O you who have believed!
This is a new beginning intended to explain the rulings pertaining to the affairs of their worldly life, following the explanation of the conditions pertaining to the affairs of their religion. In it lies an expression of the utmost importance regarding its content, the nature of which is not hidden.
( شهادة بينكم ) - "Testimony between you"
The term shahadah (testimony) has the meanings of presence, judgment, adjudication, swearing, knowledge, and testament. The intended meaning here is the latter, as a group of exegetes has stated, and a verification of this will follow, God Almighty willing.
The majority recited it in the nominative case (shahadatu) as a subject, with ithnan (two) as its predicate. The construction implies the omission of a genitive (added) noun from the first [term], meaning: "There is the testimony of two among you," or from the second [term], meaning: "The testimony between you is the testimony of two." This was adhered to so that the subject and predicate would correspond.
It has been said that shahadah is in the meaning of shuhud (witnesses), like rajul ‘adl (a just man), so there is no need to adhere to the omission. Others say the predicate is omitted and ithnan is in the nominative case due to the verbal noun (masdar) which is shahadah, the estimation being: "It is required upon you that two should bear witness." This is the view of Az-Zajjaj. The shahadah here carries its primary intended meaning, not the meaning of ishhad (procuring witnesses). The words of some imply the latter, but it is, in reality, an explanation of the aggregate meaning of the speech.
Some have claimed it is in the meaning of ishhad (procuring witnesses), which is the verbal noun of the passive verb, and ithnan stands in the place of its actor (fa’il). The objection to this is that bringing a verbal noun of a passive verb with an ism zahir (explicit noun) as its na'ib fa'il (representative of the actor)—even if the Basrans permitted it, as in the Sharh al-Tashil by Al-Muradi—was forbidden by the Kufans. They said: "The correct view is that the omission of the actor of a verbal noun is permissible and common, so it does not require something to stand in place of its actor like the actor of an explicit verb."
( إذا ) - "When" is an adverbial of time for the testimony; that is: "Let them bear witness at the time of the presence of death." The intended meaning is its approach and the manifestation of its signs.
( وحين الوصية ) - "And at the time of the testament"
This is either a substitute for "when," and in it is an alert that the testament is among the important duties that a Muslim should not neglect or be heedless of. It is also permissible for it to be related to the death itself—that is, the occurrence of death, its causes at the time of the testament, or "when it is present."
It is possible that shahadah is the subject and "when it is present" is its predicate; that is, the occurrence of the testimony at the time of death's presence. "And at the time of the testament" follows the previous possibilities. It is not permissible for it to be an adverb for the testimony, lest one predicate about the mawsul (relative clause) before the completion of its link, or for it to be its predicate. If is in the accusative case by the shahadah, and it is not permissible for it to be in the accusative case by al-wasiyyah (the testament), even if the meaning points to it, because the governing agent of a verbal noun cannot precede it according to the correct view, along with the requirement of the preceding of the governing agent of the mudaf ilayh (genitive) over the mudaf (possessor), which is not permitted except in ghayr (other than), because it is in the position of la (no). Ithnan in these two views is either the subject of a latent yashhad (shall bear witness) or a predicate for shahidan (two witnesses) in the same manner.
Al-Farra holds that shahadah is the subject and ithnan is its actor, standing in place of the predicate. He placed the verbal noun in the meaning of a command, that is: "Let them bear witness." The objection to this is that the verbal noun acting as a proxy for an imperative verb is weak according to others, because the sufficiency of the actor is specific to the intended description. Idha and hin in this view are in the accusative case of adverbiality as mentioned before. The genitive construction of shahadah to the adverb is based on expansion, for it is inflected; hence, it was read as tuqatta'u baynakum in the nominative. It is said: "The original is ma baynakum," which is a metonym for disputation and contention, and the omission of ma is permissible, like "And when you see there," meaning "what is there." The objection raised against this is that the relative ma cannot be omitted, though some have permitted it.
Ash-Sha'bi read shahadatu baynakum with the nominative and tanwin, in which case baynakum is in the accusative as an adverb. Al-Hasan read shahadatan with the accusative and tanwin. Ibn Jinni explained this as being in the accusative due to an implicit verb whose actor is ithnan; that is: "Let two bear witness between you." The objection raised against this is that the omission of the verb while keeping its actor was not permitted by the grammarians unless something preceding it indicates it, such as His saying: "Praising Him therein morning and evening" in the reading of whoever read "being praised" (passive), or the poet's saying: "Let Yazid be wept for by the weak among his adversaries..." or it is answered by negation or interrogation. That is evident, but the verse does not fit any of these three.
It was answered that the aforementioned condition of requirement is not conceded; rather, it is the condition of the majority. In Al-Bahr, two ways for derivation were chosen:
First: That shahadatan is in the accusative as a verbal noun standing in for an imperative verb, and ithnan is in the nominative due to it, the estimation being: "Let two bear witness between you." It is thus in the category of darban zaidan (strike Zayd), except that the actor in darban leans toward the pronoun of the addressee because its meaning is "strike," while this leans toward the explicit [noun] because its meaning is "what you have known."
Second: That it is a verbal noun not in the meaning of a command, but a report standing in for the verb in the report, even if that is rare, like his saying: "Stopping there, my companions, on their mounts."
The elevation of sahbi (my companions) and the accusative of matiyyihim (their mounts) is by his saying wuqufan, for it is a substitute for the utterance of the verb in the report; the estimation is: "My companions stopped on their mounts." The estimation in the verse is: "Two should bear witness when death is present to one of you."
( ذوا عدل منكم ) - "Two of uprightness from among you"
That is, from the Muslims, as was narrated from Ibn Abbas, Ibn Mas'ud, and Al-Baqir, may God be pleased with them, and Ibn al-Musayyib, may mercy be upon him. Or, [it means] from among your relatives and your tribe, as narrated from Al-Hasan and Ikrimah. This is what the words of Az-Zuhri imply. Both are adjectives for ithnan.
( أو ءاخران من غيركم ) - "Or two others from other than you"
"Or two others" is conjoined to "two" in all its possibilities. His saying, the Exalted, "from other than you" is an adjective for it; that is, being from other than you. The intended meaning by them is non-Muslims from the People of the Book, according to the first group, and those who are not relatives, from the foreigners, according to the others. A group of later scholars chose the first view, to the extent that Al-Jassas said: "The second interpretation has no basis because the address was directed first to the people of belief; therefore, the 'otherness' is considered within it, and no mention of kinship occurred." The reason for the revelation also points to this, and it will come shortly, God Almighty willing.
( إن أنتم ضربتم في الأرض ) - "If you travel in the land"
That is, you journey. The elevation of antum is by an implicit verb clarified by what follows; the estimation is: "If you travel." When the verb was omitted, it was necessary to separate the pronoun so that it could stand by itself. This is the opinion of the majority of the Basrans. Al-Akhfash and the Kufans held that it is a subject, based on the permissibility of the subject occurring after the conditional in, just as its occurrence after idha is permitted. Thus, the sentence darabtum has no place [in syntax] according to the first view, for explanation, and it has the place of elevation as a predicate according to the second.
His saying, the Exalted: ( فاصابتكم مصيبة الموت ) - "And the calamity of death befalls you"
That is: "You approach the appointed time." It is conjoined to the condition, and its response is omitted. If the condition is a restriction on the essence of the testimony, the estimation is: "If you travel in the land... let two bear witness from you or from others." And if it is a condition for turning to others in the meaning narrated from the first group, then the estimation is: "Call others from other than you to witness," or "the two witnesses are two others from other than you." In that case, the verse benefits that one does not turn to non-Muslims for testimony except on the condition of traveling in the land. This was narrated from Shurayh, may God be pleased with him.
His saying, the Exalted: ( تحبسونهما ) - "You restrain them both"
That is, you bind them and detain them for the swearing of the oath. This is a new beginning, as if it were said: "What shall we do if we suspect the two witnesses?" He, the Exalted, said: ( من بعد الصلاة ) - "From after the prayer"
That is, the afternoon prayer (Asr), as narrated from Abu Ja'far, may God be pleased with him, Qatadah, Ibn Jubayr, and others. The restriction to this is because it is the time of people's gathering and their multiplication, and because all followers of religions glorify it and avoid swearing falsely in it, and because it is the time of the collision and meeting of the angels of the night and the day. In that is an increase of witnesses from among them regarding the truthfulness or falsehood of the swearer; thus, it is more fearful. Some considered this from the category of strictness (taghliz) upon the one being asked to swear by the time. According to us, strictness is not required by it, nor by the place; rather, it is permissible for the ruler to do it.
From Al-Hasan, it is that the intended meaning is the afternoon prayer or the noon prayer, because the people of the Hijaz used to sit for judgment after them. It was permitted that the lam is for the genus; that is, after any prayer. The restriction to that is because prayer is a summoner to speaking the truth, let alone uttering falsehood, lies, committing indecency, and wickedness. Al-Hasan made the restriction to that a proof for what preceded of his interpretation. It was also permitted that the sentence be another adjective for "two others," and the conditional sentence is parenthetical; therefore, the separation by it does not cause harm. This was narrated from Ibn Abbas, may God be pleased with them. The objection raised against this is that it implies the restriction of the detention to the "two others," while it includes the "first two" as well—based on their being described by that—which the context of the command to have them bear witness rejects, for its consequence is: "Then two others whose nature is detention and swearing," even if the completion of the approximation is possible considering the restriction of suspicion regarding them, as the coming parenthesis indicates. The issue is clear.
The address is to those to whom the testament is made. It is said [it is addressed] to the heirs, and it is said [it is addressed] to the rulers and judges.
His saying, the Exalted: ( فيقسمان بالله ) - "Then they shall both swear by Allah"
This is conjoined to "you restrain them" ( إن ارتبتم ) - "If you doubt"
That is, if you doubt their truthfulness and that they have not monopolized any of the estate. The sentence is conditional, its answer omitted due to the indication of what preceded regarding detention and swearing. The condition with its omitted answer is parenthetical between the oath and its answer, namely His saying: ( لا نشتري به ثمنا ) - "We will not sell it for a price"
It has been brought from His side, the Exalted, to alert that detention and swearing are restricted to the state of doubt. This is not of the category where an oath and a condition meet, so the mention of the answer of the former suffices for the answer of the latter, as is usually the case, because that only occurs when the answer of the former stands in place of the answer of the latter due to the unity of their content, as in your saying: "By Allah, if you come to me, I will honor you." There is no doubt about its impossibility here, because the oath and its answer are the words of the two witnesses, and the conditional [clause], as you know, is from His side, the Exalted and Majestic. One should not imagine that in (if) here is wisilah (connector), because along with the wa (and) being necessary for it, the meaning is not upon it.
The addition is for specification or for the slightest connection, and the sentence is conjoined to "We will not sell it" and enters with it into the sphere of the oath. It was narrated from Ash-Sha'bi that he paused at shahadatin with a ha, then began with Allahi with a long vowel and a genitive case due to the omission of the oath particle and the substitution of the interrogative particle for it. This is not from the category of omitting the preposition while keeping its action, and it is anomalous, like the poet's saying: "Kulaib gestured with the palms of his hands..." because that is where there is no substitution. In the Majestic Name, the interrogative hamza is a substitute for the omitted particle. Regarding whether the interrogative is used with a substitute, there are two opinions. It was narrated from him—and likewise from Al-Hasan, may God be pleased with him, Yahya ibn Umar, Ibn Jarir, and others—Allahi without a long vowel. In that, there are two possibilities:
First, that the omission is without substitution, and thus it is contrary to analogy. Second, that the aforementioned hamza is the interrogative hamza, and it is a hamzat qat’ that substituted for the particle, but it was not lengthened. This is better than claiming anomaly. Hence, it was chosen in Ad-Durr al-Masun. It was recited with tanwin of shahadatin, joining the hamza, and placing the name of Allah in the accusative case without a long vowel. Abu al-Baqa explained this as being in the accusative by an implicit verb of oath: ( إنا إذا لمن الآثمين ) - "Indeed, we would then be among the sinners"
That is, if we did that and concealed. The turning from athimun (sinners) to what was mentioned is for emphasis. It was read lamal-athimin with the omission of the hamza and placing its vowel on the lam and assimilating the nun into it.
