If you engage in a debt transaction, when one of you lends to another. It is said: I dealt with the man by giving or taking a debt, just as you say: I sold to him when I sold him or he sold you. Ru'ba said: I dealt with Arwa and the debts are settled... So some were delayed and some were paid. [This is said by Ru'ba. He means: I dealt with my beloved Arwa with a debt she owes me as part of affection. So 'delayed' means I postponed some of it and prolonged the duration of its postponement, and 'paid' means she settled some of it. And the saying 'and the debts are settled' is a statement of the state or an interjection clarifying her injustice in the delay, and the essence of delay is stretching and prolonging.] The meaning is: If you engage in a deferred debt transaction, then write it down. If you say: Why is it not said: If you engage in debt to a specified term? [Mahamud said: 'If you say why is it not said if you engage in... etc.? Ahmad said: The specified term is the one whose end is known, and there are ways to know the end, including defining it by time itself, like a year or a month. And defining it by what is customary to occur in a specific time known by convention, like harvest or the arrival of the pilgrims. And however the term is known, it is valid to set it, and for this reason, the ownership of the sale to the harvest is permitted because it is known to them. Then the consideration is the time of the occurrence of these specified terms, not the occurrence itself. So if the time of the arrival of the pilgrims comes and a barrier prevents their arrival, for example, it does not matter, and we rule that the term of the debt has arrived, and Allah knows best.] And what is the need to mention the debt, as he said: I dealt with Arwa, and did not say: with a debt? I said: It is mentioned so that the pronoun can refer back to it in the saying 'then write it down,' for if it were not mentioned, it would have to be said: 'then write the debt,' and the structure would not be as good. And it is clearer to differentiate the debt into deferred and immediate. If you say: What is the benefit of saying 'specified'? I said:

It is to be known that it is a right of the term to be known, like the specification by year, months, and days. If he says: until the harvest, or the threshing, or the return of the pilgrim, it is not permissible due to the lack of specification. He was commanded to write down the debt because that is more secure and safer from forgetfulness and further from denial, and the command is for recommendation. Ibn Abbas said that what is meant by it is the salam (forward sale). He said: When Allah prohibited riba (usury), He permitted the loan. And from him: I bear witness that Allah has permitted the salam that is guaranteed for a known term in His Book and revealed the longest verse about it. [This was narrated by Al-Hakim from the narration of Abu Hayyan Al-A'raj from Al-Amash from Ibn Abbas, who said: 'I bear witness that the salam that is guaranteed for a specified term is that Allah has specified it in the Book and permitted it.' And he recited this verse: 'O you who have believed, when you contract a debt for a specified term, write it down.'] The term 'by justice' is related to the writer as a description of him, meaning a writer who is trustworthy in what he writes, writing with fairness and caution. He should not write more than what must be written nor less. It also indicates that the writer should be knowledgeable of the conditions so that what he writes is in accordance with the Shari'ah. It is a command for the debtors to choose the writer, and they should not write except with a knowledgeable and righteous person. And let not any writer refuse, nor let anyone refrain from writing, which is the meaning of the indefinite article 'a writer' that he should write as Allah has taught him, just as Allah taught him the writing of documents, not to change or alter it. It was said that it is His saying: 'And do good as Allah has done good to you,' meaning to benefit people by his writing just as Allah benefited him by teaching it. And from Al-Sha'bi: It is a communal obligation. And as He taught him, it may relate to the command to write, and to His saying: 'Let him write.' If you say: What is the difference between the two phrases? I say: If you relate it to 'to write,' then it prohibits refraining from the restricted writing. Then it was said to him: 'Let him write,' meaning let him write that writing and not deviate from it for emphasis. And if you relate it to 'let him write,' then it prohibits refraining from writing in general, then He commanded it to be restricted. 'Let the one who has the obligation dictate,' and let not the one dictating be except the one upon whom the obligation is due, for he is the witness to its stability in his debt and his acknowledgment of it. The dictation and the dictating are two forms that have been pronounced in the Qur'an: 'So it is dictated to him.' And let him not diminish from it anything of the right; and diminishing means reduction. It has been read as 'shay'an,' dropping the hamzah, and 'shay'an,' with emphasis. A foolish person who is restricted due to his squandering and ignorance of management, or a weak person, a child, or an elderly person who is mentally unstable, or one who cannot dictate himself due to being unable or mute, let his guardian dictate for him, who is responsible for his affairs, from a guardian if he is foolish or a child, or an agent if he is unable, or a translator who dictates for him while he affirms it. And His saying: 'to dictate himself' indicates that he is unable but through another, who is the one translating for him. And seek witnesses from among your men, and ask that two witnesses testify for you on the debt from among your men of the believers. Freedom and maturity are conditions along with Islam according to the majority of scholars. And from Ali, may Allah be pleased with him: The testimony of a slave is not permissible in anything. And according to Shuraih, Ibn Sirin, and Uthman Al-Batti, it is permissible. And according to Abu Hanifa, the testimony of disbelievers among themselves is permissible regardless of their sects. If the two witnesses are not two men, then one man and two women should testify. The testimony of women with men is accepted according to Abu Hanifa except in cases of limits and retribution from those whom you accept, from those you know to be just, lest one of them go astray, meaning that one of them does not remember to testify, as one who has lost the way does not find it. And its position is as an object for the purpose of wanting her to go astray. If you say: How can her going astray be intended by Allah? I say: Since going astray is a cause for remembrance, and remembrance is caused by it, they consider each of the cause and the caused to be in the same position due to their connection and relation. Therefore, the intention of going astray, which causes remembrance, is an intention for remembrance, as if it were said: The intention that one of them reminds the other if she goes astray.

And its counterpart is their saying: I have prepared the beam so that the wall may lean, and I have prepared the weapon so that an enemy may come, so I can repel him.

And it is read (فَتُذَكِّرَ) with both the light and heavy pronunciation, and both are dialects. And (فتذاكر). And Hamza read: (إن تضل إحداهما), as a condition. (فتذكر): in the nominative and with emphasis, like his saying: (وَمَنْ عادَ فَيَنْتَقِمُ اللَّهُ مِنْهُ). And it is read (أن تضل إحداهما) in the passive form and feminine. And among the innovations of interpretations is: (فتذكر), so that one of them makes the other a reminder, meaning that if they are gathered, they are like a reminder when they are called to establish testimony. And it was said: to witness. And it was said to them: witnesses before the bearing, likening it to what approaches the status of existence. And from Qatadah: A man used to circle the great gathering of people, and none would follow him from them, so it was revealed. He used the term 'sameness' to denote laziness, because laziness is a characteristic of the hypocrite. And from it is the hadith: The believer does not say: I was lazy.

And it is possible that it is meant by the abundance of his debts that he needed to earn a record for every small or large debt, so perhaps he became weary of the many books. And the pronoun in (تَكْتُبُوهُ) refers to the debt or the right, whether small or large, in whatever condition the right may be, whether small or large. And it is possible that the pronoun refers to the book, and that they write it briefly or in detail, without being deficient in its writing until its time, which the two debtors agreed to name. (ذلِكُمْ) indicates that you should write it, because it is in the meaning of the source, meaning that those books are more just than (القسط) and more upright for testimony and more helpful in establishing testimony and closer to the absence of doubt. If you say: From what is the comparative form built, meaning: (أقسط), and (أقوم)? I say: It is permissible according to the method of Sibawayh that they are built from (أقسط) and (أقام), and that (أقسط) is from (قاسط) in the manner of relation meaning one who has (قسط), and (أقوم) from (قويم). And it is read: (ولا يسأموا أن يكتبوه) with the pronoun in both.

If you say: What is the meaning of (تِجارَةً حاضِرَةً) and whether the sale is by debt or by cash, is the trade present? And what is the meaning of managing it among them? I say: By trade, I mean what is traded in terms of substitutes. And the meaning of managing it among them is their dealing with it hand in hand.

And the meaning is: Except that you engage in a sale that is immediate hand in hand, then there is no harm in not writing it, because there is no assumption in it as there is in lending. And it is read: (تجارة حاضرة) in the nominative as a complete sentence. And it was said: It is incomplete, with the name being 'تجارة حاضرة' and the news being 'تديرونها', and in the accusative as: Except that the trade is a present trade like the house of the book:

(بَنِى أسَدٍ هَلْ تَعْلَمُونَ بلَاءَنَا ... إذَا كانَ يَوْمًا ذَا كَوَاكِبَ أَشْنَعَا)

From the verses of the book. And the meaning of this question is a warning and a threat, and a reminder of what has preceded or a confirmation, or (هل) meaning (قد). And (البلاء) means war and every disliked thing. That is, O Banu Asad, do you know our war when the day was a day of terrible stars? The name of (كان) is omitted. And it is possible that the name of (كان) is the pronoun of (البلاء), and (يوما) is a circumstance related to the omitted news. And he used (ذي الكواكب) to refer to darkness, because the multiple stars do not appear except at night, so the meaning is: If the day resembles the night in darkness due to the intensity of war and the stirring of dust that obscures the sun, so that the stars seem to be seen in it. And closer to that is that he borrowed the stars for the tips of the arrows, and swords for their shine and spread that day like the stars in a descriptive manner, and (الأشنع) means the ugly.

That is, if today is a day, and witness when you trade. It is commanded to witness the transaction absolutely, whether it is immediate or deferred, because it is more cautious and further from what may occur of disagreement. It may also be meant: and witness when you trade this trade, meaning the present commerce, on the condition that witnessing is sufficient in it without writing. And from Al-Hasan: he may witness if he wishes, and he may not witness if he wishes. And from Al-Dhahak: it is a command from Allah, even for a bundle of greens. And 'do not cause harm' may be understood as either the doer or the object. The evidence for this is the reading of Umar, may Allah be pleased with him: 'and do not cause harm,' with clarity and a kasra. And the reading of Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him: 'and do not cause harm,' with clarity and a fathah. The meaning is a prohibition for the writer and the witness from neglecting to respond to what is requested from them. And from altering, adding, or reducing, or the prohibition against causing harm to them by hastening from an important matter, or not giving the writer his due from the fee, or burdening the witness with the cost of his coming from a country.

And Al-Hasan read: 'and do not cause harm,' with a kasra. And if you do, and if you cause harm, then indeed, causing harm is sinfulness with you. And it is said: and if you do something from what you were prohibited against while traveling. And Ibn Abbas and Ubayy, may Allah be pleased with them, read 'a book.' And Ibn Abbas said: What if I find the writer but do not find the paper and the ink? And Abu Al-Hala read: 'books.' And Al-Hasan read: 'a book,' as a plural of writer (rahn), thus what is secured by it is a pledge. And it was read 'rahn' with the ha being either pronounced or silent, which is the plural of rahn, like 'saqf' and 'saqf.' And if you say: why is travel a condition in pledging, and is it not specific to travel over presence? It was said by Mahmoud, may Allah have mercy on him: 'If you say: why is travel a condition in pledging and is it not specific to travel... etc.' Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: the specification to travel in this case is in accordance with what is common, thus it has no specific meaning. And in this verse is clear evidence for the position of Malik, may Allah be pleased with him, in establishing the pledge in the case of dispute over the amount of the debt as a substitute for a witness for the pledger until the full value of it, even if they dispute, saying the pledger:

He pledged it for one hundred, and the pledgee said: Rather, the pledge is for two hundred. The pledge would then be a witness to its value. Contrary to the view of Al-Shafi'i, may Allah be pleased with him, who holds that the saying of the pledgor is absolute, because he is a debtor. The evidence for Malik, may Allah be pleased with him, from the verse is that Allah, glorified and exalted is He, made the pledge in securing a substitute for testimony and writing, and specified it for travel due to their lack at that time. If the saying of the pledgor were legally binding, it would not stand in place of testimony nor provide its benefit in any way. If there were no pledge, the saying of the debtor would be considered regarding the amount of the debt, so the existence of the pledge does not add any benefit over its absence in terms of its substitution for testimony. It cannot be said that its benefit is the distinction with creditors, because that is the benefit of testimony, so that it may act as a substitute for it when it is impossible. There is no benefit then except to make the saying of the pledgee the determining factor in the amount of the debt in cases of disagreement, which is the view of Malik mentioned earlier. Therefore, he did not make it a witness except in its value, not in what exceeds it, supported by the custom that the creditor does not accept in his debt anything more than its value. So the claim that the debt is more than the value is rejected by custom, and the debtor also does not allow the delivery of what is worth more in exchange for what is less. Thus, the claim that the debt is less than the value is rejected by custom. There remains only the consideration of one matter, which is that what is considered by Malik is the value on the day of judgment. Even if they both agreed that the value on the day of the pledge was more or less, that would not be taken into account whether it increased or decreased; rather, it is considered on the day of judgment. One might say: If you have made the pledge a substitute for the witness in its absence because custom dictates that people only pledge in debts equal to their value, then you should consider the value on the day of the pledge without regard to its increase or decrease on the day of judgment. At that point, the discussion would revolve around whether the reason for establishing it as a substitute for testimony is the previously mentioned meaning or something else. Our aim is only that the verse guides to establishing it as a substitute for testimony in general. As for the details of the matter, that is the domain of jurisprudence. The Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him, pledged his armor in a non-travel situation. It is reported from the narration of Al-Aswad bin Yazid from Aisha that 'the Prophet, blessings and peace be upon him, bought food from a Jew for a deferred payment and pledged to him an iron armor.' And Al-Bukhari has from the narration of Qatada from Anas, who said: 'Indeed, the Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him, pledged his armor in Medina with a Jew and took barley for his family.' I say: The aim is not to permit pledging specifically in travel, but travel, being a situation where writing and testimony may be lacking, is mentioned as a means of guiding to the protection of wealth for those who are traveling, by establishing the security of the pledge in place of the security of writing and testimony. Mujahid and Al-Dhahak said that they only permitted it in the case of travel, taking the apparent meaning of the verse. As for possession, it must be considered. Mahmoud said: 'As for possession, it must be considered...' Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: There is no disagreement between Malik and Al-Shafi'i regarding the validity of pledging with offer and acceptance without possession. However, according to Malik, may Allah be pleased with him, it is valid in this way, and the pledgor is obligated by the contract to deliver it to the pledgee. According to Al-Shafi'i, it is not obligatory by the contract, but possession is considered by Malik in both the beginning and the continuation. Al-Shafi'i does not require many of his rulings according to Malik. If they both agreed on possession and then creditors arose, the pledge would benefit according to Al-Shafi'i and would distinguish it, while it would not benefit according to Malik, and he would be treated like the other creditors in it. Until the testimony of possession is joined by the evidence of that, because he suspects them of collusion to waive the rights of the creditors, their acknowledgment is not considered except with the addition of the evidence. Thus, possession from this perspective is more significant in consideration according to Malik than according to Al-Shafi'i, in the beginning. As for in continuation, Malik, may Allah be pleased with him, requires its remaining in the hand of the pledgee. So if it returns to the hand of the pledgor, whether the pledgee entrusted it to him, rented it from him, or lent it to him as an absolute loan, it has exited from the pledge. If the creditors arise while it is in the hand of the pledgor in any of the mentioned ways, he would be treated like the other creditors in it. Al-Shafi'i, may Allah be pleased with him, does not require the continuity of possession in this way. Rather, the pledgor, according to Al-Shafi'i, can benefit from the pledge even if the pledgee dislikes it, as long as the benefit does not harm the pledge, such as residing in the house or using the servant. He can also derive its benefits himself according to the correct opinion stated in the mother book, and this does not affect the pledge's validity or integrity. You have learned that possession is more significant in consideration according to the view of Malik, both in the beginning and in continuation, and the verse supports it, as the pledge in the language is permanence.

So the bread and meat are for them as a pledge... and the coffee is poured out.

And perhaps the one who says that the permanence of the pledge in the hands of the pledgee is a condition relies on the wording of the pledge which implies permanence. He has a basis for that.

And I did not elaborate on the view of Malik regarding possession, except because the implication of al-Zamakhshari's words is the rejection of possession according to Malik. He understood from the words of his companions that possession is not a condition for the validity of the pledge, nor for its binding nature; it is not considered by him at all. And Allah knows best. According to Malik, the pledge is valid with the offer and acceptance without possession. If some of you trust one another, then if some creditors trust some debtors, [the phrase 'the debtors for their good opinion of him' may be an unusual hearing; the analogy is for the debtors, and likewise the debtor is analogous to the debtor.] for their good opinion of him. And Ubayy read: 'If I trust,' meaning that people trust him. [The phrase 'meaning that people trust him' appears to be from the verbs with a kasrah, not from the mutual action, meaning that people make one party, which is the creditor, so that the other party, which is the debtor, is trusted. This is because they described the debtor as trustworthy, etc., so the creditor became in a position to trust the debtor.] And they described the debtor as trustworthy and reliable and independent of being pledged by someone like him. So let the one who is entrusted fulfill his trust. This encourages the debtor to be in accordance with the creditor's good opinion of him and his trust in him, and to return to him the right that he was entrusted with, without having been pledged from him.

And the debt is called a trust, and it is guaranteed by his trust in him by not taking a pledge from him. The reading is that you pronounce it with a silent hamzah after the dhāl or yā', saying: 'the one who was entrusted,' or 'the one who was trusted.' And from Asim, he read: 'the one who entrusted,' by merging the yā' into the tā', based on the analogy of 'it was made easy' in the form of 'if'ta'al' from 'yusr,' and it is not correct, because the yā' is transformed from the hamzah; it is in the status of the hamzah, and 'it was made easy' is colloquial. Likewise, 'rayā' in 'the vision' is 'āthim' as a news of 'in.' And its heart is raised with 'āthim' in the active form, as if it were said: 'for he is sinful in his heart.' And it is permissible for his heart to be raised with the beginning. And 'āthim' is a preceding news, and the sentence is the news of 'in.' If you say: Why did he not suffice with saying: 'for he is sinful'? And what is the benefit of mentioning the heart - and the sentence is the sinful one, not just the heart? I say: Concealing the testimony is to harbor it and not to speak of it. So when it was a sin committed by the heart, it was attributed to it, because attributing the action to the organ that works with it is more emphatic. Do you not see that when you want to emphasize, you say: 'This is what my eye saw, and what my ear heard, and what my heart knew'? And because the heart is the chief of the organs and the morsel that if it is sound, the whole body is sound, and if it is corrupt, the whole body is corrupt. So it is as if it were said: 'For sin has taken root in his very essence and has occupied the noblest place in it.' And so that it is not thought that concealing the testimony is among the sins related only to the tongue, and to know that the heart is the origin of its relation and the source of its commission, and the tongue is its translator. And because the actions of the hearts are greater than the actions of the other limbs, and they are like the roots from which they branch out. Do you not see that the origin of good deeds and bad deeds is faith and disbelief, and they are from the actions of the hearts? So if concealing the testimony is considered among the sins of the hearts, it has been testified that it is among the major sins. And from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them: The greatest of the major sins is associating partners with Allah due to His saying: 'For Allah has forbidden Paradise upon him,' and bearing false witness, and concealing testimony. And it was read: 'his heart,' in the accusative, like His saying: 'He has wronged himself.' And Ibn Abi 'Abla read: 'His heart has sinned,' meaning it made him sinful.