The 365 · Verses · Day 227 · Justice
The first witnesses lied. Justice was not finished - it simply changed hands.
فَإِنْ عُثِرَ عَلَىٰٓ أَنَّهُمَا ٱسْتَحَقَّآ إِثْمًا فَـَٔاخَرَانِ يَقُومَانِ مَقَامَهُمَا مِنَ ٱلَّذِينَ ٱسْتَحَقَّ عَلَيْهِمُ ٱلْأَوْلَيَـٰنِ فَيُقْسِمَانِ بِٱللَّهِ لَشَهَـٰدَتُنَآ أَحَقُّ مِن شَهَـٰدَتِهِمَا وَمَا ٱعْتَدَيْنَآ إِنَّآ إِذًا لَّمِنَ ٱلظَّـٰلِمِينَ
“If it is discovered that these two are guilty of perjury, two of those whose rights have been usurped have a better right to bear witness in their place. Let them swear by God, 'Our testimony is truer than theirs. We have said nothing but the truth, for that would make us wrongdoers.' (Quran 5:107)”
5:107 Read 5:107 with tafsir
Svenska: Och om det visar sig att de två [vittnena] gjort sig skyldiga till [sådan] synd, då skall två andra som står närmast till bland dem vars rätt har kränkts träda i deras ställe och de skall svära vid Gud: "Vårt vittnesbörd är sannare än deras och vi har inte överträtt [Guds bud] - i annat fall skulle vi sannerligen höra till de orättfärdiga."
The story
The previous verse trusted two outsiders with a dying man's bequest. This verse asks the hard question: what if they lied? Ibn Kathir explains that if it emerges the two witnesses cheated or concealed part of the estate - 'guilty of sin' - the process does not simply collapse. Instead, two of the people whose rights were usurped, the nearest heirs of the deceased, rise to take the witnesses' place. As-Sa'di specifies that this happens when circumstantial evidence (qarā'in) surfaces pointing to their dishonesty; the closest kin then step forward and swear by God: 'Our testimony is truer than theirs' - that the two betrayed and falsified - 'and we have not transgressed; if we had, we would be among the wrongdoers.' Ibn Kathir notes that in this situation the oath of the heirs is given preference, much as, in a disputed killing, the victim's family may swear in defence of his claim. What is remarkable is the shape of the whole procedure: the law anticipates its own failure. It does not assume the first witnesses are honest and leave the heirs helpless when they are not. It arms the wronged party with a second sworn testimony that can overturn the first. Justice here is not a single gate that, once passed, cannot be reopened. When the appointed witnesses fail, the āyah hands the truth to those with the most at stake - and lets it win.
In the language
The verse hinges on a single passive verb: 'fa-in 'uthira 'alā annahumā...' - rendered 'if it is discovered that these two...' As-Sa'di glosses this precisely: it means that circumstantial evidence (qarā'in) has surfaced pointing to the witnesses' dishonesty and betrayal. The choice of a passive construction is telling. The Qur'an does not say 'if they are convicted' or 'if two more witnesses prove them liars'; it says, in effect, that their guilt comes to light. As-Sa'di's reading opens the door to something the strict law of testimony often resists: signs and indications, not just formal proof, can be enough to reopen a case. Ibn Kathir builds the same picture - once it 'becomes known' that they cheated, the machinery of correction begins. The grammar quietly frames truth as something that emerges, that gets stumbled upon and dragged into view, rather than something that must be marshalled in advance. And once it emerges, the wronged heirs are given the sworn word to act on it.
Why this verse
Any system of witnesses can be gamed by dishonest witnesses. This āyah builds in a remedy: when the trusted testimony is corrupted, the people it wronged are given the power to overturn it. Justice keeps a second move in reserve.
Bring it into today
When you are wronged by someone who was supposed to be trustworthy - an executor, a mediator, an official whose word carried weight - it is easy to feel the matter is closed the moment they lie. This āyah says otherwise. It hands the wronged party a second sworn testimony, and it accepts circumstantial evidence, as As-Sa'di explains, when the signs of betrayal are clear. Draw two lessons. First, do not treat a dishonest verdict as the end of the road; the Qur'an itself refuses to let a liar's account stand as final. Gather what you know, name the signs, and press your case. Second, if you are ever the trusted one, remember that the truth here has a way of coming to light - 'if it is discovered' - and that those you wrong are given a voice precisely to expose you. Live so that no second oath is ever needed to correct your first.
A reflection to carry
It is a quiet despair to be cheated by the very person appointed to be fair, and to assume nothing can be done once they have lied. This verse's logic is bracing: the law anticipates its own corruption. When the trusted witnesses betray the trust, the wronged heirs are handed a second oath that can overturn the first, and circumstantial signs, As-Sa'di notes, are enough to trigger it. Where have you accepted a dishonest outcome as final because the person who produced it had authority? The āyah invites a different posture - not cynicism about a broken system, but a stubborn confidence that truth has more than one way to surface, and that being wronged never leaves you without a move.
Sources: Ibn Kathīr, al-Saʿdī. The Qur'an and its translation are verified; the scholarship is retold faithfully in our own words and credited to its sources, never reproduced verbatim.
Also on Day 227
A verse, a healing, and a Sunnah, every morning.
Subscribe, free