'In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful' His saying, exalted is He: "And if you are on a journey and do not find a scribe, then a pledge is taken. And if one of you trusts another, then let the one who is trusted fulfill his trust and let him fear Allah, his Lord. And do not conceal testimony, and whoever conceals it, his heart is indeed sinful. And Allah is All-Aware of what you do." When Allah, the Exalted, mentioned the encouragement to witness and write for the benefit of preserving wealth and debts, He followed that by mentioning the circumstances that prevent writing. He made a pledge a substitute for it and specified among the circumstances of the pledge the journey, which is the most common of the excuses, especially at that time due to the prevalence of raids. And included in that by meaning is every excuse. For there are times when the scribe is unable to write in the presence, such as during people's work hours, at night, and also the fear of the ruin of the debtor's obligation is an excuse that necessitates seeking a pledge. The Prophet, blessings and peace be upon him, pledged his armor with a Jew who requested from him a loan of barley, and he said: "Indeed, Muhammad only wants to take my money." The Prophet, blessings and peace be upon him, said: "He lied; I am trustworthy on earth, trustworthy in the heavens, and if he entrusted me, I would fulfill it. Go to him with my armor." A majority of scholars have said: The pledge in travel is established in the Qur'an, and in presence it is established in the hadith. This is good, except that he did not delve into the meaning of the word 'journey' in the verse. If the journey in the verse is an example of the excuses, then the pledge in presence exists in the verse by meaning, as the excuses in presence can be arranged. Al-Dahhak and Mujahid went to the view that the pledge and trust are only in travel, but in presence, none of that should occur. Al-Tabari weakened their statement regarding the pledge according to the established hadith that I mentioned, and he strengthened their statement regarding trust. The correct view is the weakness of the statement in both cases; rather, trust occurs frequently in presence and is good. The majority of reciters read: "a scribe" meaning a man who writes. Ubayy ibn Ka'b and Ibn Abbas read "a book" with a kasra on the kaf and a softened ta, and an alif after it, which is a source. Al-Makki said: It is said to be the plural of 'scribe' like 'qaim' and 'qiyam', and similar to it is 'sahib' and 'sahab'. Mujahid and Abu Al-Aliya read it this way, and they said: The meaning is: And if the inkpot and the pen or the paper are absent. The negation of the existence of writing is by the absence of any agreed-upon tool. Thus, the negation of writing encompasses it, and the negation of the scribe also necessitates the negation of writing. So both readings are good except from the perspective of the script of the mushaf. It has been narrated from Ibn Abbas that he read "katiban" with a damma on the kaf as a plural of 'scribe', and this is good in terms of every incident having a scribe, so it was said to the group: "And if you do not find scribes." This is the genus indicated by the reading of the one who read: "a scribe." Al-Mahdawi narrated from Abu Al-Aliya that he read: "kutuban," and this is the plural of "kitab" as the incidents differ. This is the genus indicated by the reading of the one who read: "a book."

Nafi', Asim, Ibn 'Amir, Hamzah, and Al-Kisai, along with a majority of the scholars, read "farihan." Abu 'Amr and Ibn Kathir read "faruhun" with a damm on the ra' and the ha'. It has also been narrated from them that they softened the ha'. A group other than them has read with each one.

Qadi Abu Muhammad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: To pledge something in the speech of the Arabs means to last and continue. It is said: He pledged to them the drink and other things. Ibn Sidah said: And he pledged it: meaning he continued it. From the meaning of pledging as in the poet's words:

The meat and bread are for them lasting, And the coffee is poured continuously.

That is, everlasting. Abu Ali said: Since the pledge means permanence and continuity, therefore the pledge is invalidated according to the jurists if it leaves the hand of the pledgor to the hand of the pledgee in any way, because it has departed from what it was made for. It is said: He pledged in the commodity if he inflated its price until he took it for a high price. From this is the poet's saying in describing a she-camel:

Ibn Salma rides it from a distance, A gift pledged with gold coins.

The 'Eid is a belly from Mahrah, and the camels of Mahrah are described as noble. It is said in the meaning of the pledge, which is the securing of the right: I pledged a pledge in what some of them narrated. Abu Ali said: It is said: I pledged in inflation, and as for in borrowing and selling, I pledged.

Qadi Abu Muhammad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: It is said without disagreement in selling and borrowing: I pledged a pledge. Then the thing that is given is named by this source, and it has been transferred to the naming. Therefore, it is broken in the plural as names are broken, and as sources that are named are broken, and its action is made to take the accusative of the object rather than the accusative of the source. You say: I pledged a pledge, just as you say: I pledged a garment, not as you say: I pledged the garment as a pledge, and I struck a blow. Abu Ali said: It may also be said in this meaning: I pledged, and I did more in it. From this is the poet's saying:

He wagers with me, and I pledge him with my sons by what I say.

And Al-A'sha said:

Until he benefits you from his sons a pledge, A coffin, and the sky will pledge you the difference.

These were narrated from: he pledged. As for 'arhena, from it is the saying of Hammam ibn Murrah:

And when I feared their claws, I escaped and pledged them Malika.

Zajjaj said: It is said in the pledge: I pledged and I pledged. Ibn Al-A'rabi said it, and it is said: I pledged my tongue with such and such, and it is not said in it: I pledged.

He said, "Whoever reads: 'Farihan' it is the plural of 'rahn' like 'kabsh' and 'kibash', and 'ka'b' and 'ki'ab', and 'na'l' and 'ni'al', and 'baghl' and 'bighal'. And whoever reads: 'Faruhan' with the 'ra' and 'ha' being pronounced with a dammah, it is the plural of 'rahn' - like 'saqf' and 'suqf', and 'asad' and 'usud', since 'fa'al' and 'fu'al' are close in their rulings. And whoever reads 'Farahn' with the 'ha' being silent, it is a lightening of 'ruhun', and it is a language in this entire matter - like 'kutub' and 'fakhdh' and 'adhd' and others. Abu Ali said: The breaking of 'ruhun' into the least number, I do not know that it has been reported. And if it had been reported, its analogy would be 'af'al' like 'kalb' and 'aklab', and it seems that they have relied on the many over the few in their saying: 'Three shusu'. Just as they have relied on the building of the few over the building of the many in 'rusun' and 'arsan'.

'Farahn' is gathered on two forms from the forms of the plurals, which are: 'fu'al' and 'fi'al'. Among what has come in 'fu'al' is the saying of Al-A'sha:

I have sworn not to give him from our sons ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ruhan that would ruin them like one who has ruined.

Al-Tabari said: A group interpreted that 'ruhan' with the 'ra' and 'ha' being pronounced with a dammah, is the plural of 'rihan', so it is the plural of a plural, and Al-Zajjaj reported it from Al-Far'a. Abu Ali directed an analogy that necessitates that 'rihan' is the plural of 'ruhun' by saying: 'fu'al' is gathered on 'fi'al' just as they gathered 'fi'al' on 'fa'il' in the saying of Dhul-Rummah:

And they brought close with the blue the beauties after what ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ the danger has curved from the crows of her thighs.

Then Abu Ali weakened this analogy and said that Sibawayh does not see the gathering of the plural to be consistent, so it should not be undertaken until it is reported by hearing.

And His saying, exalted and glorified is He: 'Maqbuda' necessitates the separation of the mortgaged from the mortgage. And the people have agreed on the correctness of the taking of the mortgaged, and likewise on the taking of his agent in what I have learned. They differed regarding the taking of a just person on whose hands the mortgage is placed - Malik, all his companions, and the majority of the scholars said: The taking of the just is a taking. And Al-Hakam ibn 'Utaybah, Abu Al-Khattab, Qatadah ibn Di'ama, and others said: The taking of the just is not a taking. And the saying of the majority is more correct from the perspective of the meaning in the mortgage.

And His saying, exalted and glorified is He: 'If he is trusted' - the verse is a condition by which he linked the will of the one upon whom the right is due to the performance. And His saying: 'Then let him perform' is a command with the meaning of obligation, by the evidence of the consensus on the obligation of the performance of debts, and the establishment of the ruling of the judge in it, and his compelling the debtors to it, and by the evidence of the authentic hadiths regarding the prohibition of the wealth of others. And His saying: 'Amanatahu' is a source by which the thing that is in the trust is named, and it is attributed to the one who has the debt in terms of it having a relation to him. It is possible that he means by 'amanah' the very source itself, as if he said:

Let him preserve his honor. The meaning is: let him fulfill the debt of his trust. And 'Asim read, as narrated by Abu Bakr, "the one who was entrusted" with the dhāl raised, and he indicates with the ḍammah to the hamzah. Ahmad ibn Musa said: and this translation is incorrect. The others read with the dhāl broken, and after it a hamzah that is silent without any indication. This is the correct form that cannot be other than this. Salim narrated from Hamzah the indication of the hamzah with the ḍammah, and this is also a mistake that is not permissible. Abu Ali approved of all this statement of Ahmad ibn Musa and provided evidence for it. Ibn Muḥaysin read: "the one who was entrusted" with a silent yāʾ in place of the hamzah, and likewise what is similar to it.

And His saying, the Exalted: ﴿And do not conceal the testimony﴾ is a prohibition that is obligatory based on several evidences, among them the warning. The place of the prohibition is where the witness fears the loss of a right. Ibn Abbas said: the witness must testify wherever he is called to testify, and inform wherever he is asked. He said: and do not say: he informed about it at the leader's place, rather inform him about it so that he may return and repent.

(p-131) The judge Abu Muhammad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: and this is, in my opinion, according to the circumstances of the witness, the matter being witnessed, and the situation, especially with the corruption of the times, the lowliness of the people, the hypocrisy of the tricks, and the distractions of the world before the rulers. For perhaps a testimony, if he declares it in a place other than the place of authority, could be a reason for serving falsehood, by which the truth is obscured.

And "sinner" means: he has been subjected to the subsequent ruling for the sin of concealing the testimony. Its grammatical analysis is that it is the news of "indeed," and "its heart" is the subject with "sinner," and it may be an initiation, and "its heart" is the subject that substitutes for the news, and the sentence is the news of "indeed." It may be that "its heart" is a substitute for part of the whole. And Allah, the Exalted, specifically mentioned the heart since concealment is one of its actions, and it is the morsel that, when rectified, the body is rectified, as he, blessings and peace be upon him, said. Ibn Abi Abla read: "For indeed, his heart is a sinner" with the bāʾ in the accusative. Al-Makki said: it is for interpretation, then he weakened it because it is a definite noun. And in His saying, the Exalted: ﴿And Allah is All-Aware of what you do﴾ is a warning, even if its wording includes both promise and warning.