أَيْمَٰنٌ
Appears 2 times in Quran
Derived Words (2)
Words derived from the stem "أَيْمَٰنٌ".
- covenant binding
- other oaths
Occurrences in Quran
Found 2 verses containing "أَيْمَٰنٌ".
ذَٰلِكَ أَدْنَىٰٓ أَن يَأْتُوا۟ بِٱلشَّهَٰدَةِ عَلَىٰ وَجْهِهَآ أَوْ يَخَافُوٓا۟ أَن تُرَدَّ أَيْمَٰنٌۢ بَعْدَ أَيْمَٰنِهِمْ ۗ وَٱتَّقُوا۟ ٱللَّهَ وَٱسْمَعُوا۟ ۗ وَٱللَّهُ لَا يَهْدِى ٱلْقَوْمَ ٱلْفَٰسِقِينَ
Commentary:
The Arabic words ترد ایمان بعد ایمانھم rendered as "other oaths will be taken after their oaths" literally means: (1) "oaths will be repeated, i.e. taken again, after their oaths"; or (2) "their oaths will be rejected after their (other witnesses’) oaths", the significance in both cases being practically the same, i.e. the oaths of the first two witnesses will be rejected and two other witnesses called in to give true evidence on oath.
The purport of this and the preceding two verses is that when a person is about to make his will at the time of his death, he should have as witnesses to his statement two just men, who should testify to the validity of his will after his death. But if death comes upon a person suddenly when he is away from home and no Muslim witnesses are at hand, then two trustworthy non-Muslims may be asked to serve as witnesses. If, however, the veracity of the witnesses is called into question by the heirs of the deceased, the former should be asked to prove their truthfulness by a statement on oath made after the time of Prayer. But if the persons in whose favour the will was made have good reason to believe that the witnesses have been guilty of perjury, then they can state on oath that their statement is truer than that of the two witnesses, and in that case the qadi or judge, if satisfied, will give his decree in their favour.
An incident is reported to have occurred in the days of the Holy Prophet which throws some light on the verses under comment. A Muslim who died away from home entrusted his goods to two men before his death and asked them to deliver the same to his heirs at Medina. On receiving the goods, the heirs found that a silver bowl was missing. The two men were thereupon called upon to explain the loss of the bowl, but they denied all knowledge of it on oath. Later, the heirs of the deceased person happened to see the bowl with some persons at Mecca who told them that it had been sold to them by the two men to whom the deceased had entrusted his property. Thereupon the two men were again summoned, and in their presence the heirs of the deceased stated on oath that the bowl was theirs, whereupon it was handed over to them (Manthur).
The Prayer mentioned in 5:107 above may be any Prayer but preferably it should be the ‘Asr or late afternoon Prayer, because it was after this Prayer that the Holy Prophet summoned the two witnesses to whom reference has been made above and who were believed to have stolen the silver bowl. The time after Prayer has been chosen with a view to inspiring witnesses with ideas of piety and God-fearingness and inclining their minds to truthfulness. If the witnesses be non-Muslims, then they may be called upon to swear after the time of their own worship, so that the solemnity of the hour may incline them to make a true statement, because the worship of God is calculated to exercise a purifying influence on the human mind, and men fresh from Prayer are expected to fear God and make a true statement.
The word اَولیان (the two, who were in a better position) occurring in 5:108 above is the dual of اولی which means more competent or more worthy. It refers to the first two witnesses and signifies that these two were in a better position to give true evidence, being the persons who were with the deceased at the time of his death and in whose presence the will was made and to whom the property was entrusted to be handed over to the heirs of the deceased. The expression also serves as a sort of veiled reproach to them that, in spite of being in a better position and more competent to give true evidence, they stumbled and drifted away from truth.
The second two witnesses should be from among the deceased person’s heirs, whom the first two witnesses deprived of their right by bearing false witness regarding the will of the deceased.
736
Commentary:
The Arabic words ترد ایمان بعد ایمانھم rendered as "other oaths will be taken after their oaths" literally means: (1) "oaths will be repeated, i.e. taken again, after their oaths"; or (2) "their oaths will be rejected after their (other witnesses’) oaths", the significance in both cases being practically the same, i.e. the oaths of the first two witnesses will be rejected and two other witnesses called in to give true evidence on oath.
The purport of this and the preceding two verses is that when a person is about to make his will at the time of his death, he should have as witnesses to his statement two just men, who should testify to the validity of his will after his death. But if death comes upon a person suddenly when he is away from home and no Muslim witnesses are at hand, then two trustworthy non-Muslims may be asked to serve as witnesses. If, however, the veracity of the witnesses is called into question by the heirs of the deceased, the former should be asked to prove their truthfulness by a statement on oath made after the time of Prayer. But if the persons in whose favour the will was made have good reason to believe that the witnesses have been guilty of perjury, then they can state on oath that their statement is truer than that of the two witnesses, and in that case the qadi or judge, if satisfied, will give his decree in their favour.
An incident is reported to have occurred in the days of the Holy Prophet which throws some light on the verses under comment. A Muslim who died away from home entrusted his goods to two men before his death and asked them to deliver the same to his heirs at Medina. On receiving the goods, the heirs found that a silver bowl was missing. The two men were thereupon called upon to explain the loss of the bowl, but they denied all knowledge of it on oath. Later, the heirs of the deceased person happened to see the bowl with some persons at Mecca who told them that it had been sold to them by the two men to whom the deceased had entrusted his property. Thereupon the two men were again summoned, and in their presence the heirs of the deceased stated on oath that the bowl was theirs, whereupon it was handed over to them (Manthur).
The Prayer mentioned in 5:107 above may be any Prayer but preferably it should be the ‘Asr or late afternoon Prayer, because it was after this Prayer that the Holy Prophet summoned the two witnesses to whom reference has been made above and who were believed to have stolen the silver bowl. The time after Prayer has been chosen with a view to inspiring witnesses with ideas of piety and God-fearingness and inclining their minds to truthfulness. If the witnesses be non-Muslims, then they may be called upon to swear after the time of their own worship, so that the solemnity of the hour may incline them to make a true statement, because the worship of God is calculated to exercise a purifying influence on the human mind, and men fresh from Prayer are expected to fear God and make a true statement.
The word اَولیان (the two, who were in a better position) occurring in 5:108 above is the dual of اولی which means more competent or more worthy. It refers to the first two witnesses and signifies that these two were in a better position to give true evidence, being the persons who were with the deceased at the time of his death and in whose presence the will was made and to whom the property was entrusted to be handed over to the heirs of the deceased. The expression also serves as a sort of veiled reproach to them that, in spite of being in a better position and more competent to give true evidence, they stumbled and drifted away from truth.
The second two witnesses should be from among the deceased person’s heirs, whom the first two witnesses deprived of their right by bearing false witness regarding the will of the deceased.
أَمْ لَكُمْ أَيْمَٰنٌ عَلَيْنَا بَٰلِغَةٌ إِلَىٰ يَوْمِ ٱلْقِيَٰمَةِ ۙ إِنَّ لَكُمْ لَمَا تَحْكُمُونَ
这节经文问不信者: “他们在启示圣典中有任何根据, 他们将可以按照自己的好恶选择一种生活方式而又能避免他们的劣迹的后果? 或者说, 他们从安拉那里取得了这样的圣约, 他们想要什么就要什么, 想干什么就干什么, 却不遭受由此而来的后果? 而且一直生效到最后审判日。”
The verse asks the disbelievers, "Have they any authority in any revealed Scripture that they will be allowed to choose a way of life of their own liking and will also escape the consequences of their evil deeds?" Or, have they taken a covenant from God which will remain in force till the Day of Judgment that they will have whatever they like and do whatever they like and yet will not suffer the consequences flowing from their actions?
Commentary:
In vv. 36-39 above, it was stated that a person who severs all connection with God and defies and contravenes His laws, can never be treated like one who makes those laws a rule of life. Both these classes of men choose different ways of life and inevitably come to different ends. This is God’s eternal and unchangeable laws which cannot be altered to suit anybody’s wishful thinking. Further, disbelievers were asked whether there was any authority in any revealed Scripture that they would be allowed to choose a way of life of their own liking and would escape the consequences of their evil deeds. In the present verse they are told that if they possess no Scriptural authority to support their foolish ideas, and if reason and logic too, do not support them, have they then taken a covenant from God which will remain in force till the Day of Judgement that they will have whatever they like and do whatever they like and yet not suffer the consequences flowing from their actions? If they think so, the verse warns them, they are mistaken.
1466
这节经文问不信者: “他们在启示圣典中有任何根据, 他们将可以按照自己的好恶选择一种生活方式而又能避免他们的劣迹的后果? 或者说, 他们从安拉那里取得了这样的圣约, 他们想要什么就要什么, 想干什么就干什么, 却不遭受由此而来的后果? 而且一直生效到最后审判日。”
4329
Commentary:
In vv. 36-39 above, it was stated that a person who severs all connection with God and defies and contravenes His laws, can never be treated like one who makes those laws a rule of life. Both these classes of men choose different ways of life and inevitably come to different ends. This is God’s eternal and unchangeable laws which cannot be altered to suit anybody’s wishful thinking. Further, disbelievers were asked whether there was any authority in any revealed Scripture that they would be allowed to choose a way of life of their own liking and would escape the consequences of their evil deeds. In the present verse they are told that if they possess no Scriptural authority to support their foolish ideas, and if reason and logic too, do not support them, have they then taken a covenant from God which will remain in force till the Day of Judgement that they will have whatever they like and do whatever they like and yet not suffer the consequences flowing from their actions? If they think so, the verse warns them, they are mistaken.
3102
The verse asks the disbelievers, "Have they any authority in any revealed Scripture that they will be allowed to choose a way of life of their own liking and will also escape the consequences of their evil deeds?" Or, have they taken a covenant from God which will remain in force till the Day of Judgment that they will have whatever they like and do whatever they like and yet will not suffer the consequences flowing from their actions?