: "I forbid you from following inclination for the sake of justice and not committing injustice."

(And if you distort): your tongues away from the truth in testimony by presenting it in a way other than the way it deserves, as it was narrated from Ibn Zayd and al-Dahhak. It was narrated from Abu Ja'far (may God be pleased with him), and this is the apparent meaning. It is said: al-layy (distortion) is procrastination in delivering it, and this is attributed to Ibn Abbas (may God be pleased with them).

(Or refuse): meaning, you abandon its establishment entirely. This is an address to the witnesses. It is said: The address is to the rulers, and al-layy is ruling with falsehood, and al-i'rad (refusal) is not paying attention to one of the two litigants. This is attributed to al-Suddi, and it was also narrated from Ibn Abbas (may God be pleased with him). Hamza read: wa in tulwu with a damma on the lam and a silent waw, and it is from al-wilayah (authority/sponsorship), meaning the direct undertaking of testimony. It is said its origin is tulwuwu with two waws as well; the damma of the waw was transferred after it was changed into a hamza—or initially—to what preceded it, then it was deleted due to the meeting of two silent letters. According to this, the two readings are in the same meaning.

(For indeed God is, of what you do): of the distortion and refusal, or of all actions, among which is what was mentioned, (well-acquainted): knowing and fully informed, so He will recompense you for that. This is purely a threat in the first reading. In the latter reading, it is possible for it to be the same, and it is also possible for it to contain both a promise and a threat.

The verse, as Ibn Jarir narrated from al-Suddi, was revealed regarding the Prophet (peace and blessings of God be upon him). Two men, a rich and a poor one, disputed before him, and his natural disposition was toward the poor, thinking the poor would not wrong the rich. God the Exalted refused except to command justice regarding both the rich and the poor. It contains the testimony against whom God has mentioned, and there is no mention in it of testimony for them, which is the apparent meaning. Some interpreted it to include both categories, and this was narrated from Ibn Abbas (may God be pleased with them) as we indicated. Therefore, in his view, the testimony of a child for his parent and a parent for his child is permissible.

It was narrated from Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri that he said: "The predecessors of the Muslims were upon that, until things appeared among the people that compelled the rulers to suspect them, so the testimony of those who were suspected was abandoned." It is not hidden that interpreting the verse in that way is very distant, and more distant by stages. Rather, it should be of the category of isharah (allusion), that what is intended is: "Be witnesses for God by His oneness, the perfection of His attributes, and the validity of His rulings, even if that is harmful to yourselves, or to your parents and kinsmen, by the testimony causing the loss of the lives or wealth of these people, or otherwise." If the witness is rich, his testimony might harm his wealth, or if he is poor, his testimony might close the door of fulfilling his needs upon him; yet God the Exalted is more worthy of them than their own selves, so they ought to prefer God the Exalted over their own selves. The verse was used as evidence that a slave has no role in testimony, for he is not an "upholder" of it, as he is forbidden from going out to the judge. It also points to the obligation of equality between the two litigants for the ruler, which is apparent according to one opinion.

The way it relates to what preceded it, according to what is in al-Bahr, is that when He mentioned women, disobedience, and reconciliation, He followed it with "upholding" to fulfill rights, and in testimony, there are rights. Or because when He, the Exalted, explained that the seeker of the world is blameworthy, He pointed out that the seeker of the two matters—or the nobler of them—is the one who is praised, and explained that the perfection of that is for the speech and actions of a person to be for the sake of God the Exalted. Or because when He mentioned in this chapter: "And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphans" and the witnessing upon the delivery of their wealth to them, and commanded the sacrificing of self and wealth in the way of God, and mentioned the story of the betrayer and the gathering of his people upon lies and false testimony, He urged reconciliation following that by commanding His believing servants to uphold justice and testify for the sake of God the Exalted.