Witnesses: Financial Transactions and Adultery

In the Quran, no distinction is made between male and female witnesses in court (65:2, 5:106, 4:15), except during cases of financial transactions and suspected adultery (zina).

Financial Transactions

Verse 2:282 specifies the requirements for financial witnesses:

“O you who believe! when you deal with each other in contracting a debt for a fixed time, then write it down; and let a scribe write it down between you with fairness; and the scribe should not refuse to write as Allah has taught him, so he should write; and let him who owes the debt dictate, and he should be careful of (his duty to) Allah, his Lord, and not diminish anything from it; but if he who owes the debt is unsound in understanding, or weak, or (if) he is not able to dictate himself, let his guardian dictate with fairness; and call in to witness from among your men two witnesses; but if there are not two men, then one man and two women from among those whom you choose to be witnesses, so that if one of the two strays/is deviated (Arabic: tadilla), the second of the two may advise (Arabic: tuzakkirah) the other; and the witnesses should not refuse when they are summoned; and be not averse to writing it (whether it is) small or large, with the time of its falling due; this is more equitable in the sight of Allah and assures greater accuracy in testimony, and the nearest (way) that you may not entertain doubts (afterwards), except when it is ready merchandise which you give and take among yourselves from hand to hand, then there is no blame on you in not writing it down; and have witnesses when you barter with one another, and let no harm be done to the scribe or to the witnesses; and if you do (it) then surely it will be a transgression in you, and be careful of (your duty) to Allah, Allah teaches you, and Allah knows all things.” 2:282

Firstly, this verse doesn’t say that a woman’s testimony is equal to half of a man’s. It simply says that if (conditional) a woman strays in her testimony, then another woman can be brought in to advise her. If the first woman’s testimony is sound, the second woman is not needed to testify. Pay attention to the fact that, rather than reducing women’s testimony as alleged, this verse is actually ordering a greater female presence in cases of financial dispute. There is strength in numbers, as I will explain in a moment.


The Arabic word used in 2:282 to signify a woman “straying/deviating” is often rendered by translators as “forgetting.” Similarly, the word for “advising/admonishing” is often changed into “reminding.”

For example, Pickthall translates the phrase as “…so that if the one erreth (through forgetfulness) the other will remember,” and Yusuf Ali’s version says “if one errs, the other can remind her.”

These translations are inaccurate. The word used for “straying,” from root daad-laam-laam (ض ل ل), signifies being led astray due to some external cause, not due to “forgetfulness.” It’s the same word employed in Surah Fatiha to describe being led astray (by Satan):

“[Guide us to] the way of those whom You are pleased with, not those who have gone astray (Arabic: daalleen).” 1:7

Lane’s Lexicon also confirms this:


In fact, throughout the Quran, the root daad-laam-laam is solely used to mean being “led astray” by an external cause, rather than “forgetting.” Every occurrence of the word can be found here.

“It has been decreed for every devil that whoever turns to him–he will misguide him (root daad-laam-laam) and will lead him to the punishment of the Blaze.” 22:4

“Allah has sent down the best statement: a consistent Book wherein is reiteration. The skins shiver therefrom of those who fear their Lord; then their skins and their hearts relax at the remembrance of Allah. That is the guidance of Allah by which He guides whom He wills. And one whom Allah leaves astray (root daad-laam-laam) –for him there is no guide.” 39:23

The Quran uses a different word to mean “forgetting.” The word is formed from the Arabic root nun-theen-yaa (ن س ي), and is consistently used to denote the literal action of forgetting or of being forgotten:

“And it will be said, “Today We will forget you (Arabic: nansaakum) as you forgot (root nun-theen-yaa) the meeting of this Day of yours, and your refuge is the Fire, and for you there are no helpers.” 45:34

From Lane’s Lexicon:


It is clear that tadilla as used in verse 2:282 denotes straying or being led astray, while nun-theen-yaa means “to forget.”

Additionally, the word that most translators render as “to remind” is formed from the same Arabic root as zikr/dhikr, which can denote a “reminder” but can also mean a “warning/advice/admonition.” The word zikr is often used to describe the Quran, as an “Admonition to the worlds”:

“Then do you wonder that there has come to you an Admonition (Arabic: zikr) from your Lord through a man from among you, that he may warn you?…” 7:69

Thus, this part of verse 2:282 is best translated as “so if one strays/deviates/is misguided, the other can admonish/advise her.”

Why are there two witnesses?

Two female witnesses may be ordained according to 2:282 for a simple reason: To prevent the woman involved from being pressured by either party. Financial transactions in Arabia were the domain of men, and a single female witness in such a setting could be blackmailed or coerced into lying quite easily. Adding another female witnesses was intended to decrease the possibility of perjury. This is further supported by the statement, “…and let no scribe nor witness be harmed” (indicating that a risk of perjury/intimidation is present). This explains the usage of root daal-laam-laam, which signifies the woman being led astray in her testimony–likely due to the nature of a male-dominated financial transaction. Adding a second female witness would provide greater support in such a case.

Some have claimed that this verse requires two female witnesses because women supposedly “don’t know anything about finance.” (LOL. These people are so desperate.) This is nonsense, considering the Qur’anic requirement that everyone must educate themselves–including on financial issues. The verse itself says nothing whatsoever about “not understanding finance”; rather, the clear implication is a moral error due to external pressure, not an intellectual error. As I have explained, the words used for “forgetting” vs. “straying from coercion” are completely different. This verse actually serves as a protective mechanism by maintaining the security of an isolated witness.

Male scholars, however, are so despicably determined to falsely assert their own superiority that they trip over themselves (and over their grammar books) to mistranslate this verse. Notice how the word dalal is translated correctly everywhere else in the Qur’an. Only in this verse is it miraculously translated as a weakness in logical reasoning. *sigh*

But now that we’ve seen the acrobatics of malestream scholars, we know who actually suffers from frequent lapses in logical reasoning.

Regarding the witness verses, some additional information may also be relevant: Firstly, pre-Islamic Arabs kept mainly oral contracts and histories. This opened up the situation to the potential of a great deal of fraud and coercion. The presence of a scribe to record a contract was not a given, which is why the text places such importance on finding a trustworthy scribe. Pre-Islamic society was highly feudal; the Qur’an aimed to reduce the risk of fraud and altercation. The purpose of verse 2:228 was essentially to minimize all possible risk: First, ideally a scribe should be present, and the scribe should be trustworthy. Secondly, the witnesses must preferably be male, and if not there should be a greater number of women, because it is easy to coerce an isolated female witness.

This is the only witness situation in the Qur’an in which so much care is given to the possibility of risk or perjury. In other cases involving witnesses, such as divorce or adultery, the gender of the witnesses does not matter, and the Qur’an does not go into so much detail about risk and coercion and trust. Clearly, verse 2:228 is speaking of an exceptional situation in which substantial risk is present.

One must also ask, with regards to “if you find no men, then bring two women”—under what circumstances would no men be available to testify? Ordinarily, there are men around. Trustworthy men would only theoretically be absent if they had gone to war, if the situation was like that of Sodom and Gemorrah and no decent men were available, or if it was an isolated setting and few people were available to testify, period. In all of these cases, the circumstances, which involve warfare and relative isolation, are less than ideal and coercion is a possibility.

It is rather amusing to note that 2:228 actually requires no financial knowledge at all. All that it requires is the understanding that debts must be documented and paid back. This simple concept can be understood by a first grader. It makes no sense to assert that women “don’t know about finance” and this is why two women are required; if so, why would the second woman know any more about finance than the first? This is nothing but a bigoted and incoherent “explanation” that is quite insulting to the text. A woman’s witness here is worth exactly the same amount as a man’s; the only difference is that a second woman is required for backup in order to prevent the manipulation of a single female witness in a difficult position under less-than-ideal circumstances. The case mentioned in the text is a very rare case involving an isolated setting and an absence of trustworthy men, thus necessitating the legislation of certain extra protections.

Secondary Sources

Islamic secondary sources are replete with demeaning descriptions of women being “deficient in intelligence/reason and religion” (see here, here and here). Multiple apologetic claims have been made about these reports, and many explanations have been advanced (see here).

This is likely why translators have replaced the Arabic word for “straying/being deviated” with the English word “forgetting” in verse 2:282, as if to confirm that women are indeed deficient in reason. This is unQuranic.

Unsurprisingly, the Quran says nothing about women being deficient in any way. It instead prescribes two female witnesses as a contingency to account for a lack of education and/or a male-dominated transaction environment. In other cases, no distinction is made between the testimony of a man and a woman. In fact, during accusations of adultery, a woman’s testimony supersedes a man’s, as explained below.


The standard punishment for adultery/fornication in the Quran is 100 lashes. This applies to both men and women. It doesn’t matter whether the perpetrators are married or unmarried. (In Arabic, there is only one term for both extramarital and premarital sex):

“The woman or man found guilty of sexual intercourse–lash each one of them with a hundred lashes, and do not be taken by pity for them in the religion of Allah, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment.” 24:2

The magnitude of the crime is considered the same for both genders, although women are granted greater protection against false accusations. Men who falsely accuse women of adultery are sentenced to 80 lashes. Their testimony is rejected forever after unless they repent:

“And those who accuse chaste women and then do not produce four witnesses–lash them with eighty lashes and do not accept from them testimony ever after. And those are the defiantly disobedient.” 24:4

“Indeed, those who [falsely] accuse chaste, unaware and believing women are cursed in this world and the Hereafter; and they will have a great punishment.” 24:23

During accusations of adultery, a man’s witness may be completely overruled and rendered invalid by a woman’s. According to Surah Noor (Chapter 24) of the Qur’an, a man who accuses his wife of adultery without evidence is to testify against her. If she testifies against him in return, his testimony is invalidated and the charges against her are automatically dropped.

“And those who accuse their wives [of adultery] and have no witnesses except themselves – then the witness of one of them [shall be] four testimonies [swearing] by Allah that indeed, he is of the truthful.

“And the fifth [oath will be] that the curse (Arabic: la’nata) of Allah be upon him if he should be among the liars.

“But it will prevent punishment from her if she gives four testimonies [swearing] by Allah that indeed, he is of the liars.

“And the fifth [oath will be] that the wrath (Arabic: ghadaba) of Allah be upon her if he was of the truthful.” 24:6-9

According to the above verses, a woman’s testimony can overrule a man’s!

If we were to follow the errant logic used by commentators on verse 2:282, we would have to conclude that men are deficient in intelligence and reason, and this is why God ordains that women overrule them in zina cases. Or perhaps we could take it even further. We could conclude that men are the ones deficient in religion, since God is aware that they are prone to falsely accusing women, and thus accounts for this in Scripture.

Needless to say, such conclusions are fundamentally flawed. The Quran does not consider either gender to be deficient in religion or reason. It simply prescribes different court arrangements for different situations to account for societal problems.

Note: Interestingly, according to verse 24:7, if a man is among the liars, the “curse” of Allah is upon him. But if a woman is among the liars, the “wrath” of Allah is upon her. *The Arabic words used are different and have separate connotations.

The curse of Allah is always associated with a lasting punishment in Hell. It is used for hypocrites:

“Allah has promised the hypocrite men and hypocrite women and the disbelievers the fire of Hell, wherein they will abide eternally. It is sufficient for them. And Allah has cursed (Arabic: la’na) them, and for them is an enduring punishment.” 9:68

Allah’s Wrath, however, has a connotation of less severity, and is used as a precursor to a “curse”:

“And [that] He may punish the hypocrite men and hypocrite women, and the polytheist men and polytheist women–those who assume about Allah an assumption of evil nature. Upon them is a misfortune of evil nature; and Allah has become angry with them (Arabic: ghadiba) and has cursed them (Arabic: wala’nahum) and prepared for them Hell, and evil it is as a destination.” 48:6

The Quran contains many subtle distinctions like this. It’s up to us to find them.

*Credits go to a friend from Kuwait for pointing this out to me.



6 thoughts on “Witnesses: Financial Transactions and Adultery

Add yours

  1. But I still don’t understand why male witnesses are preferred. The verse first asks for male witnesses and if there aren’t men then to bring women. Since the Quran is supposed to be a book for all times, does this imply men should still be preferred in the courtroom today? Does this mean women shouldn’t be lawyers, or whatever? So confused 😦


    1. I’m sorry but your comment makes no sense. This verse has absolutely nothing to do with a courtroom; there is no court of law involved. It is a contract of debt over a fixed period of time, possibly/probably an oral contract, in which there is a risk of harm to those who are witnessing the contract, stated explicitly by the verse. This is why male witnesses are preferred, because it is a contract in which witnesses may be coerced. It has nothing whatsoever to do with lawyers; that’s not even related. If we’re going to extend the scope of verses that have nothing to do with lawyers to courts of law, then we would have to conclude that men should not be lawyers in Islam, because men’s testimony against women is so questionable several verses are dedicated to invalidating it, and further verses are dedicated to warning men away from slandering women. Clearly, men are not to be trusted as lawyers if they can’t keep their testimony straight.


  2. SO should this technically mean that females shouldn’t be witnesses at all. Because when the Quran calls first for male witnesses, and then if no male witnesses are around then two female witnesses. I can understand why 2 female witnesses might be a good idea. But also, why is their preference given to male witnesses. And in what scenario would there not be men around?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: