Tafsir of Al-Ma'idah 5:107

(If it is found), that is: if it is uncovered. It is said, "A man 'athara upon a thing, 'uthuran," when he discovers it. Al-Ghawri said: You say 'athartu when you discover that which was hidden. This is a metaphor based on the primary usage: "He 'athara," when one stumbles. This is because the one who stumbles looks to the place of his stumbling, thus coming to know it and discovering it. Al-Layth said: The verbal noun of 'athara in the sense of "to discover" is 'uthur, and in the sense of "to stumble" it is 'ithar. In this case, the claim of metaphor is obscured, as the difference in the verbal noun contradicts it; thus, that claim cannot stand except upon the view of al-Raghib regarding the unity of the two verbal nouns. In the Qamus: "'Athara," like daraba, nasara, ‘alima, and karuma, has the nouns 'athar, 'uthayr, or i‘tharan, meaning "to stumble." And al-'uthur is "discovery," like al-'athar. The apparent meaning of this is that there is no metaphor. It is also understood from this that there is unity in some verbal nouns, so understand.

The meaning is: If it is discovered, after the taking of oaths, (that they), i.e., the two swearing witnesses, (have incurred sin), that is: if they have done what requires it by way of distortion and concealment, such that something of the estate appeared in their hands and they claimed entitlement to it by some means. Al-Jubba'i said: The speech is based on the omission of a genitive, meaning: "They have incurred the punishment of sin."

(Then two others), that is: then two other men. This is the subject, and its predicate is His saying, the Exalted: (stand in their place). The fa is for logical consequence, and it is one of the constructions of initiating a sentence with an indefinite noun. There is no obstacle to separating the subject from its modifier—which is His saying, the Glorified: (from those who have the prior right from among those against whom they [the first two] incurred sin)—with the predicate. It is said: It [the predicate] is the predicate of an omitted subject, meaning: "Then the [subsequent] witnesses are two others," and the sentence "(they) stand" is its modifier, and the prepositional phrase is another modifier. Abu al-Baqa' permitted it to be a state from the pronoun in "(they) stand." It is also said: It is the agent of an omitted verb. It is also said: It is the agent of an omitted verb, meaning: "Let two others testify," and what follows it is a modifier for it. It is also said: It is a subject whose predicate is the prepositional phrase, and the verbal sentence is its modifier. The pronoun in "their place" in all these viewpoints refers to those who "incurred sin." The intent by "their place" is not the performance of the testimony they undertook—which they did not fulfill as is—but rather the place of detention and the taking of oaths.

(Incurred), in the active voice, is the reading of ‘Asim in the transmission of Hafs from him; and it is how ‘Ali—may Allah ennoble his face—Ibn ‘Abbas, and Ubayy—may Allah be pleased with them—read it. Its agent is (the two with the prior right). The intent by the relative pronoun is the family of the deceased, and by "the two with the prior right" are the two closest to him, his two heirs, who have the most right to the testimony due to their closeness and their knowledge. They are, in reality, the two others who stand in the place of those who incurred sin, except that the explicit noun was put in the place of the pronoun to alert [the reader] to their description with this quality.

The object of (incurred) is omitted, and they differed in its estimation: Al-Zamakhshari estimated it as "that they [the heirs] strip them [the two witnesses] of the standing for testimony to reveal the lying of the liars through them"; Abu al-Baqa' estimated it as "their [the heirs'] property"; and Ibn ‘Atiyyah estimated it as "their wealth and estate." The Imam said: The intent by "the two with the prior right" are the two executors whose betrayal was revealed, and the reason for their "prior right" is that the deceased appointed them as executors. Thus, the meaning of "against whom the two with the prior right incurred sin" is: "The two executors who were found to have committed betrayal committed treason against their [the heirs'] wealth and wronged them." Upon this view, there is no necessity for the claim of an omitted object.

The majority read (incurred) as passive. They differed regarding the referent of its pronoun. Most say it is the "sin," and the intent by the relative pronoun is the heirs, because the incurring of sin "against them" is a metonymy for the wrongdoing done "against them." There is no doubt that those who were wronged and against whom the sin was committed are the heirs. It is also said: It is "the appointment as executor"; it is said: "the will," due to its interpretation as mentioned; it is said: "the wealth"; and it is said: "the action" is attributed to the prepositional phrase.

They similarly differed in the parsing of the nominative case of (the two with the prior right): it is said: it is the subject, and its predicate is "two others," meaning "the two with the prior right to the deceased's affairs are two others." It is said: it is the opposite. This was objected to on the grounds that it contains an informative statement about an indefinite noun using a definite noun, which is forbidden by consensus in such instances. It is said: it is the predicate of an omitted subject, meaning "they are the two others," by way of a self-evident initiation. It is said: it is a substitute for "two others." It is said: it is an appositive (‘atf bayan), and it requires that the appositive and the described coincide in definiteness and indefiniteness, even though they conditioned this—to the point of permitting the indefinite being an appositive to a definite. Yes, it is reported from a few that they did not require it. It is said: it is a substitute for the agent of "(they) stand." The fact that the entity replaced is treated as if it were omitted is not the case in all aspects, such that the sentence functioning as a predicate or modifier must be void of a pronoun. Moreover, if it were removed and this stood in its place, it would be the placing of an explicit noun in the place of a pronoun, thus acting as a connector. It is said: it is a modifier for "two others," though it involves describing an indefinite noun with a definite one. Al-Akhfash permitted this here because the indefinite noun, by the modifier, became close to being definite. It is said: this is the reverse of:

And I pass by the base man who insults me For he is...

...where he treats the definite as indefinite. This is more worthy of interpretation: the indefinite is treated as definite, or made as if it were so due to the description. It is possible, as some investigators have said, that it is from this [category] by making "the two with the prior right," due to their being unspecified, like the indefinite.

Abu ‘Ali al-Farisi held that it is the deputy agent (of the passive verb "incurred"). The intent according to this is "the appointment of the two with the prior right from among them for testimony," as al-Zamakhshari said, or "the sin of the two with the prior right," as was said. It is the dual of al-awla, its alif turned into a ya' according to him. Regarding the ‘ala in (against them), there are perspectives: the first is that it is in its literal sense; the second is that it means fi (in); and the third is that both mean min (from). "Incurred" was interpreted as "demanding the right," "by right," and "overcame."

Ya'qub, Khalaf, Hamzah, and ‘Asim, in the transmission of Abu Bakr from him, read: (the closest ones), with the verb in the passive. Al-awlayin is the plural of awwal (first), the opposite of akhir (last). It is in the genitive case as a modifier of "those," or a substitute for it, or for the pronoun in "against them," or in the accusative for praise. The meaning of "prior right" is precedence over strangers in testimony. It is also said: precedence in mention, due to their inclusion in "O you who have believed." Al-Hasan read (the first two) in the nominative, which is as we presented regarding "the two with the prior right." It was also read as "the first two" in the dual and accusative. Ibn Sirin read (the two closest) with two ya's, as a dual of awla in the accusative. It was also read (the closest) with a quiescent waw and an open lam, as the plural of awla, like a‘lin; its parsing is manifest.

(Then they shall swear by Allah) is an appositive to "(they) stand," and the causality is manifest. His saying, the Glorified: (our testimony is more truthful than their testimony) is the answer to the oath. The intent by "testimony" according to many, including Ibn ‘Abbas—may Allah be pleased with them—is the oath, as in His saying, the Almighty: "The testimony of one of them is four testimonies by Allah." The oath is called "testimony" because, as al-Tabrisi said, the oath is like testimony regarding that which one swears to, that it is so. Meaning: Our oath that those two are liars in what they claimed of entitlement, while being truthful and authentic in itself, is more worthy of acceptance than their oath, which is lying in itself, because it has become apparent to the people that they incurred sin, while our oath is free from doubt and suspicion. The superlative form is only because of the possibility of accepting their oath in the aggregate, considering their truthfulness in claiming ownership of what appeared in their hands. It is said: The testimony is in its commonly understood meaning when mentioned absolutely. Another view from some investigators will come, if Allah wills.

His saying, the Almighty: (And we have not transgressed) is an appositive to the answer [of the oath], meaning: We have not exceeded the truth in our testimony, and we have not transgressed against them by nullifying their right. His saying, the Exalted: (Indeed, we would then be among the wrongdoers) is a new, preparatory statement for what precedes it, meaning: Indeed, if we transgressed in what was mentioned, we would be among those who wrong themselves by exposing them to the wrath of Allah and His punishment, or among those who place the right in other than its place.

The meaning of the two verses according to more than one commentator is that when a dying person wishes to make a will, he should have two just men from his own religion or lineage testify. If he does not find them, such as if he is on a journey, then two others from among others [should testify]. If a suspicion arises regarding their truthfulness, they must swear to the truth of what they say, with intensification in the timing. If it is discovered that they lied through a sign, two others from the family of the deceased shall swear. Some claimed that the ruling is abrogated if the two are witnesses; therefore, the witness does not swear, nor is his oath countered by the oath of the heir. It is said: The taking of oaths was not abrogated but is conditioned upon suspicion. It is reported from ‘Ali—may Allah ennoble his face—that he would have the witness and the narrator swear if he suspected them. In some books of the Hanafis, it is stated that if a witness finds no one to certify him, it is permissible to have him swear as a precaution; this is contrary to what is currently issued as a fatwa, as is explained in its place. Some also claimed abrogation on the assumption that the "witnesses in travel" are non-Muslims, because the testimony of a disbeliever against a Muslim is absolutely not accepted. Ibn Jarir narrated the tradition of abrogation from Ibn ‘Abbas—may Allah be pleased with them. Some said: There is no abrogation, and they permitted the testimony of the dhimmi (protected subject) against a Muslim in this scenario. It is reported that Abu Musa al-Ash'ari, when he was governor of Kufa, ruled in the presence of the Companions by the testimony of two dhimmis after having them swear regarding the will of a Muslim during travel. Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal went to this view. Others said: The two are executors, and the ruling of having them swear if the heirs suspect them is not abrogated. What the verse provided regarding the return of the oath to the heirs is not from the perspective that they are plaintiffs—for the betrayal of the executors had become manifest, and the oath was returned to them, contrary to al-Shafi‘i—but from the perspective that they became the defendants, due to the inversion of the claim; for the executor, who was the defendant at first, became a claimant of ownership, and the heirs deny this.

This is indicated by what was extracted by al-Bukhari in Al-Tarikh, al-Tirmidhi—who graded it hasan—Ibn Jarir, Ibn al-Mundhir, and a host of others from Ibn ‘Abbas—may Allah be pleased with them—who said: "A man from Banu Sahm went out with Tamim al-Dari and ‘Adi bin Bada' (it is said 'Nada' with a nun), and the Sahmi died in a land where there was no Muslim. When they brought his estate, they missed a silver cup inlaid with gold. The Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—had them swear by Allah that they had neither concealed it nor known of it. Then the cup was found in Mecca, and it was said, 'We bought it from Tamim and ‘Adi.' So two men from the relatives of the Sahmi stood up and swore by Allah that their testimony was more truthful than their testimony, and that the cup belonged to their companion, and the cup was taken. Concerning them, 'O you who have believed...' was revealed."

Some investigators claimed that the testimony here cannot be in its commonly understood meaning in any way, nor is it imaginable, because their testimony would either be against the deceased—which has no basis after his death and the transfer of the right to the heirs who are present—or against the heir who is litigating; and how can an adversary testify against his adversary? Thus, interpretation is necessary. He mentioned that the apparent meaning is that it should be carried in His saying, "testimony among you," to mean "presence" or "procurement," i.e., "If death comes to the traveler, let him bring those to whom he bequeaths the delivery of his wealth to his heir, a Muslim; if he does not find one, then a disbeliever." The precaution is that they should be two. When they bring what they have, and a suspicion arises of the concealment of some of it, they should be made to swear, because they are entrusted, validated by their oath. If it is found what they betrayed, and they claim they acquired it through purchase or the like, and they have no proof for that, the defendant shall swear to the lack of knowledge regarding what they claimed of ownership, and that it was the property of their deceased relative, and that we do not know of its transfer from his ownership. The second "testimony" means "observed knowledge" or what is equivalent, because testimony is observation; thus, using it metaphorically for sound knowledge is close. The third testimony is either in this meaning or in the meaning of "oath." Upon this—and it is one of the things that Allah has lavished upon me by the blessing of His speech, the Glorified—there is no abrogation in the verse and no problem. All that they mentioned is forced interpretation that did not clear the cloudiness for the taste of the taster. The reason for the revelation and the action of the Messenger—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—clarifies what was mentioned. End.

Perhaps the specification of the two who swear to the truthfulness of their testimony, as was said, is for the specific event. Otherwise, if the heir is one, he swears; if there are multiple, the multiple swear, as is explained in the books of jurisprudence. What was mentioned, that the reason for revelation, etc., clarifies what was decided in it, contains some obscurity, for it is not in the report that the heirs swore to the "lack of knowledge," and in others there is a text for swearing to the "truth." It has been reported in a report longer than the preceding one that ‘Amr ibn al-‘As and al-Muttalib ibn Abi Wada‘a—the Sahmis—stood and swore by Allah, the Glorified, after the afternoon, that they, Tamim and ‘Adi, lied and betrayed. Yes, al-Tirmidhi said in Al-Jami‘ after narrating that report: "It is a gharib (strange) hadith, and its chain of transmission is not authentic." Also, there is obscurity in carrying the testimony to something of what he mentioned in His saying, "And we shall not conceal the testimony of Allah." He himself claimed that carrying the testimony to the "oath" is far-fetched because when it is mentioned absolutely, it is the commonly understood meaning. So reflect. Al-Zajjaj said: "This verse is among the most problematic in the Quran." Al-Wahidi said: "It is reported from ‘Umar—may Allah be pleased with him—that he said: 'This verse is the most difficult of the rulings in this surah.'" The Imam said: "The commentators agreed that this verse is at the utmost difficulty in parsing, arrangement, and ruling." The investigator al-Taftazani said: "They agreed that this verse is the most difficult in the Quran in ruling, parsing, and arrangement." Al-Shihab said: "Know that they said: 'There is not in the Quran anything greater in difficulty regarding ruling, parsing, and interpretation than this verse and the one after it,' meaning 'O you who have believed...' until His saying 'If it is found...' to the point that they authored separate books about it. They said: 'Despite that, no one emerged from its responsibility.'" Al-Tabrisi mentioned that the two verses are among the most intricate of the Quran in ruling, meaning, and parsing, and he boasted of what he brought regarding them, though he brought nothing. [This is] in addition to other statements of theirs. And Glory be to the All-Knowing of the realities of His speech.