Tafseer of The Table · Al-Maaida · 5:107
But if it is found that those two were guilty of perjury, let two others stand in their place [who are] foremost [in claim] from those who have a lawful right. And let them swear by Allah, "Our testimony is truer than their testimony, and we have not transgressed. Indeed, we would then be of the wrongdoers."
Important: The Arabic source text is always authoritative. This translation is a study aid and has not been verified by scholars — do not use it as a basis for religious proof or for deriving rulings (ahkam). When in doubt, always consult the Arabic text and a qualified scholar.
Surah Al-Māʾidah (5:107): فإن عثر على أنهما استحقا إثما فآخران يقومان مقامهما من الذين استحق عليهم الأوليان (But if it is discovered that those two have incurred a sin, then two others take their place from among those against whom [the sin was committed], the two nearest of kin.)
The explanation of the saying of the Exalted: فإن عثر على أنهما استحقا إثما فآخران يقومان مقامهما من الذين استحق عليهم الأوليان. The Exalted — may His remembrance be exalted — means by His saying fa-in ʿuthira (but if it is discovered): if something concerning those two comes to light or becomes manifest. The root meaning of al-ʿathr is: stumbling upon something and falling upon it. To this belongs their expression "the finger of so-and-so ʿatharat against such a thing," that is: when he stumbled against something, struck it, and fell upon it. To this also belongs the verse of al-Aʿshā Maymūn ibn Qays:
bi-dhāti lawthin ʿafarnātin idhā ʿatharat fa-l-taʿsu adnā lahā min an aqūla laʿā
By his word "ʿatharat" he means: the iron shoe of her hoof struck a stone or something else. Subsequently this word is used for everything one comes upon concerning a matter that was previously hidden, as in their expression "ʿathartu ʿalā l-ghazli bi-akharatin, fa-lam tadaʿ bi-najdin qaradatan" (in the end I stumbled upon the spinning-work), in the sense of: I fell upon it.
As for His saying ʿalā annahumā staḥaqqā ithman (that those two have incurred a sin): the Exalted — may His remembrance be exalted — says: if it comes to light, concerning the two executors whose case Allah mentions in this verse, after their oath by Allah — "we shall not purchase any price for our oaths, even if it concerns a near relative, and we shall not conceal the testimony of Allah" — that they have incurred a sin. He says: that by the oaths with which they swore they have merited a sin, and that is when it comes to light that they had lied in their oaths by Allah "we have not embezzled anything, nor altered anything, nor changed anything," and that they did indeed embezzle something of the property of the deceased, or altered or falsified his bequest, and thereby committed a sin through their oath by their Lord. fa-ākharāni yaqūmāni maqāmahumā (then two others take their place). He says: then at that moment there take their place, from among the heirs of the deceased, the two nearest of kin to whom the bequest had been entrusted.
In accordance with what we have said about this, spoke the scholars of interpretation (ahl al-taʾwīl). A mention of who said that:
10084 — Muḥammad ibn Bashshār related to us, he said: Muḥammad ibn Jaʿfar related to us, he said: Shuʿba related to us, on the authority of Abū Bishr, on the authority of Saʿīd ibn Jubayr concerning or two others from outside your circle: he said: when someone is in a land of polytheism (shirk) and entrusts his bequest to two men of the People of the Book, those two swear after the afternoon prayer (al-ʿaṣr); and when after their oath it comes to light that they have embezzled something, then the nearest of kin of the deceased swear that it was such and such, and then they obtain [their right].
10085 — Ibn Bashshār related to us, he said: Muḥammad ibn Jaʿfar related to us, he said: Shuʿba related to us, on the authority of Mughīra, on the authority of Ibrāhīm, with a similar import.
10086 — Al-Muthannā related to me, he said: ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ṣāliḥ related to us, he said: Muʿāwiya ibn Ṣāliḥ related to me, on the authority of ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭalḥa, on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās concerning His saying or two others from outside your circle: from outside the Muslims, whom you detain after the prayer. If doubt arises concerning their testimony, they are put under oath after the prayer by Allah: "we have not purchased any paltry price for our testimony." If then the nearest of kin discover that the two unbelievers have lied in their testimony, two men of the nearest of kin step forward and swear by Allah: "indeed, the testimony of the unbelievers is void, and we have not transgressed." That is His saying but if it is discovered that those two have incurred a sin. He says: if it is discovered that the two unbelievers have lied, then two others take their place. He says: from the nearest of kin, and they swear by Allah: "indeed, the testimony of the unbelievers is void, and we have not transgressed." Then the testimony of the unbelievers is rejected and the testimony of the nearest of kin is admitted.
10087 — Bishr related to us, he said: Yazīd related to us, he said: Saʿīd related to us, on the authority of Qatāda concerning but if it is discovered that those two have incurred a sin: that is, an embezzlement is discovered concerning the two, namely that they lied or concealed.
The scholars of interpretation differed concerning the reason why Allah — may His remembrance be exalted — imposed upon the two witnesses the taking of the oath and then transferred it, after it was discovered that they had incurred a sin, onto the two others. Some of them said: He imposed the oath upon them only when doubt arose concerning their testimony regarding the deceased's bequest, namely that he had bequeathed something which according to the ruling of Islam is not permitted, that is, that they testified that he had bequeathed his entire property, or had stipulated that one of his children be favored above the others with a portion of his property. A mention of who said that:
10088 — Muḥammad ibn Saʿd related to me, he said: my father related to me, he said: my uncle related to me, he said: my father related to me, on the authority of his father, on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās: O you who believe, the testimony among you when death approaches one of you up to His saying two upright men from among you, from the People of Islam, or two others from outside your circle, from outside the People of Islam, if you travel through the land up to: then they both swear by Allah. He says: then those two swear by Allah after the prayer. If then they swear concerning something that contradicts what Allah the Exalted has sent down as an obligation — namely those two who do not belong to the People of Islam — then two others take their place from among the nearest of kin of the deceased, and they swear by Allah: "our companion would never have bequeathed such a thing," or: "indeed, those two are liars, and our testimony has more right than their testimony."
10089 — Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥusayn related to me, he said: Aḥmad ibn al-Mufaḍḍal related to us, he said: Asbāṭ related to us, on the authority of al-Suddī, he said: the two men are stationed after their prayer in their religion and swear by Allah: "we shall not purchase any price thereby, even if it concerns a near relative, and we shall not conceal the testimony of Allah — indeed, then we would be among the sinners — indeed, your companion bequeathed this, and indeed, this is his estate!" When they have testified and the imam admits their testimony according to what they have testified, he says to the nearest of kin of the man: "go, travel through the land and inquire about those two. If you find embezzlement with them, or someone who accuses them, we shall reject their testimony!" Then the nearest of kin depart and inquire. If they find someone who accuses them, or the two are not held trustworthy among them, or it is discovered that they embezzled something of the property which they found with them, then the nearest of kin return and testify before the imam and swear by Allah: "indeed, our testimony — that those two are embezzlers, suspect in their religion and accused — has more right than their testimony concerning what they testified, and we have not transgressed." That is His saying but if it is discovered that those two have incurred a sin, then two others take their place from among those against whom [the sin was committed], the two nearest of kin.
Others said: no, the oath was imposed upon the two witnesses only because they claimed that he had bequeathed them a portion of the property. And it is transferred onto the two others only for that reason, when their claim is doubted. A mention of who said that:
10090 — ʿImrān ibn Mūsā al-Qazzāz related to us, he said: ʿAbd al-Wārith ibn Saʿd related to us, he said: Isḥāq ibn Suwayd related to us, on the authority of Yaḥyā ibn Yaʿmar concerning His saying you detain them after the prayer, and they both swear by Allah: he said: they claimed that he had bequeathed them such and such, but if it is discovered that those two have incurred a sin, that is, through their claim in their own favor, then two others take their place from among those against whom [the sin was committed], the two nearest of kin: "indeed, our companion bequeathed you nothing of what you claim."
The correct view concerning this, in our opinion, is that the oath was imposed upon the two witnesses on the basis of the accusation by the heirs of the deceased against them regarding what the deceased had handed over to them of his property, and their charge against them of embezzling property of a known amount; and that it was then transferred onto the heirs upon the appearance of the doubt which the heirs harbored against them, and the validity of the accusation against them by the testimony of a witness against the two of them or against one of them. Then the heir at that moment swears, together with the testimony of the witness against the two of them or one of them — which merely confirmed his charge when he verified his right — or [there is] the acknowledgment by the witnesses of a part of what the heir had brought against them or of the whole of it; and then [comes] their claim regarding that which they acknowledged was part of the property of the deceased — a claim which is accepted only with proof (bayyina) — and they have no proof for that claim. Then the oath is at that moment transferred onto the nearest of kin of the deceased.
We have said that this is the most correct of the views concerning this only because we know of no ruling among the rulings of Islam in which the oath is obligatory upon the witnesses — whether their testimony is doubted or not — such that the ruling in this testimony would be like it. And we have not found this established by a report from the Messenger, may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him, nor by the consensus (ijmāʿ) of the community, for the putting of the witnesses under oath in this place belongs to the ruling of Allah the Exalted, so that it is an accepted foundational principle (aṣl). And a view that is neither a foundational principle nor analogous to a foundational principle, in a matter over which the community disputes, is clearly unsound. And when this view is unsound for what we have mentioned, then the view that the two witnesses were put under oath because they claimed regarding the deceased a bequest in their own favor of a portion of his property is even more unsound, because there is no disagreement among the scholars that it belongs to the ruling of Allah the Exalted that, when a claimant should claim a bequest in the property of a deceased person, the judgment is the judgment of the heirs of the one who rejects the alleged bequest concerning his property, together with their oaths, and not the judgment of the one who claims that together with his oath — and this when the claimant has no proof.
Allah the Exalted in this verse placed the oath upon the witnesses when they are doubted, and He transferred the oaths from them onto the nearest of kin of the deceased only when it is discovered that the witnesses have incurred a sin in their oaths. Thereby is known the unsoundness of the view of the one who says: the oath was imposed upon the witnesses because of their claim in their own favor of a bequest which the deceased had bequeathed them from his property. In addition to that, what we have said about this on the authority of the scholars of interpretation is the interpretation by which the reports have been transmitted on the authority of some of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him — that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him, judged accordingly when this verse was sent down, between those concerning whom and on whose account it was sent down. A mention of who said that:
10091 — Ibn Wakīʿ related to me, he said: Yaḥyā ibn Ādam related to us, on the authority of Yaḥyā ibn Abī Zāʾida, on the authority of Muḥammad ibn Abī l-Qāsim, on the authority of ʿAbd al-Malik ibn Saʿīd ibn Jubayr, on the authority of his father, on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās, he said: a man of the Banū Sahm set out with Tamīm al-Dārī and ʿAdī ibn Baddāʾ. The Sahmite died in a land where there was no Muslim. When those two arrived with his estate, a silver cup, inlaid with gold, was missing. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him, put them under oath. Subsequently the cup was found in Mecca, and they said: "we bought it from Tamīm al-Dārī and ʿAdī ibn Baddāʾ." Then two men of the nearest of kin of the Sahmite stepped forward and swore: "indeed, our testimony has more right than their testimony, and the cup belongs to their companion." He said: and concerning them was sent down: O you who believe, the testimony among you.
10092 — Al-Ḥasan ibn Abī Shuʿayb al-Ḥarrānī related to us, he said: Muḥammad ibn Salama al-Ḥarrānī related to us, he said: Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq related to us, on the authority of Abū l-Naḍr, on the authority of Zādhān, the freedman of Umm Hāniʾ bint Abī Ṭālib, on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās, on the authority of Tamīm al-Dārī concerning this verse: O you who believe, the testimony among you when death approaches one of you. He said: the people are free of it, except myself and ʿAdī ibn Baddāʾ. The two of us were Christians who traveled to al-Shām before Islam. We went to al-Shām for our trade, and there came to us a freedman of the Banū Sahm, named Budayl ibn Abī Maryam, with merchandise. With him was a silver cup which he intended for the king, and that was the most precious of his merchandise. He fell ill and entrusted his bequest to the two of us and charged us to deliver what he left behind to his family. Tamīm said: when he died, we took that cup and sold it for a thousand dirhams, and ʿAdī ibn Baddāʾ and I divided [it]. When we arrived at his family, we handed over to them what we had with us, but they missed the cup and asked us about it. We said: "he left nothing other than this, and nothing else was handed over to us." Tamīm said: when, after the arrival of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him, in Medina, I embraced Islam, I felt guilty about that. I went to his family, informed them of the story and paid them five hundred dirhams, and I informed them that with my companion was the same amount. They brought him before the Messenger of Allah, may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him. He asked them for proof, but they did not find it. Thereupon he commanded them to put him under oath with that which is held weighty in his religion, and he swore. Then Allah the Exalted sent down: O you who believe, the testimony among you up to His saying that oaths be brought back after their oaths. Thereupon ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ and another man of theirs stepped forward and swore, and the five hundred [dirhams] were taken back from ʿAdī ibn Baddāʾ.
10093 — Al-Qāsim related to us: al-Ḥusayn related to us, he said: Abū Sufyān related to us, on the authority of Maʿmar, on the authority of Qatāda and Ibn Sīrīn and others. He said: and al-Ḥajjāj related to us, on the authority of Ibn Jurayj, on the authority of ʿIkrima — the reports of some intermingled with those of others — O you who believe, the testimony among you the verse. He said: ʿAdī and Tamīm al-Dārī — and they were both of Lakhm — were two Christians who came to Mecca to trade in the time of barbarism (al-jāhiliyya). When the Messenger of Allah, may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him, emigrated, they shifted their trade to Medina. Ibn Abī Māriya, the freedman of ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ, came to Medina, on his way to al-Shām as a trader. They set out together, until, when they were somewhere along the way, Ibn Abī Māriya fell ill. He wrote his bequest with his own hand and then placed it in his baggage, and then entrusted [the bequest] to those two. When he died, the two of them opened his baggage and took what they wanted. Subsequently they arrived at his family and handed over what they wanted. Then his family opened his baggage and found his writing, his disposition and what he had taken with him, and they missed something and asked those two about it. They said: "this is what we received for him and what was handed over to us!" His family said to them: "did he sell or buy anything?" They said: "no." They said: "did he consume anything of his merchandise?" They said: "no." They said: "did he conduct any trade?" They said: "no." They said: "indeed, we are missing a part of it!" Then they accused those two and brought them before the Messenger of Allah, may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him. Thereupon this verse was sent down: O you who believe, the testimony among you when death approaches one of you up to His saying indeed, then we would be among the sinners. He said: the Messenger of Allah, may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him, commanded them to be put under oath after the afternoon prayer (al-ʿaṣr): "by Allah, besides Whom there is no god, we received for him nothing other than this and we have concealed nothing!" He said: we remained as long as Allah willed that we remain; subsequently a silver vessel was discovered with them, engraved and overlaid with gold. His family said: "this is from his merchandise." They said: "yes, but we bought it from him and forgot to mention it when we swore, and we did not want to expose ourselves as liars!" Then they brought the matter before the Messenger of Allah, may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him, and the other verse was sent down: but if it is discovered that those two have incurred a sin, then two others take their place from among those against whom [the sin was committed], the two nearest of kin. Thereupon the Messenger of Allah, may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him, commanded two men of the family of the deceased to swear concerning what those two had concealed and hidden, and so they obtained [their right]. Subsequently Tamīm al-Dārī embraced Islam and gave the pledge of allegiance to the Prophet, may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him, and he used to say: "Allah and His Messenger have spoken the truth; I took the vessel."
10094 — Yūnus related to me, he said: Ibn Wahb informed us, he said: Ibn Zayd said concerning His saying O you who believe, the testimony among you when death approaches one of you at the time of the bequest, two upright men from among you, the whole verse: he said: this was something from the time when Islam existed only in Medina, while the whole land was unbelief (kufr). Therefore Allah the Exalted said: O you who believe, the testimony among you when death approaches one of you at the time of the bequest, two upright men from among you, of the Muslims, or two others from outside your circle, from outside the People of Islam, if you travel through the land and the calamity of death befalls you. He said: a man used to set out on a journey while the Arabs were people of unbelief, and it could happen that he died on his journey and then entrusted his bequest to two men of them. Then those two swear by Allah, if you doubt their case, when the heirs say: "with our companion was such and such," that those two swear by Allah: "with him was nothing other than this which we have said." but if it is discovered that those two have incurred a sin: namely that they had sworn concerning something false and mendacious. then two others take their place from among those against whom [the sin was committed], the two nearest of kin of the deceased; then they both swear by Allah: indeed, our testimony has more right than their testimony, and we have not transgressed; indeed, then we would be among the wrongdoers: we have mentioned that with our companion was such and such, [but] these said: "it was not with him." He said: subsequently a part of the merchandise was discovered with them, and when that was discovered, the oath (al-qasāma) was brought back onto his heir, and the two of them swore, and subsequently these two stood surety. Allah the Exalted said: that is more conducive that they give the testimony in its proper form, or fear that oaths be brought back so that their oaths become void, and fear Allah and listen, and Allah does not guide the corrupt people: the liars who swear concerning a lie.
And Ibn Zayd said: Tamīm al-Dārī arrived with a companion of his, and they were both at that time polytheists (mushrik) and had not yet embraced Islam. They reported that a man had entrusted his bequest to them, and they brought his estate with them. Then the nearest of kin of the deceased said: "with our companion was such and such," and with him had been a silver jug. The two others said: "with him was nothing other than what we have brought." Thereupon they swore after the prayer. Subsequently it was discovered with them, and the jug was with them. When it was discovered with them, the oath (al-qasāma) was brought back onto the nearest of kin of the deceased concerning what they had said about their companion, and subsequently the one over whom the two nearest of kin had sworn stood surety for it.
10095 — Al-Rabīʿ related to us, he said: al-Shāfiʿī related to us, he said: Saʿīd ibn Muʿādh ibn Mūsā al-Jaʿfarī informed us, on the authority of Bukayr ibn Maʿrūf, on the authority of Muqātil ibn Ḥayyān. Bakr said: Muqātil said: I derived this interpretation from Mujāhid, al-Ḥasan and al-Ḍaḥḥāk concerning the word of Allah two upright men from among you: that two Christian men of the People of Dārīn — the one a Tamīmite and the other a Yemeni — whose companion was a freedman of Quraysh, were on a trading journey. They embarked upon the sea, and with the Qurashite was a known property which his nearest of kin knew: vessels, garments and money. The Qurashite fell ill and drew up his bequest in favor of the two Dārīs, and he died. The two Dārīs received the property and the bequest and handed it over to the nearest of kin of the deceased, and they brought a part of his property with them. The people contested the smallness of the property and said to the two Dārīs: "indeed, our companion set out with more property than what you have brought us. Did he sell or buy anything and invest therein? Or did his illness last long so that he spent on himself?" They said: "no." They said: "then you have deceived us!" They seized the property and brought their case before the Prophet, may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him. Then Allah the Exalted sent down: O you who believe, the testimony among you up to the end of the verse. When it was sent down that those two should be detained after the prayer, the Prophet, may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him, commanded, and those two stood up after the prayer and swore by Allah, the Lord of the heavens: "your freedman left nothing of the property except what we have brought you, and indeed, we do not purchase with our oaths any paltry price of the worldly, even if it concerns a near relative, and we do not conceal the testimony of Allah — indeed, then we would be among the sinners!" When they had sworn, they were released. Subsequently the people found, after that, a vessel from the vessels of the deceased, and the two Dārīs were taken to task, and they said: "we bought it from him during his lifetime!" But they lied. Then the proof (al-bayyina) was imposed upon them, but they could not provide it. They brought that before the Prophet, may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him, and Allah the Exalted sent down: but if it is discovered. He says: if it is discovered that those two have incurred a sin — namely the two Dārīs, if they concealed a right — then two others of the nearest of kin of the deceased take their place from among those against whom [the sin was committed], the two nearest of kin, and they swear by Allah: "indeed, the property of our companion was such and such, and indeed, that which is claimed from the two Dārīs is a [legitimate] right, and we have not transgressed; indeed, then we would be among the wrongdoers." This is the saying of the two witnesses, the nearest of kin of the deceased. that is more conducive that they give the testimony in its proper form: namely the two Dārīs and the people, so that they not return to anything of the like.
Abū Jaʿfar said: in that which we have mentioned of these reports which we have transmitted, there is a clear indication of the correctness of what we have said, namely that the ruling of Allah the Exalted concerning the oath upon the two witnesses in this place is only because of the charge of his heirs against those to whom the bequest was entrusted concerning embezzlement regarding what the deceased had handed over to them of his property, or something else from which the claimant thereof is not absolved except by an oath; and that the oath is transferred onto the heirs of the deceased, by what Allah the Exalted has made obligatory, after it is discovered that the two witnesses have incurred a sin in their oaths, and subsequently their lie therein has come to light — if the people claimed something established to belong to the deceased, namely a claim of the transfer of ownership from him to those two by something through which properties are transferred, in which the oath rests upon the heirs of the deceased and not upon the claimant, and in which the proof rests upon the claimant; and [in these reports is] the unsoundness of what in this verse departs from the interpretation we have stated.
And in it is also the clear declaration that the meaning of the testimony (shahāda) which Allah the Exalted mentions at the beginning of this account is only the oath (al-yamīn), as Allah the Exalted said in other places: And those who accuse their wives and have no witnesses except themselves, the testimony of one of them is four testimonies by Allah that he is truly among the truthful. The testimony in this place means the oath, namely the saying of the speaker: "I testify by Allah that he is among the truthful." So too is the meaning of His saying the testimony among you: it is only an oath among you, when death approaches one of you at the time of the bequest, that two upright men from among you swear, if those two are entrusted with what he said and they are doubted, or [if] two others from outside the believers are entrusted and they are accused. That is because Allah the Exalted, when He mentioned the transfer of the oath from the two whose embezzlement came to light onto the two others, said: then they both swear by Allah: indeed, our testimony has more right than their testimony. It is known that the nearest of kin of the deceased, the claimants against the two whose embezzlement came to light, cannot be witnesses in the sense of the testimony by which in a judgment the right of a defendant is claimed for a claimant; for there is no ruling of Allah the Exalted known in which He judged in someone's favor on the basis of his claim and oath against a defendant, without proof or acknowledgment of the defendant and without an evidentiary means. Since, then, it is known that His saying indeed, our testimony has more right than their testimony only means: "our oath has more right than their oath," and since the oath of the two with whom it was discovered that they sinned is the testimony which Allah the Exalted mentioned in His saying more right than their testimony, it is proven that the meaning of His saying the testimony among you is the same as the testimony in His saying indeed, our testimony has more right than their testimony, and that it has the meaning of the oath.
The reciters differed over the reading of His saying من الذين استحق عليهم الأوليان. The reciters of the Ḥijāz, Iraq and al-Shām read it: "min alladhīna stuḥiqqa ʿalayhimu l-awlayāni" with a ḍamma on the tāʾ. And it is transmitted from ʿAlī, Ubayy ibn Kaʿb and al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī that they read it: min alladhīna staḥaqqa ʿalayhim with a fatḥa on the tāʾ. And they also differed over the reading of His saying الأوليان. The generality of the reciters of Medina, al-Shām and Basra read it al-awlayāni, and the generality of the reciters of Kufa read it "al-awwalīna." And it is transmitted from al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī that he used to read it: "min alladhīna stuḥiqqa ʿalayhimu l-awwalāni."
The most correct of the two readings in His saying "min alladhīna stuḥiqqa ʿalayhim" is the reading of the one who read it with a ḍamma on the tāʾ, because of the consensus of the proof of the reciters thereon, together with the agreement of the generality of the scholars of interpretation with the correctness of its interpretation, namely their consensus that its interpretation is: then two others of the family of the deceased, against whom the two to whom the property of the deceased was entrusted committed the sin, take the place of those who merited the sin through their embezzlement of what they embezzled of the property of the deceased. We have already mentioned the one who said that, or most of those who said it, and we shall mention the rest of them, if Allah the Exalted wills.
10096 — Muḥammad ibn ʿAmr related to me, he said: Abū ʿĀṣim related to us, he said: ʿĪsā related to us, on the authority of Ibn Abī Najīḥ, on the authority of Mujāhid concerning the word of Allah the Exalted the testimony among you: that the believer dies and at his death two Muslims or two unbelievers are present — no one other than two of them is present with him. If his heirs are satisfied with what was [handed over] to him immediately from his estate, then that is [sufficient]; and the two witnesses swear, if they are accused, that they are truthful. If then it is discovered, [and] a blemish of suspicion is found, then the two nearest of kin of the heirs swear, and they obtain [the right] and render void the oaths of the two witnesses.
I suppose that those who read it with a fatḥa on the tāʾ wished to direct its interpretation toward: then two others take their place — the place of the two entrusted ones with whom the embezzlement came to light in the oath and in the claim thereby against them upon their claim against them — from among those against whom [the sin of] the ones entrusted with the property, because of their embezzlement, [was established], to take their place in the oath and in the claim, [namely] the two nearest of kin of the deceased. So was the reading of the one from whom this reading is transmitted, and he read it: min alladhīna staḥaqqa with a fatḥa on the tāʾ, in the sense of: the two nearest of kin of the deceased and his property. That is a correct school and a reading whose correctness is not rejected; only we prefer the other, because of the consensus of the proof of the reciters thereon, together with its agreement with the interpretation we have mentioned from the Companions and the Followers (al-tābiʿūn).
10097 — Ibn Wakīʿ related to us, he said: Yaḥyā ibn Ādam related to us, on the authority of Isrāʾīl, on the authority of Abū Isḥāq, on the authority of Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān and Kurayb, on the authority of ʿAlī, that he used to read: "min alladhīna stuḥiqqa ʿalayhimu l-awlayāni."
10098 — Ibn Wakīʿ related to us, he said: Mālik ibn Ismāʿīl related to us, on the authority of Ḥammād ibn Zayd, on the authority of Wāʾil, the freedman of Abū ʿUbayd, on the authority of Yaḥyā ibn ʿAqīl, on the authority of Yaḥyā ibn Yaʿmar, on the authority of Ubayy ibn Kaʿb, that he used to read: "min alladhīna stuḥiqqa ʿalayhimu l-awlayāni."
As for the most correct of the readings in His saying al-awlayāni in my opinion: it is the reading of the one who read al-awlayāni, because of the correctness of its meaning. That is because the meaning is: then two others take their place, from among those against whom the sin was committed. Subsequently "the sin" was omitted and in its place "al-awlayāni" (the two nearest of kin) was put, because they are the ones against whom injustice and sin were committed through the embezzlement of the two who merited the sin and with whom the embezzlement was discovered concerning what the deceased had entrusted to them, as we have previously expounded concerning a similar practice of the Arabs: their omission of the verb with sufficing with the noun, and their omission of the noun with sufficing with the verb. To this belongs what we have mentioned in the interpretation of this account, namely His saying the testimony among you when death approaches one of you at the time of the bequest, two, the meaning of which is: that two witnesses; and as He said: then they both swear by Allah, if you doubt, we do not purchase any price thereby, where He said "thereby (bihi)," so that the hāʾ refers back to the name "Allah"; while the meaning is only: we do not purchase with our oath by Allah; and He sufficed with the reference back to the name Allah by mention, while what was meant was: we do not purchase with the oath by Allah, relying on the listener's understanding of its meaning, without mention of the name of the oath. So too was it sufficed with the mention of the two nearest of kin in place of the mention of the sin which the two embezzlers merited because of their embezzlement thereof, since the mention thereof had already taken place in a manner that exempted the listener, upon hearing it, from its repetition, namely His saying but if it is discovered that those two have incurred a sin.
As for those who read it "al-awwalīna," they intended by its meaning the rendering (al-tarjama) of "alladhīna," and they brought it forth in the manner of the plural, since "alladhīna" is a plural and stands in the genitive, since "alladhīna" stands in the genitive. That is an aspect of the interpretation; only something is called "first" (awwal) only when it has a "last" of which it is the first, and those against whom the sin was committed have no "last" of which they are the "first." On the contrary, the oaths of the two with whom it was discovered that they had incurred a sin came before the oaths of them [the nearest of kin]; they are thus more entitled to be "lasts" (ākharīna), since their oaths were later, than to be "firsts" (awwalīna), while their oaths are later than the [oaths] that preceded them.
As for the reading related from al-Ḥasan, it is a reading contrary to the reading of the proof of the reciters, an anomalous (shādhdha) reading, and its departure from their reading is sufficient as an indication of its distance from the correct.
The linguists differed over what puts the word al-awlayāni in the nominative when it is read thus. Some grammarians of Basra hold that it stands in the nominative as an apposition (badal) to "ākharāni" in His saying then two others take their place. He said: it was only permissible to make al-awlayāni — which is a definite [substantive] — an apposition to ākharāni — which is indefinite — because, when He said take their place from among those against whom [the sin was committed], it was as if He had delimited the two until they became in meaning like a definite [substantive]; therefore He said "al-awlayāni" and made the definite [substantive] follow it as an apposition. He said: and the like of this, which proceeds according to the meaning, is frequent. He cited as proof of the correctness of his statement the word of the rajaz poet:
ʿalayya yawma yamliku l-umūrā ṣawmu shuhūrin wajabat nudhūrā wa-bādinin muqalladan manḥūrā
He said: he made it "upon me rests an obligation," because in meaning it had already been made obligatory.
And some grammarians of Kufa denied that and said: it is not permissible that "al-awlayāni" be an apposition to "ākharāni," because "fa-yuqsimāni" (then they both swear) is conjoined to "yaqūmāni" (they both take their place) in His saying then two others take their place, so that the predication is not complete according to the one who says: it is not permissible to proceed to apposition before the completion of the predication, as one says: it is not permissible [to say] "I passed by a man, Zayd stood up and sat down" while Zayd is an apposition to "a man."
The correct view concerning this, in my opinion, is that one says: "al-awlayāni" stands in the nominative by that whose agent is not named, namely His saying "stuḥiqqa ʿalayhim," and that they are the place of the predication about it, so that there worked in it what was operative in the predication about it. That is because the meaning of the saying is: then two others take their place, from among those against whom the sin was committed through the embezzlement; and "al-awlayāni" was put in the place of "the sin," as the Exalted said in another place: Have you made the giving of drink to the pilgrim and the maintenance of the Sacred Mosque equal to one who believes in Allah and the Last Day? — and its meaning is: have you made the giving of drink to the pilgrim and the maintenance of the Sacred Mosque equal to the faith of one who believes in Allah and the Last Day? — and as He said: And the [drinking of] the calf was instilled into their hearts through their unbelief — and as one of the Hudhayl poets said:
yamshī baynanā ḥānūtu khamrin mina l-khursi l-ṣarāṣirati l-qiṭāṭ
He means: the owner of a wine shop; he put the shop in his place, because it is known that a shop does not walk, but since it was known with him that what he intended by it did not escape his listener, he omitted "the owner" and sufficed with the mention of the shop in its place. So too is His saying "min alladhīna stuḥiqqa ʿalayhimu l-awlayāni" only: from among those against whom the embezzlement of those two was committed; "the embezzlement" was omitted and "the two embezzlers" were put in its place, so that there worked in it what would have worked in the omitted [word] had it been visible.
As for His saying "ʿalayhim" in this place, its meaning is: "fīhim" (among/against them), as the Exalted said: And they followed what the devils recited concerning (ʿalā) the kingdom of Sulaymān — He means: in the kingdom of Sulaymān; and as He said: And I shall surely crucify you on (fī) the trunks of the palm trees. So "fī" is put in the place of "ʿalā," and "ʿalā" in the place of "fī"; each of the two substitutes for the other in speech. To this belongs the word of the poet:
matā mā tunkirūhā taʿrifūhā ʿalā aqṭārihā ʿalaqun nafīthu
A group of the scholars of interpretation have interpreted the word of Allah the Exalted "but if it is discovered that those two have incurred a sin, then two others take their place from among those against whom [the sin was committed], the two nearest of kin" to mean two other men of the Muslims, or two men who are more just than the first two oath-takers. A mention of who said that:
10099 — Muḥammad ibn al-Muthannā related to us, he said: ʿAbd al-Aʿlā related to us, he said: Dāwūd ibn Abī Hind related to us, on the authority of ʿĀmir, on the authority of Shurayḥ concerning this verse: O you who believe, the testimony among you when death approaches one of you at the time of the bequest, two upright men from among you, or two others from outside your circle: he said: when someone is in a foreign land and finds no Muslim to have witness his bequest, and he has a Jew, a Christian or a Magian (majūsī) bear witness, then their testimony is permitted. If then two Muslim men come and testify contrary to their testimony, the testimony of the Muslims is admitted and the testimony of the others declared void.
10100 — Bishr ibn Muʿādh related to us, he said: Yazīd related to us, he said: Saʿīd related to us, on the authority of Qatāda concerning but if it is discovered: that is, an embezzlement is discovered concerning the two, that they lied or concealed, and two men who are more just than they testify contrary to what the two of them said; then the testimony of the two others is admitted and the testimony of the first two declared void.
10101 — Ibn Wakīʿ related to us, he said: Jarīr related to us, on the authority of ʿAbd al-Malik, on the authority of ʿAṭāʾ, he said: Ibn ʿAbbās used to read: "min alladhīna stuḥiqqa ʿalayhimu l-awlayāni." He said: how can they be "the two nearest of kin"? Do you not see [the problem], if the two nearest of kin were minors?
* — Hannād and Ibn Wakīʿ related to us, he said: ʿAbda related to us, on the authority of ʿAbd al-Malik, on the authority of ʿAṭāʾ, on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās, he said: he used to read: "min alladhīna stuḥiqqa ʿalayhimu l-awlayāni." He said, and he said: do you not see [the problem], if the two nearest of kin were minors, how would they then take their place?
The imam Abū Jaʿfar said: Ibn ʿAbbās inclined, in my opinion, toward something like the view I have related from Shurayḥ and Qatāda, namely that it concerns two other men of the Muslims who take the place of the two Christians, or two just men of the Muslims who are more just and whose testimony is more acceptable than that of the first two witnesses or oath-takers. And in the consensus of all the scholars that there is no ruling of Allah the Exalted in which an oath is obligatory for a witness concerning the testimony he has given, there is a clear indication that an interpretation other than this which al-Ḥasan and those who shared his view stated concerning the word of Allah the Exalted then two others take their place is preferable thereto.
As for His saying al-awlayāni, its meaning is, in our opinion: the foremost in entitlement regarding the deceased above the first oath-takers — then the next. It may also mean: the foremost in entitlement to the oath above those two — then the next; subsequently "above those two (minhumā)" was omitted. The Arabs do that and say: "so-and-so is more excellent (afḍal)," while they mean: more excellent than you, and that when "afʿal" is put in the place of the predication. And if it falls in the place of the noun and the alif and the lām are joined to it, they do that too, when it is an answer to a preceding statement, and they say: "this is the most excellent (al-afḍal)," and "this is the noblest (al-ashraf)," while they mean: he is the noblest of you. And Ibn Zayd said: the meaning thereof is: the two nearest of kin of the deceased.
10102 — Yūnus related to me, on the authority of Ibn Wahb, from him.
فيقسمان بالله لشهادتنا أحق من شهادتهما (then they both swear by Allah: indeed, our testimony has more right than their testimony.)
The explanation of the saying of the Exalted: فيقسمان بالله لشهادتنا أحق من شهادتهما. The Exalted — may His remembrance be exalted — says: then the two others who take the place of the two with whom it was discovered that they had incurred a sin through their embezzlement of the property of the deceased — the two nearest of kin — swear by the oath, while the deceased belonged to the [party of those wronged by the] embezzlers — indeed, our testimony has more right than their testimony. He says: indeed, our oaths have more right than the oaths of the oath-takers who merited the sin, and [more right than] their mendacious oaths that they did not embezzle from such and such of the property of our deceased, and so concerning the oaths with which they swore.
وما اعتدينا (and we have not transgressed.)
A saying: and we have not transgressed the truth in our oaths. We have already expounded that the meaning of al-iʿtidāʾ is: the transgressing of the limit of something.
إنا إذا لمن الظالمين (indeed, then we would be among the wrongdoers.)
He says: indeed, if we had transgressed in our oaths and thus sworn untruthfully and mendaciously, then we would be among the wrongdoers. He says: then we would be among the company of those who take what it is not their due to take, and with his brazen oaths plunders the property of the people.
