Verses 106–109

بِسْمِ ٱللَّهِ ٱلرَّحْمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ

12:15In the name of Allah, the most Merciful, the most Compassionate

The first three verses deal with affairs of testimony, and the last one is not without some connection with it in meaning.

يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا۟ شَهَـٰدَةُ بَيْنِكُمْ إِذَا حَضَرَ أَحَدَكُمُ ٱلْمَوْتُ حِينَ ٱلْوَصِيَّةِ ٱثْنَانِ ذَوَا عَدْلٍ مِّنكُمْ أَوْ ءَاخَرَانِ مِنْ غَيْرِكُمْ إِنْ أَنتُمْ ضَرَبْتُمْ فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ فَأَصَـٰبَتْكُم مُّصِيبَةُ ٱلْمَوْتِ ۚ تَحْبِسُونَهُمَا مِنۢ بَعْدِ ٱلصَّلَوٰةِ فَيُقْسِمَانِ بِٱللَّهِ إِنِ ٱرْتَبْتُمْ لَا نَشْتَرِى بِهِۦ ثَمَنًا وَلَوْ كَانَ ذَا قُرْبَىٰ ۙ وَلَا نَكْتُمُ شَهَـٰدَةَ ٱللَّهِ إِنَّآ إِذًا لَّمِنَ ٱلْـَٔاثِمِينَ ۝١٠٦ فَإِنْ عُثِرَ عَلَىٰٓ أَنَّهُمَا ٱسْتَحَقَّآ إِثْمًا فَـَٔاخَرَانِ يَقُومَانِ مَقَامَهُمَا مِنَ ٱلَّذِينَ ٱسْتَحَقَّ عَلَيْهِمُ ٱلْأَوْلَيَـٰنِ فَيُقْسِمَانِ بِٱللَّهِ لَشَهَـٰدَتُنَآ أَحَقُّ مِن شَهَـٰدَتِهِمَا وَمَا ٱعْتَدَيْنَآ إِنَّآ إِذًا لَّمِنَ ٱلظَّـٰلِمِينَ ۝١٠٧

5:106–107 O you who believe! Call to witness between you when death draws nigh to one of you, at the time of making the will, two just persons from among you, or two others from among others than you, if you are travelling in the land and the calamity of death befalls you; the two witnesses you should detain after the prayer; then if you doubt (them), they shall both swear by Allah, (saying): “We will not take for it a price, though there be a relative, and we will not hide the testimony of Allah, for then certainly we should be among the sinners.” Then if it becomes known that they both have been guilty of a sin, two others shall stand up in their place 12:16from among those who have a claim against them, the two nearest in kin; so they two should swear by Allah: “Certainly our testimony is truer than the testimony of those two, and we have not exceeded the limit, for then most surely we should be of the unjust”

The gist of the two verses is as follows: If a Muslim is on journey and wants to make a will, he must call to witness, at the time of will, two just witnesses from among the Muslims; if he does not find them, then he should call two witnesses from among the People of the Book. If the near relatives of the deceased feel some doubt about the will, the two witnesses shall be detained after the prayer, they shall swear by God for their truth in witnessing, and the discord will be removed. Then if it becomes known that the two witnesses have lied in testimony, then two other witnesses shall stand up in the place, and testify against them swearing in the name of God.

This apparently is the connotation of the two verses. The phrases: “O you who believe,” addresses the believers and the law is reserved to them. “Call to witness between you when death draws nigh to one of you, at the time of making the will, two just persons from among you”: It means, witness between you is witness of two just persons from among you; there is an omitted but understood muḍāf (first construct of a genitive), that is, two just persons from among you. It means that the required number of witnesses is two; thus the maṣdar here gives meaning of active participle, as they say, a just man, two just men.

The phrase: “when death draws nigh to one of you,” is an allusion for drawing near to you the cause for making will, because people naturally do not get involved in such things unless there appears something which indicates death’s nearness; usually it means serious illness which brings man nearer to death.

The clause: “at the time of making the will,” is an adverbial phrase of time, related to “witness,” that is, witness at the time of making the will. The maṣdar, al-’adl means probity, and the context shows that it means probity and rectitude in religious affairs. This, in its turn, ascertains (the phrase) “from among you” and (the phrase) “from among others than you” means from among the Muslims and the non-Muslims respectively, and not near relatives and clan; God has mentioned “two” parallel to “two others,” then has described the former as “just persons” and “from among you,” while the latter has only been described as “from among others than you” without the qualification of justice. The qualification of probity or otherwise in religious affairs differs in the Muslim and the non-Muslim; there is no reason why probity in religious affairs should be necessary if the witnesses were from among the relatives or clan of the principal, but unnecessary if the witness were a non-relative.

12:17Accordingly, the phrase: “or two others from among others than you,” presents an alternative with sequence. The meaning is: If there are Muslims, two of them shall be made witnesses; but if there is none other than non-Muslims then two of them will be called to witness; all this is understood from the associations.

This very association gives the understanding that the clause: “if you are travelling in the land and the calamity of death befalls you,” is a restriction related to the words: “or two others from among others than you”; a Muslim usually lives in a Muslim society, and normally in a Muslim environment there does not arise a need to call two non-Muslims to act as witnesses; contrary to the condition of travelling when such chances or emergencies may occur and the need may arise to approach non-Muslims for witnessing, etc.

The same association, that is, af nity between the subject and the order, joined with the taste perceived from the divine speech, proves that the word, non-Muslims, here exclusively points to the People of the Book, because the divine speech does not bestow any nobility to the polytheists.

The clause: “they shall both swear by God,” that is, the two witnesses shall swear; the clause: “then if you doubt,” that is, if you are in doubt about what the executor of the will describes concerning the will, or about the property governed by the will, or about its condition; what they shall swear to, is explained in the next sentence: “We will not take for it a price though there be a relative …,” that is, We will not accept any big or small price for testifying for the claim of the executor of the will, even if he be a relative of ours. Selling the testimony for a price indicates that the witness turns aside from the truth in his testimony for a worldly goal, like wealth, prestige or feeling of relationship; thus he offers his testimony in exchange of a worldly price, and it is a small price indeed.

An exegete has said that the pronoun, it, (in the phrase: We will not take for it) refers to the oath, that is, We will not take for our oath a price; but it would entail swearing twice by God, and the verse does not give any such hint.

12:18The clause: “and we will not hide the testimony of God,” that is, by testifying against the reality and truth; “for then certainly we should be among the sinners,” that is, carriers of sin. This sentence is in conjunction with, “We will not take for it a price, …” as an explicative apposition.

In the possessive case: “the testimony of God,” ‘the testimony’ is related to “God,” because God testifies for the reality as the two witnesses do it; therefore it is the testimony of God as it is the testimony of the two witnesses; and God has more right to possession; thus it is His testimony by right and primarily, and the testimony of the two witnesses follows it secondarily. God has said: … and Allah is sufficient as a witness. (4:79); … and they cannot comprehend anything out of His knowledge except what He pleases; … (2:255).

Alternatively, it may be because witnessing it is a right of God imposed on His servants and it is incumbent on them to offer it with truth without alteration, without hiding it. It is as we say, religion of God, thus we ascribe the religion to God although it is the servants who are covered by it. God says: … and give upright testimony for Allah… . (65:2); … and do not conceal testimony, (2:283).

The clause, “Then if it becomes known …”: al-’uthūr followed by preposition ‘alā means to get something, to find something. This verse elaborates the law if it becomes known that the two witnesses have lied and testified wrongly.

The clause, “that they both have been guilty of a sin”: Istiḥqāq (to be entitled; to deserve); al-ithm (sin); to be entitled to a sin means to commit a sin or crime; it is said: The man deserved a sin, that is, he committed a sin; Zayd deserved a sin against Bakr, that is, Zayd committed a crime against Bakr. That is why in the coming sentence it has taken the preposition ‘alā, as it says: two others shall stand up in their place “from among those who have a claim against them,” that is, those against whom the two witnesses have sinned by giving false testimony and perfidy. The basic meaning of istaḥaqqa al-rajul is as follows: The man demanded that the sin or its punishment be established and confirmed against him. Accordingly it is here an extended metaphor in which demand is used for describing the thing demanded, and path is mentioned in place of destination. The word, sin, in the clause: “that they both have been guilty of a sin,” is inferred from the preceding clause: “for then certainly we should be among the sinners.”

12:19The words: “two others shall stand up in their place,” that is, if it is found that the two witnesses have committed perjury and perfidy, then two other witnesses shall stand in their place for swearing that the first two have committed perjury and perfidy.

The clause: “from among those who have a claim against them,” denotes situation, that is, while these two new witnesses against whom the first two had committed perfidy, and who are nearest in kin to the deceased according to the will, as al-Rāzī has stated in his tafsīr. In short, it denotes that if it was known that the two witnesses have committed perjury and perfidy against the near relatives of the deceased, then two other witnesses shall stand up in their place from among those against whom the first two have committed that perjury, before their guilt was known.

This interpretation is based on the recital of ‘Āṣim from Ḥafṣ who has recited ustuḥiqqa in passive voice; then the apparent context would make, “the first two” the subject and its predicate would be, “two others shall stand up in their place.” The meaning: If it becomes known that the two witnesses have committed perjury and perfidy against the near relatives of the deceased, then two near relatives of the deceased shall stand up in their place against whom the perfidy was committed.

In the recital of ‘Āṣim through Abū Bakr, Ḥamzah, Khalaf and Ya’qūb, al-awlayān is recited al-awwalīn (the first ones, opposite to the last ones), and apparently it means the nearest of kin who have first claim (on the deceased’s estate); it is adjective or appositional substantive standing for “those who.”

The exegetes have written much numerous modes and aspects so far as the construction of various parts of the verse is concerned; so much so that if some aspects are multiplied by the others in order to infer the full meaning of the verse, it would result in hundreds of aspects. al-Zajjāj has reportedly said that it is the most complicated verse of the Divine Book so far as its construction is concerned.

What we have written in its explanation is manifestly clear from the context, without any aberration or arbitrariness; we have avoided thoroughly looking at all the possibilities, which they have mentioned, because it would only increase the vagueness of the word, leaving a scholar bewildered.¹

12:20From the clause: “two others shall stand up in their place,” sprouts the clause: “so they two should swear by God”; it means the two other witnesses, nearest in kin to the deceased; they should swear by God that certainly our testimony (which unmasks the falsity and perfidy of the first two witnesses) is truer than that of the first two concerning the aspects of the will; and we have not exceeded the limit against them by testifying contrary to what they had testified, otherwise, most surely we should be among the unjust people.

ذَٰلِكَ أَدْنَىٰٓ أَن يَأْتُوا۟ بِٱلشَّهَـٰدَةِ عَلَىٰ وَجْهِهَآ أَوْ يَخَافُوٓا۟ أَن تُرَدَّ أَيْمَـٰنٌۢ بَعْدَ أَيْمَـٰنِهِمْ ۗ وَٱتَّقُوا۟ ٱللَّهَ وَٱسْمَعُوا۟ ۗ وَٱللَّهُ لَا يَهْدِى ٱلْقَوْمَ ٱلْفَـٰسِقِينَ ۝١٠٨ ۞

5:108 This is more proper in order that they should give testimony truly or fear that other oaths be given after their oaths; and fear

Allah, and hear; and Allah does not guide the transgressing people.

The verse describes the underlying reason of the preceding rule. It says that this law, with the sequence prescribed by God, is the safest way of arriving at the truth in this place, and is the nearest method of ensuring that the first two witnesses would not commit injustice in their testimony, as they would be afraid that, otherwise their testimony would be refuted and rejected.

Man is entangled in his desire; the desire invites him to enjoy whatever he can, and grasp to whatever he longs for, provided there is nothing to divert him from it; it makes no difference whether he has any right to that desired item or not, whether it is based on justice or injustice even by nullifying someone else’s right. The man desists from that transgression and exceeding the limit either because of some exterior thing which prevents him from it through punishment or chastisement, or because of some inner prohibition from his own soul; and the strongest psychological prohibitive factor is the belief in God to Whom the servants have to return and Who takes reckoning of the deeds, decides with justice and awards full recompense.

12:21If, as is supposed at this juncture, the reality about the deceased’s will is unknown and the only way to find it is through the testimony of the two witnesses whom the deceased had appointed, then the strongest way of keeping their testimony nearer to truth is to compel them to swear by God, and to make the nearest of kin of the deceased swear by God if it transpires that the first two witnesses have committed perjury and perfidy. Thus, these two methods, that is, their oaths in the beginning and then returning the oath to the nearest of kin, are the most effective ways to keep the first two witnesses on truth, as they would be afraid to be ignominiously exposed and their oaths refuted. These two are the strongest factors to prevent them from deviation from truth.

Then God ended the speech with the admonition and warning: and fear Allah, and hear; and Allah does not guide the transgressing people.

يَوْمَ يَجْمَعُ ٱللَّهُ ٱلرُّسُلَ فَيَقُولُ مَاذَآ أُجِبْتُمْ ۖ قَالُوا۟ لَا عِلْمَ لَنَآ ۖ إِنَّكَ أَنتَ عَلَّـٰمُ ٱلْغُيُوبِ ۝١٠٩

5:109 On the day when Allah will assemble the messengers, then say: “What answer were you given?” They shall say: “We have no knowledge, surely Thou art the great Knower of the unseen things.”

The verse is not averse to be connected with the previous subject; although the end part of the preceding verse: “and fear God, and hear,” is general, yet the context denotes that it contains prohibition of deviation, committing injustice in witnessing or disdaining the oath by the name of God. Thus it is appropriate to describe what is to take place between God and His messengers, who shall be witnesses over their nations, and what an excellent witnesses they are! God shall ask them what answer they were given by their people, and although they knew very well what their people had done, and they were appointed by God to be their witnesses, yet they will reply by saying: “‘We have no knowledge, surely Thou art the great Knower of the unseen things.’”

The matters being like this and with God being the Knower of everything, it is appropriate for the witnesses to be afraid of divine majesty, and not to deviate from the truth which God has given them the knowledge of; they should not conceal the testimony of God, otherwise they would be one of the sinners, unjust and tyrants.

12:22The divine words: “On the day when God will assemble …,” is an adverb of time, related to the preceding clauses: “and fear God …” The verse speaks of assembling of the messengers (instead of saying, when God will say to the messengers), as it has more af nity with gathering of the witnesses for testimony, as shown by the words: the two witnesses you should detain after the prayer; … they shall both swear by Allah.

As for the messengers’ negating the knowledge from themselves, when they shall say: “We have no knowledge, surely Thou art the great Knower of the unseen things.” They restrict the knowledge of all unseen things exclusively to God, and it proves that the negated is not the knowledge per se, because the clause: “surely Thou art the great Knower of the unseen things,” apparently aims at explaining the reason of negation; and it is understood that confinement of the knowledge of all unseen things does not entail removal of all knowledge from other than God, especially so when it is a knowledge of testimony; and what will be asked, that is, how the people answered their messengers, is related to the testimony not to the unseen.

Their reply: “We have no knowledge,” does not negate knowledge in general; it negates the truly inside knowledge which is not without some relationship with the unseen. It is known that the knowledge discloses to the knower the reality as much as it is related to a certain affair concerning its causes and concomitants; and the reality is interconnected with all parts present externally, whether they precede the reality in external existence or are found simultaneously; knowledge of any external affair, in true sense, does not occur except by comprehending all parts of its existence and acquiring comprehension of its Maker—far be it from His majesty that anything could ever comprehend Him, and it is an affair beyond the human power. Thus, man has not been given knowledge in this universe —the universe thinking on whose vast dimension leaves him f abbergasted, looking at the magnitude of its stars and galaxies makes him scared, if he observes its minute items his reason is bewildered, and if he wants to walk between these two extremes he becomes giddy —except a little that is needed by him in the journey of his life, just as a walker in utterly dark night carries a small candle which gives him only enough light to see where to put his next step.

What the human knowledge is connected to, adheres with its being, and attaches with its reality to its fringes and then to the fringes of the fringes and so on. All of it is unperceived by human perceptions. Knowledge, in its true meaning, cannot be attached to anything except when it is connected to all its unseen factors of existence, and this is not possible for any limited creature, be it human or something else, except God, the One, the Subduer, with Him are the keys of the unseen, none but He knows them. God says: and Allah knows, while you do not know (2:216). The verse shows that man’s nature is ignorance, and he is not given knowledge except to a limited measured quantity. God says: There is not a thing but its treasures are with Us, and We do not send it down but according to known measures (15:21). The same is the connotation of the infallible’s reply when he was asked, “Why God is concealed from His creatures?” He said: “Because surely He has built their structure on ignorance.” God has also said: … and they cannot comprehend anything out of His knowledge except that which He pleases; (2:255). It shows that knowledge, all of it, belongs to God and man comprehends out of it only what God wills. Also He says: … and you have not been given the knowledge but a little (17:85). This proves that there is a multitude of knowledge, but man has not been given except a little.

12:23So, the reality is this: knowledge, the real one, is not found except with God. When the Day of Resurrection comes, the things will appear in their true forms and shapes, as the related verses show. Thus, there would not be on that day any place except for the true speech, as God says: they shall not speak except he whom the Beneficent Lord gives leave, and he will speak the truth. That is the certain day, (78:38–39).

That is why when the messengers shall be asked, “What answer were you given?” the true reply will be to repudiate from themselves all knowledge as it will be a part of the unseen, and to af rm it to their Load, by saying: “We have no knowledge, surely Thou art the great Knower of the unseen things.”

This reply of theirs, emanates from their humility before His Grandeur and Majesty; it is a confession of their personal neediness and essential nullity vis-à-vis their True Master; keeping the manner of His audience and displaying the truth of the matter. However, it is not a final answer shutting the door to further replies, because:

First: Because God has made them witnesses for their people, as He says in this Book: How will it be, then, when We bring from every people a witness, and We bring you as a witness over those (witnesses)? (4:41); … and the book (of deeds) shall be set up, and the prophets and the witnesses shall be summoned … (39:69). And there is no meaning of making them witnesses except that they should be witnesses over their people—as the witnessing should be on that day. Inevitably they will testify on that day as God has ordained it. Thus, their reply, “We have no knowledge,” is based on the manner of worshipful homage vis-à-vis the True King in whose hand is command and kingdom on that day. It also explains the reality of the affair, that is, God possesses knowledge by Himself, and others possess it only as much as He makes them have it; and there is no wrong if, after this reply, they disclose what knowledge they had of the conditions of their people. This supports what we have previously written in the first volume of this book, under the verse: And thus we have made you a justly medium nation so that you may be witnesses over mankind, and so that the Messenger may be a witness over you, … (2:143), where we have explained that this knowledge and witnessing are not of the type of knowledge and witnessing as we understand them; rather they are of the knowledge which is particularly reserved to God and which is bestowed to a group of His honored servants.

12:24Second: Because God has confirmed that a group of his nearer servants will possess knowledge on the Day of Resurrection. He says: And those who have been given knowledge and faith will say: Verily you have tarried according to the decree of Allah till the Day of Resurrection, …” (30:56); … and on the heights shall be men who know them all by their marks (7:46); And those whom they invoke beside Him do not own any power of intercession, save he who bears witness to the truth, and they know the truth (43:86); and Jesus son of Mary is included in this verse, and he was a messenger; therefore he is among those who bear witness to the truth and they know the truth; And the Messenger shall say: “O my Lord! Verily my people took this Qur’ān as a thing abandoned.” (25:30). The ‘Messenger’ refers to the Messenger of God, and his speech quoted in this verse is exactly the reply to the question contained in the verse under discussion, that is, the divine words: “What answer were you given?” Now, it is clear that the words of the Messengers: “We have no knowledge, …” is not the final answer, as described above.

Third: Because the Qur’an mentions that the questioning will cover both the Messengers and those to whom they were sent. God says: Then surely We shall question those to whom (Our messengers) were sent, and certainly We will also question the messengers (7:6). Also, He mentions many replies given by the people to whom the messengers were sent of many questions asked of them; and replying entails knowledge and questioning confirms it. Also, God says: Certainly, you were heedless of this (day), now We have removed from you your veil, so your sight is sharp today (50:22); And could you but see when the guilty will stand before their Lord, heads hung low, (and say): “O our Lord! We have seen and we have heard; now send us back; we will do good; verily now we are convinced.” (32:12). There are many verses of similar theme. Now, when the people—and especially the guilty among them—were having knowledge on that day, how could it be imagined that the honored messengers would be lacking that knowledge. Thus the end result is the same as we have said.

12:25A Talk on the Meaning of Testimony

The society in which we live, and the interaction that ta kes place between our active powers in general aspects of this worldly life, pushes us willy-nilly to various kinds of discords and disputes. What one of us exclusively enjoys, often another one wants to share it with him, or even acquire it solely for himself, displacing the original owner. This made man realize that jurisprudential judgements and decrees were essential for settling such disputes.

The first requirement for judging a case is that the events and occurrences should be preserved exactly as they took place and recorded in a way that no change or alteration sneaks in them, in order that the judge may decide accordingly. No body can doubt its importance.

This can be ensured only through making someone look at the event: He observes the episode and takes upon himself to convey the report truly when need arises, or records it in some other way, like writing or using other instruments which serve the same purpose (like audio or video cassettes, etc.).

There are some important differences between witnessing and other means of preservation and recording: First, The means of preservation and recording, other than witnessing, are not available generally; its most common and well known method is writing, but even today it has not covered the whole mankind, let alone the ancient times, contrary to the witnessing. Second, Rendering testimony, that is, description with tongue by a witness through his undertaking to convey the fact truly and based on his memory, is less likely to be affected by any defectiveness and more secured against various afflictions in comparison to writing and other means of recording.

12:26That is why we see that no nation shuns giving credence to testimony— it is true in all nations, despite their excessive discord in sociological customs, tribal and religious dispositions and progress or regress in culture and barbarism—in short every group gives some credence to testimonies.

Consideration is given in this respect to someone who is counted as a member of the nation and part of the group. That is why no importance is given to the evidence of a child below the age of discretion or to that of an insane who does not know what he speaks. The same is the reason why some barbarous nations did not recognize women’s evidence, as they did not accept women as part of the society; and most of the social norms in ancient nations were based on the same thinking, like Rome, Greece and other regions.

Now, Islam is the natural religion, and as such recognizes testimony, and accepts this alone as the definite proof, while all other means of substantiation and corroboration have no value unless and until they create “Knowledge.” God says: … and establish the evidence for Allah; … (65:2); … and do not conceal evidence, and whoever conceals it, then surely his heart is sinful; … (2:283); And those who stand firm in their testimonies (70:33).

Islam has fixed the number of two for witnesses regarding all affairs except fornication (where the required number is four) so that each supports the other. God says: … then call to witness two witnesses from among your men, and if there are not two men, then one man and two women from among those whom you choose to be witnesses, so that should one of the two forgets the (second) of the two may remind the other; and the witnesses should not refuse when they are summoned; and be not averse to writing it (whether it be) small or large, with the time of its falling due. This (procedure) is more equitable in the sight of Allah, and assures greater accuracy in testimony, and the nearest (way) to not entertaining any doubts (afterwards); … (2:282). It shows that what the verse explains and lays down in respect of the laws of witnessing, including the addition of one witness to the other to make them two, is more in conformity with justice, rendering of testimony and removal of doubt.

When Islam looks at the individual members of the society—who are the bricks to build the society—it counts women among them, and bestows on her the right, like the men, to render the witness. At the same time, it has decided that the society created by it should be founded on understanding, rather than emotions. A woman is an emotional human being; and therefore it has given her half the right and weight of man; thus two women’s testimonies equal to that of a man, as the above quoted verse points to: so that should one of the two forgets, the (second) of the two may remind the other. In the fourth volume of this, we have written on the right of woman in Islam, which will be useful here. Witnessing has many detailed laws, which are elaborated in the books of jurisprudence, which is beyond the limit of this discussion here.

12:27A Talk on Justice

A research scholar in Islamic Laws often comes across the word Justice; and he of ten finds different definitions and diverse explanations of this word, depending on diversity of the scholars and their ways.

But what is appropriate at this juncture of the Qur’anic discourse— in analysis of its meaning and the way of its application to the nature on which Islam is based—is that we should adopt another way of explanation. So we say:

al-’Adālah is moderation and middle position between two modes of high and low, and two sides of exaggeration and shortfall. It has a real value and great weight in human societies. The via media, the moderate position, is the substantial ingredient or the core around which the social structure is built. A noble man of high rank who would be dressed in high social virtues, and represent the utmost wish of society, is not born every day; such a person appears on the scene only rarely and it is known that society is not made up of a rare person even if he be looked up as a cardinal organ wherever he be found.

On the other side is a vile and despicable person who does not uphold social rights, and who does not fulfil the average aspirations of the society. He does not have any caller inviting him to observe the general social principles on which depends the life of society; nor does he have any deterrent which would prevent him from committing social sins which destroy the society and nullify the essential mutual attraction between its ingredients; in short, no trust can be had for his being a part of the body of society, nor can one rely on his good influence and proper advice.

12:28(We find, after leaving these two high and low ranks aside, that) the rule is exercised by the medium rank of the society on whom depends the society’s structure, and who fulfil its aims and aspirations; and it is through them that its good effects take place—its ingredients and organs have not come together except for achieving this goal and enjoying it.

A member of the society cannot entertain any doubt about it when he looks at it even once.

It is self-evident to him that he, in his social life, greatly depends on some individual members of the society on whose social deportment he relies—they are covered with moderation in affairs, are cautious against being indifferent to breaking the laws or violation of prevalent customs and manners in various fields like jurisprudence, judgement and testimonies, etc.

This imperative or nearly imperative quality demanded by nature is what Islam looks for in a witness. God says: … and call to witness two just men from among you, and establish the evidence as before Allah. Thus is admonished he who believes in Allah and the last day; … (65:2); … when death draws nigh to one of you, at the time of making the will, two just persons from among you, … (5:106). Both these verses are addressed to those who believe. Therefore, the condition that the witnesses should be two just men from among them implies that they should have a moderate and medium position vis-à-vis their religious society; but as for its position vis-à-vis national or political society, Islam does not care for such non-religious relationships. Apparently, if the witnesses are on a medium position vis-à-vis the religious society, they must be from among those whose religiosity is relied upon and who do not indulge in major sins, which adversely affect the religion. God says: If you avoid the major sins, which you are forbidden, We will remit from you your (minor) sins and We will make you enter an honorable entering (4:31). We have described the meaning of major sins under this verse in the fourth volume of this book.

This meaning is evident in the divine words: Those who accuse chaste women (and) then do not bring four witnesses, scourge them with eighty stripes, and do not accept their testimony for ever and they are the transgressors. Save those who afterwards repent and make amends. So Allah is Oft-forgiving, Merciful (24:4–5).

Similar to the previous verse which lays down the condition of justice and probity, is the divine word: from among those whom you are pleased with to be witnesses, … (2:282), because the pleasure mentioned here means pleasure of a religious society; and it is known that a religious society, per se, will not be pleased with anyone unless he behaves in a manner that makes him trustworthy in religious affairs.

12:29It is what we call in fiqh the faculty of ‘adālah. It is other than what is called ‘adālah in Ethics. The ‘adālah of fiqh is the psychological aspect which in common point of view prevents one from committing major sins; and the ‘adālah of Ethics is the deep-rooted trait of character in reality.

What we have inferred from the meaning of ‘adālah is what is understood from the madhhab of the Imāms of Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) as is reported through their chains:

(1) (al-Ṣadūq) narrates in Man lā yaḥḍuruh al-faqīh, through his chains from Ibn Abī Ya’fūr, that he said: “I said to Abū ʿAbdillāh, ‘By what is known the ‘adālah of a man among the Muslims, so that his testimony is accepted for and against them?’ He said: “(It is) that they recognize him with covering and abstinence, and control of stomach, and genitals, and hand, and tongue; and he is known to avoid major sins for whom God has threatened the Fire, as drinking liquor, fornication, interest, disobedience of parents, fleeing from jihād and so on.

“And it is known from the fact that he conceals all his defects, in order that the Muslims are forbidden to search for his slips and defects, and are obliged to pronounce his integrity, and declare his ‘adālah among the people; and he is considered regular in the five prayers when he diligently prays and preserves their times with attending the Muslims’ congregational prayers, and does not remain behind from their congregation in their prayer place except because of some (genuine) cause.

“When he is like that, inseparable from his place of prayer at the advent of the five prayers; when he is asked about in his tribe and quarter, they would say: “We did not see from him except good,” (he is) regular in his prayers, waiting for their times in his prayer place, then surely it would make his testimony valid, and (establish) his ‘adālah among the Muslims. And it is because prayer is a curtain and expiation of sins. And it is not possible to testify about a man that he prays if he does not come to his prayer place and does not regularly attend the Muslims’ congregation.

12:30“Congregation and gathering for prayer has been prescribed only for this purpose that he who prays may be distinguished from him who does not pray; and he who preserves the times of prayer from him who neglects it. And if it were not so, no one could testify for the goodness of the other, because he who does not pray has no goodness among the Muslims. Verily the Messenger of God had intended to burn a group in their houses because they avoided attending the Muslims’ congregations; and there were among them people who used to pray in their homes, but it was not accepted from them. Therefore, how can evidence or probity of someone be accepted among the Muslims about whom decision of God, to Whom belong Might and Majesty, and of His Messenger was taken to burn (him) with fire inside his house? And he used to say: “There is no prayer for him who does not pray in the mosque with the Muslims except because of some reason (illness).” (Man lā yaḥḍuruh al-faqīh)

Author’s comment: al-Shaykh has narrated it in al-Tahdhīb with some addition, which we have left out. Covering and abstinence both mean avoidance, as (Jawharī) has said in al-Ṣiḥāḥ. As you see, the tradition makes basic ‘adālah a thing which is well known among the Muslims; and shows that the effect resulting from it and which proves this psychological characteristic is avoidance of the things prohibited by God, and abstention from forbidden desires; and it is recognized through avoidance of major sins; then proof of all this is seen in (his) good appearance among the Muslims, as the Imām has described it in detail.

(2) ʿAbdullāh b. al-Mughīrah narrates from Abu al-Ḥasan al-Riḍā that he said: “He who was born on fiṭrah (that is, of Muslim parent) and is known with goodness in himself, his evidence is allowed.” (ibid.)

(3) Sumā’ah has narrated through Abū Baṣīr from Abū ʿAbdillāh that he said: “There is nothing wrong with evidence of an old (or weak) person when he is righteous and chaste.” (ibid.)

(4) (al-Kulaynī) narrates through his chain from ʿAlī b. Mahziyār from Abū ʿAlī b. Rāshid that he said: “I said to Abū Ja’far: ‘Verily, your followers are of different types; so should I pray with them all?’ He said: ‘Don’t pray except behind him of whose religion you are 12:31confident.’” (al-Kāfī)

Author’s comment: The tradition clearly indicates what we have explained above. There are other topics in it, which are beyond our theme here.

A Talk on Oaths

What do you mean when you say: ‘By my life, it is so’; or ‘By my life, the thing is as I have said?’ It means that you somehow atta ch that statement in its truthfulness to your life—which has a great position and dignity in your eyes—in such a way that they become inseparable in existence and non-existence; if you were wrong in your statement, you would nullify the dignity of your life and its honor in your eyes, and thus would fall down from the level of humanity which demands respect for life’s affairs.

When you say, ‘I adjure you by God to do (or, not to do) this thing’, it means that you have attached your order or prohibition to the dignity and honor which God has in the believers’ eyes; in this way if anyone goes against that order or prohibition it would be an insult to the divine position and would negate the sanctity of the belief in God.

Likewise, when you say, ‘By God! I’ll do such and such’, you affect a special connection between your intention to do it and the dignity and honor which God has in your eyes according to your belief in Him, so much so that if you cancel your intention it would entail a negation of the divine dignity in your eyes. Its purpose is to create a deterrent against cancellation of that plan. Thus, oath creates a special connection between a statement and another thing which has a dignity and honor in such a way that if the former is nullified, the latter too would be negated; and because the latter has such a dignity and honor that the person concerned would not be pleased by its loss of dignity or by an insult to it, therefore he is truthful in what he says and is obeyed in what he orders or forbids, or is bound to implement what he plans. So the oath results in intensified emphasis.

In some languages, there is found another kind of connection vis-à-vis oath; it connects the statement with something which has no value or importance at all in the eyes of the speaker; it is done to show the contempt or disdain of the information given or received—it is a sort of abuse and it is very rare in Arabic language.

Swearing and oath, as we know, is a prevalent custom on people’s tongue, which is inherited generation after generation; and it is not particular to one language beside others. It proves that it is not something related to a language; rather man is led to it by his social life on occasions when he realizes the need to seek refuge in it and get its benefit.

12:32Throughout history, the practice of taking oaths has been common across various nations. They were used in a range of situations within their societies, serving purposes such as exonerating someone from blame, dispelling slander, self-assurance, or reinforcing a piece of information. This practice was somewhat arbitrary until it was formalized by civil laws. Nowadays, oaths have been given a legal status and are particularly prominent during significant events, such as the swearing-in of Presidents and Executives when they are appointed to high-ranking positions and assume major responsibilities.

Islam places significant emphasis on oaths, especially those sworn in the name of God. This reverence stems from the religion’s deep respect for the Majesty of God and its commitment to safeguarding the divine grandeur from any inappropriate associations. Consequently, Islam prescribes specific atonement measures for breaking such oaths and discourages frequent swearing in God’s name, reflecting the solemnity with which it regards these commitments. God says: Allah does not call you to account for what is vain in your oaths, but He calls you to account for the making of deliberate oaths; so its expiation (for breaking an oath) is the feeding of ten poor men out of the average (food) you feed your families with, or their clothing, or the freeing a neck; … (5:89). And make not Allah in your oaths a hindrance against that you may do good and … (2:224).

Islam has recognized oath in those cases of litigation where there is no proof. God says: … so they two should swear by Allah: “Certainly our testimony is truer than the testimony of those two, and we have not exceeded the limit, …” (5:107). And the Prophet has said: “The proof is on the claimant, and oath is on him who denies.”

The essence of recognition of oath is that only the oath is a suf cient proof in cases where no other proof exists. The religious society is founded on individuals’ belief in God, and a believer is a part of this composite whole; he is the fountainhead from which spring forth the customs which are followed and laws which are enforced; in short, all signs which appear in the community and which rise from their religious condition. It is not unlike a secular society that is based on people’s belief in their national objects, and from which the social laws and customs as well as the manners and culture are born which are found in it.

12:33Given this context, just as it is acceptable to depend on individuals’ oaths in various social matters and everyday life scenarios, it is also reasonable to rely on their oaths in situations where no other reliable proof is available. In instances where proof is absent, the oath becomes crucial. The denier, in this case, links their denial of a claim to their faith in such a manner that should the falsity of their denial become evident, their belief in God can no longer be deemed trustworthy.

As he ties his belief and faith with that oath, he pawns his faith putting it under the control of the pawn-broker, and its return to the borrower depends on his true promise and repayment of the loan within the agreed period; otherwise the pawned property goes and he remains empty handed.

Likewise, the one who swears is considered as if he has pawned his faith in exchange of what he has sworn for until its falsity is found out; when its falsity appears, he becomes empty handed from faith, falls down from the height of reliability, is deprived of enjoying the fruit of belief; in other words, in the religious society he loses all social benefits; he is banished from the well-knit society; neither the sky puts him under its shadow nor the earth accepts his burden.

This discourse is supported by what used to happen at the time of the Prophet, when people openly showed their hatred for those who stayed behind from religious assemblies like congregational prayer, jihād and so on; as it was the time when religion had total domination and authority over desires.

But what is the situation nowadays? Religion has lost its hold; base desires have seeped into hearts; we are living in a society composed of religious objectives (whose structure is weakened and people have turned away from it) and modern civilization’s objectives. It is submerged in material enjoyments whose foundation is strong and general public eagerly proceeds towards it. Then there appeared severe quarrel and dispute between religious factors and modern civilization, in which constantly the latter is winning and the former retreating. The religious system that was supposed to dominate the society lost it coherence, and chaos and confusion appeared in spiritual affairs. In this condition, neither oath nor anything stronger can be of any benefit; there remains nothing to protect the people’s rights. People have lost confidence not in the religious safeguards found in society, but even in modern laws.

12:34However, the divine rules and sharī’ah cannot be abrogated merely by the people’s turning away from it or by their being tired of it. Verily the religion with God is Islam, He is not pleased with disbelief for his servant, and if Truth had followed their desires the heavens and the earth would have perished. Certainly, Islam is a religion which deals with all conditions of human life, it explains them and describes their laws—the laws that consist of parts which are in conformity with each other, are interlinked and mutually complementary; they are alive with spirit of monotheism. If one part ails the whole becomes sick; if some portions become rotten, it adversely affects the whole—just like a human body.

If a limb of body starts ailing or becomes decayed, it is essential to preserve the healthy parts and treat the ailing one; it is not correct in reason to leave the ailing limb as it is and also neglect the healthy parts.

Islam is the True Religion, of easy laws and forgiving nature; its sharī’ah has various vast degrees; its responsibilities are assessed according to what one has the ability to do. Its rope is stretched from secured social condition (where its laws and rules comprehensively cover all situations without exception) to individual conditions of emergency (when prayer is allowed by sign); but coming down from a high step to a lower one is conditional to emergency that removes responsibility and allows respite and extension. God says: He who disbelieves in Allah after he has believed—except he who has been forced (to do so), while his heart remains firm in faith—and opens (his) breast for disbelief, will suffer the wrath of Allah. For them there shall be a great torment … Then, verily your Lord—to those who migrated after being persecuted, then they strived hard and endured patiently—verily, your Lord, after that, is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (16:106, 110).

As for those who base their lives on materialistic enjoyment, then try to justify the rejection of its opposite religious factors by saying that it does not agree with prevalent customs of the present world, they merely follow the materialistic logic, and not the religious one.

There is a discourse related to this chapter that emanates from some people’s claim that swearing by other than God’s name is a sort of polytheism, ascribing a partner to God. It is necessary to ask this speaker what he means by polytheism, which he claims in this context.

Does he mean that: Swearing by other than God (aggrandizement of the one sworn by and showing greatness to his affairs, as the meaning of oath is based on it) contains a sort of humbleness and worship to him, and it is polytheism? But not every aggrandizement is polytheism. It can be polytheistic only when grandeur of independent Lordship is ascribed to someone other than God, with the idea that he is self-suf cient and does not require anyone’s help.

12:35God has sworn (in His Book) by a lot of His creations, like the sky, the earth, the sun, the moon, the disappearing orbiting stars, and the star when it goes down; He has sworn by the mountain, the river, the fig, the olive, and the horse. Also, He has taken oath by the night and day, by morning, by the evening glow, by the afternoon and forenoon; by the Day of Resurrection and the soul; He has sworn by the Book and the Great Qur’an, by the life of the Prophet and the angels, and many such things in numerous verses—while no oath can be valid without some aggrandizement.

So, what is there to prevent us from proceeding on the way God has used in His speech? Why should not we show greatness of some things, which God has bestowed on them, and stop at that? If such expressions were polytheistic, the divine speech should have avoided it in the first place!

Also, God has shown the greatness of many things in His Book, like the Qur’an, the Throne, and the manners of the Prophet. He has said: … and the mighty Qur’ān (15:87); … And He is the Lord of the Mighty Throne (9:129); … and surely you are on a mighty morality (68:4). He has prescribed for His prophets and messengers and for the believers rights on Himself, and has shown their greatness and dignity, as He has said: And certainly Our word has already gone forth about Our servants, the messengers, that verily they shall be helped (37:171–172); … and it was incumbent on Us to help the believers (30:47). Why should not we show their grandeur and follow the divine way in swearing in general? What is there to stop us from adjuring Him by something He Himself has sworn by? Or by one of the rights He has prescribed for His friends on Himself?

Of course, the jurisprudential oath that has legal effects in the fields of oath or judgement is not valid by name of other than God, as is explained in fiqh, but we are not talking about that.

If the objector means to say that general aggrandizement, in any way, is not allowed for anyone other than God—even if it is done through what God has shown its grandeur with—then it is a claim for which there is no proof at all; rather definite proof is found against it.

12:36Sometimes it is said that swearing by the right of the Prophet and God’s friends, seeking nearness to them and hoping for their intercession in any way, is a worship and bestowal of an unseen authority on them. The same comments as above apply to this claim too: What do they mean by this “unseen authority”? Does it denote the independent authority, which is reserved for God? If so, then no Muslim (who believes in the Book of God) assigns it to other than God. And if it denotes non-material authority in general (even if it is by permission of God), then where is the proof that it is impossible for some chosen servants of God, like His friends, to have such authority by divine permission? The noble Qur’an has clearly mentioned many unseen authorities, as God says: … until, when death comes to one of you, Our messengers (angels) cause him to die, … (6:61); Say: “The angel of death will cause you to die …” (32:11); By those (angels) who drag forth violently, and those who undo (the bonds) gently, and those who glide along (swiftly); and those who go ahead with foremost speed, and those who manage the affairs (79:1–5); Say: “Whoever is the enemy of Gabriel, verily it is he who has brought it to your heart by Allah’s command …” (2:97); and there are numerous verses of this theme.

And He says about Iblīs and his hosts: for he and his tribe watch you from a position where you cannot see them. Verily We have made the Satans to be the guardians of those who do not believe (7:27). Likewise, innumerable verses have been revealed about the prophets’ and others’ intercession in the next world, and their miraculous signs in this world.

I wish to understand the distinction these people make between material effects, which they readily accept in various contexts, and non-material effects, termed as unseen authority. If attributing effects to entities other than God is prohibited, then logically, there should be no disparity between material and non-material effects. Conversely, if such attribution is permissible with God’s consent, then both types of effects should be regarded equally in this regard.