يَأْتُوا۟
Appears 4 times in Quran
Occurrences in Quran
Found 4 verses containing "يَأْتُوا۟".
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.
قُل لَّئِنِ ٱجْتَمَعَتِ ٱلْإِنسُ وَٱلْجِنُّ عَلَىٰٓ أَن يَأْتُوا۟ بِمِثْلِ هَٰذَا ٱلْقُرْءَانِ لَا يَأْتُونَ بِمِثْلِهِۦ وَلَوْ كَانَ بَعْضُهُمْ لِبَعْضٍ ظَهِيرًا
دیکھئے نوٹ سورۃ انعام آیت۱۲۹۔
2:24; 10:39; 11:14; 62:35.
The challenge is held out in the first place to those people who indulge in occult practices that they should summon to their aid the hidden spirits from whom they claim to receive spiritual knowledge. The challenge also stands for all time to all people who deny the Divine origin of the Holy Qur’an.
2:24; 10:39; 11:14; 52:35.
Commentary:
This verse confirms the interpretation of the two preceding verses, for it develops the argument embodied in them. It holds out the challenge to those who indulge in occult practices and by means of these practices claim to receive spiritual knowledge from the departed spirits that, if they seriously think their claim to possess any substance, then let all of them assemble together and summon to their aid the hidden spirits which they think can communicate to them the knowledge of spiritual matters, and with their concerted and combined effort produce a book like the Quran. If they failed to produce such a book, and most certainly they would fail if they ever made such an attempt, then the falsity of their claim to receive spiritual knowledge from departed spirits would become established beyond doubt as also would their assertion that the Holy Prophet had acquired the knowledge contained in the Quran by means of certain spiritual exercises.
a
2:24; 10:39; 11:14; 62:35.
731
这一挑战首先向那些纵情于那些神秘莫测的做法的人们提出, 要他们召集看不见的精纳来帮助他们, 他们声称可以从这些精纳那里得到精神知识。这一挑战也永远向一切否认 «古兰经» 是安拉启示的人们提出。
1
دیکھئے نوٹ سورۃ انعام آیت۱۲۹۔
b
2:24; 10:39; 11:14; 52:35.
2018
Commentary:
This verse confirms the interpretation of the two preceding verses, for it develops the argument embodied in them. It holds out the challenge to those who indulge in occult practices and by means of these practices claim to receive spiritual knowledge from the departed spirits that, if they seriously think their claim to possess any substance, then let all of them assemble together and summon to their aid the hidden spirits which they think can communicate to them the knowledge of spiritual matters, and with their concerted and combined effort produce a book like the Quran. If they failed to produce such a book, and most certainly they would fail if they ever made such an attempt, then the falsity of their claim to receive spiritual knowledge from departed spirits would become established beyond doubt as also would their assertion that the Holy Prophet had acquired the knowledge contained in the Quran by means of certain spiritual exercises.
b
2:24; 10:39; 11:14; 62:35.
1649
The challenge is held out in the first place to those people who indulge in occult practices that they should summon to their aid the hidden spirits from whom they claim to receive spiritual knowledge. The challenge also stands for all time to all people who deny the Divine origin of the Holy Qur’an.
وَٱلَّذِينَ يَرْمُونَ ٱلْمُحْصَنَٰتِ ثُمَّ لَمْ يَأْتُوا۟ بِأَرْبَعَةِ شُهَدَآءَ فَٱجْلِدُوهُمْ ثَمَٰنِينَ جَلْدَةً وَلَا تَقْبَلُوا۟ لَهُمْ شَهَٰدَةً أَبَدًا ۚ وَأُو۟لَٰٓئِكَ هُمُ ٱلْفَٰسِقُونَ
24:24.
24:24.
The other social evil, second to adultery in heinousness, which eats into the vitals of human society, is the slandering of innocent persons. Islam also views with extreme disfavour this social evil which has become so common in the so-called civilized modern society, and severely punishes the accusers of innocent people. The verse mentions three forms of punishment in an ascending order which are to be meted out to a slanderer: (a) the physical punishment of scourging; (b) the disgrace of being branded as a perjurer and a liar which invalidates his evidence and (c) the spiritual stigma of being adjudged as a transgressor. It may be noted that no mention is made here of the accusation being true or false. So long as the accuser cannot produce the necessary evidence in support of his charge, the charge would be considered as false and the accuser would render himself liable to the prescribed punishment. Whatever the facts of the case, the woman with whom adultery is alleged to have been committed will be he
24:24.
Commentary:
The other social evil, second to adultery in heinousness which eats into the vitals of human society, is the slandering of innocent persons. Islam views also with extreme disfavour this social evil which has become so common in the so-called civilized modern society, and severely punishes the accusers of innocent people. The verse under comment mentions three forms of punishment in an ascending order which are to be meted out to a slanderer; first, the physical punishment of scourging; secondly, the disgrace of being branded as a perjurer and a liar which invalidates his evidence and thirdly, the spiritual stigma of being adjudged as a wicked transgressor.
It may be noted that the punishment prescribed for the slanderer who accuses a chaste woman without producing adequate evidence seems to be even more serious than the punishment prescribed for the crime of adultery itself. In the latter case the punishment prescribed is one hundred lashes, only twenty lashes more than those prescribed for slandering. But after undergoing the punishment the adulterer or adulteress has not to carry the disgrace of being branded as a perjurer, nor does he or she lie under the more serious spiritual stigma of being adjudged by God as a wicked transgressor.
The commandment about scandal-mongering is of particular importance in the present state of the so-called civilized society where it has assumed the form of a common social pastime. No wonder that as a result of scandal-mongering sexual immorality has greatly increased, particularly in western countries.
It may also be noted that in this verse no mention has been made of the accusation being true or false. So long as the accuser cannot produce the necessary evidence in support of his charge, the charge would be considered as false and the accuser would render himself liable to the prescribed punishment. Whatever the real facts of the case, the woman with whom adultery is alleged to have been committed will be held innocent so long as the required evidence is not produced. The law is, in fact, intended to suppress with a strong hand the offence of slandering and scandal-mongering which is calculated to encourage the spread of those very crimes which the scandal-mongers hold up to public gaze.
It follows from this verse that a person charged with adultery is held guilty only if four witnesses, in addition to the accuser, are forthcoming who solemnly declare and testify to the fact of having seen with their own eyes the accused person actually committing the crime.
In case the offender himself confesses to the crime, no witnesses will, of course, be required to prove his guilt provided he is in full possession of his senses. From Hadith it appears that in such an event the offender must himself testify four times to having committed the crime. In case a man alleges that he has committed adultery the woman implicated will not be held guilty unless she herself admits that she too has committed the crime. This provision is intended to save the good name of innocent men or women from being besmirched by persons of no character who are not ashamed of confessing to having committed adultery in order to implicate other innocent persons along with themselves.
Similarly, when a person makes an allegation against another, it is the accuser who is required to produce four witnesses to the crime alleged. The accused person has not to prove his innocence. It is only after four witnesses have been produced that he is asked to produce his defence. If the accuser fails to produce the requisite four witnesses, then both he and the witnesses will be liable to punishment on the plea of having made an allegation for which they had not produced the necessary evidence.
The object of such stringent provisions is to discourage the spread of indecent scandals. Such provisions amply refute the criticism that the penalty Islamic Law prescribes for adultery is barbarous. The evidence and the attendant conditions required to prove the commission of adultery are, in fact, almost impossible to produce save in cases where the offence is committed openly and in such cases a severe punishment, in order to be deterrent, is certainly very essential.
If a person confesses to having committed the crime and repeats his confession four times, he will not be punished if he recants at the time of infliction of the punishment. In such an event, however, the culprit will be liable to punishment for slandering the alleged accessory.
The commandment contained in this verse covers both men and women although the word used is المحصنات which means 'chaste women.' In the Arabic language when something has to be said which relates equally to both men and women the gender used is masculine. But when something is said regarding a matter which concerns women more than men, then feminine gender is used. The commandment here relates to punishment for slandering whether the victim of the slander is man or woman but as women generally are more often the victims of such slanders, the verse speaks of 'chaste women'. Similarly the word الذین (those) though in masculine gender applies to both men and women slanderers.
b
24:24.
a
24:24.
2594
Commentary:
The other social evil, second to adultery in heinousness which eats into the vitals of human society, is the slandering of innocent persons. Islam views also with extreme disfavour this social evil which has become so common in the so-called civilized modern society, and severely punishes the accusers of innocent people. The verse under comment mentions three forms of punishment in an ascending order which are to be meted out to a slanderer; first, the physical punishment of scourging; secondly, the disgrace of being branded as a perjurer and a liar which invalidates his evidence and thirdly, the spiritual stigma of being adjudged as a wicked transgressor.
It may be noted that the punishment prescribed for the slanderer who accuses a chaste woman without producing adequate evidence seems to be even more serious than the punishment prescribed for the crime of adultery itself. In the latter case the punishment prescribed is one hundred lashes, only twenty lashes more than those prescribed for slandering. But after undergoing the punishment the adulterer or adulteress has not to carry the disgrace of being branded as a perjurer, nor does he or she lie under the more serious spiritual stigma of being adjudged by God as a wicked transgressor.
The commandment about scandal-mongering is of particular importance in the present state of the so-called civilized society where it has assumed the form of a common social pastime. No wonder that as a result of scandal-mongering sexual immorality has greatly increased, particularly in western countries.
It may also be noted that in this verse no mention has been made of the accusation being true or false. So long as the accuser cannot produce the necessary evidence in support of his charge, the charge would be considered as false and the accuser would render himself liable to the prescribed punishment. Whatever the real facts of the case, the woman with whom adultery is alleged to have been committed will be held innocent so long as the required evidence is not produced. The law is, in fact, intended to suppress with a strong hand the offence of slandering and scandal-mongering which is calculated to encourage the spread of those very crimes which the scandal-mongers hold up to public gaze.
It follows from this verse that a person charged with adultery is held guilty only if four witnesses, in addition to the accuser, are forthcoming who solemnly declare and testify to the fact of having seen with their own eyes the accused person actually committing the crime.
In case the offender himself confesses to the crime, no witnesses will, of course, be required to prove his guilt provided he is in full possession of his senses. From Hadith it appears that in such an event the offender must himself testify four times to having committed the crime. In case a man alleges that he has committed adultery the woman implicated will not be held guilty unless she herself admits that she too has committed the crime. This provision is intended to save the good name of innocent men or women from being besmirched by persons of no character who are not ashamed of confessing to having committed adultery in order to implicate other innocent persons along with themselves.
Similarly, when a person makes an allegation against another, it is the accuser who is required to produce four witnesses to the crime alleged. The accused person has not to prove his innocence. It is only after four witnesses have been produced that he is asked to produce his defence. If the accuser fails to produce the requisite four witnesses, then both he and the witnesses will be liable to punishment on the plea of having made an allegation for which they had not produced the necessary evidence.
The object of such stringent provisions is to discourage the spread of indecent scandals. Such provisions amply refute the criticism that the penalty Islamic Law prescribes for adultery is barbarous. The evidence and the attendant conditions required to prove the commission of adultery are, in fact, almost impossible to produce save in cases where the offence is committed openly and in such cases a severe punishment, in order to be deterrent, is certainly very essential.
If a person confesses to having committed the crime and repeats his confession four times, he will not be punished if he recants at the time of infliction of the punishment. In such an event, however, the culprit will be liable to punishment for slandering the alleged accessory.
The commandment contained in this verse covers both men and women although the word used is المحصنات which means 'chaste women.' In the Arabic language when something has to be said which relates equally to both men and women the gender used is masculine. But when something is said regarding a matter which concerns women more than men, then feminine gender is used. The commandment here relates to punishment for slandering whether the victim of the slander is man or woman but as women generally are more often the victims of such slanders, the verse speaks of 'chaste women'. Similarly the word الذین (those) though in masculine gender applies to both men and women slanderers.
a
24:24.
2028
The other social evil, second to adultery in heinousness, which eats into the vitals of human society, is the slandering of innocent persons. Islam also views with extreme disfavour this social evil which has become so common in the so-called civilized modern society, and severely punishes the accusers of innocent people. The verse mentions three forms of punishment in an ascending order which are to be meted out to a slanderer: (a) the physical punishment of scourging; (b) the disgrace of being branded as a perjurer and a liar which invalidates his evidence and (c) the spiritual stigma of being adjudged as a transgressor. It may be noted that no mention is made here of the accusation being true or false. So long as the accuser cannot produce the necessary evidence in support of his charge, the charge would be considered as false and the accuser would render himself liable to the prescribed punishment. Whatever the facts of the case, the woman with whom adultery is alleged to have been committed will be he
لَّوْلَا جَآءُو عَلَيْهِ بِأَرْبَعَةِ شُهَدَآءَ ۚ فَإِذْ لَمْ يَأْتُوا۟ بِٱلشُّهَدَآءِ فَأُو۟لَٰٓئِكَ عِندَ ٱللَّهِ هُمُ ٱلْكَٰذِبُونَ
He, who accuses a Muslim man or woman of adultery and does not produce four witnesses to prove his allegation, shall be held to be a liar and treated as such by the Islamic Law if he can produce only one, two or even three persons as eyewitnesses to the act. The fact of one person seeing another person committing this immoral act does not entitle him to go about spreading the evil report.
Commentary:
As stated above, not only does Islam take a very serious view of the crimes against chastity and punishes them severely, it is also very sensitive about the good reputation of Muslim men and women and takes very effective steps to safeguard it. Islam regards it as highly reprehensible and even criminal to spread false accusations against them. According to this verse, he who accuses a Muslim man or woman of adultery and does not produce four witnesses to prove his allegation shall be held to be a liar and treated as such by the Islamic Law even if he can produce one, two or even three persons as eye-witnesses to the act. The fact of one person seeing another person committing this immoral act does not entitle him to go about spreading the evil report.
2601
Commentary:
As stated above, not only does Islam take a very serious view of the crimes against chastity and punishes them severely, it is also very sensitive about the good reputation of Muslim men and women and takes very effective steps to safeguard it. Islam regards it as highly reprehensible and even criminal to spread false accusations against them. According to this verse, he who accuses a Muslim man or woman of adultery and does not produce four witnesses to prove his allegation shall be held to be a liar and treated as such by the Islamic Law even if he can produce one, two or even three persons as eye-witnesses to the act. The fact of one person seeing another person committing this immoral act does not entitle him to go about spreading the evil report.
2034
He, who accuses a Muslim man or woman of adultery and does not produce four witnesses to prove his allegation, shall be held to be a liar and treated as such by the Islamic Law if he can produce only one, two or even three persons as eyewitnesses to the act. The fact of one person seeing another person committing this immoral act does not entitle him to go about spreading the evil report.