From Inclusion to Exclusion: How Jurists Betrayed Qur’an 2:282

By Naseer Ahmed, New Age Islam 13 September 2025 Introduction This article emerges from an ongoing debate between Rasheed Abdul, Ashrof, Aziz, and Naseer Ahmed on the interpretation of Qur’an 2:282 — the verse misrepresented by classical jurists as reducing two women to one man in matters of testimony. To capture the spirit of the exchange, I have cast it as a courtroom drama. Two judges — Justice Adil (Justice) and Justice Hakeem (Wisdom) — preside over the case. Rasheed files a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), Ashrof mounts his defence with the full arsenal of postmodern hermeneutics, Aziz offers a witness statement on interpretive patterns, and Naseer steps in as amicus curiae to lay out the plain meaning of the text. What follows is both argument and theatre — a trial of juristic sophistry in the court of reason and revelation. Opening [Courtroom Scene: A hushed chamber. Two judges preside – Justice Adil (Just) and Justice Hakeem (Wise). The atmosphere is charged with anticipation.] Court Clerk: All rise. The Bench of Adil and Hakeem is now in session. Justice Adil: The matter before us is Rasheed Abdul v. The Jurists of Tradition. This is a Public Interest Litigation concerning the interpretation of Qur’an 2:282. Let the petitioner begin. Rasheed’s Chargesheet Honourable Judges, I stand here not to accuse individuals but to expose a grievous distortion of Divine guidance. My charge is simple: The jurists of tradition have turned an enabling provision of the Qur’an into a disabling one, thereby depriving women of their rightful participation as witnesses in financial transactions. Let us be clear. The Qur’an provides that in contracts of debt, testimony must be supported by two witnesses. The text permits two women to testify together, with the safeguard that one may assist the other if memory falters. This was a merciful, enabling clause, ensuring women—new entrants into public contracts—were not excluded. Instead, the jurists twisted it into a rule that two women equal one man. This not only contradicts the text but makes the problem of reliability worse. By demanding three witnesses—one man and two women independently—they set an impossible bar. The result? Ordinary Muslims, fearing risk, avoided female witnesses altogether. What was meant to enable, became a prohibition. My Lords, I present this PIL not for my own grievance, but for generations of women silenced, and for the integrity of the Qur’an betrayed.” That, my Lords, is the charge. Scene Two: Ashrof’s Defence Justice Adil: “These are grave charges. Counsel for the defence, you may proceed.” Ashrof (rising with theatrical gravitas, flourishing papers): “My Lords, while my learned friend Rasheed insists upon ‘plain meaning,’ we must avoid the myth of literalism. The Qur’an itself tells us it contains both Muhkamat and Mutashabihat (3:7). Who is to say with certainty which verse belongs to which category? Perhaps what we deem clear is, in fact, allegorical; perhaps what we call allegory was plain to the first hearers. To insist upon one eternal, unchanging meaning is to strangle the spirit of interpretation itself. 2:282, for instance — is it clear law, or layered metaphor? We cannot know without interpretive humility. Let me elaborate: The classical legalist view — that two women equal one man — has centuries of scholarly precedent. The contextual reformists see it as a pragmatic, time-bound rule. The feminist and liberatory voices read it as a safeguard for accuracy, not inferiority. Is this not the beauty of the Qur’an? That it invites such hermeneutical diversity? Furthermore, hermeneutics teaches us — as Gadamer argued in his fusion of horizons — that every reading is conditioned by the reader’s historical situatedness. What Rasheed presents as ‘plain’ is simply a projection of his own modern egalitarian commitments. Arkoun reminds us of the tyranny of literalism and the need for applied Islamology. Fazlur Rahman urged a double movement: first, recovering context, and second, reapplying the moral spirit. To read 2:282 as eternally fixed is to miss its liberatory intent, which is progressive inclusion, not rigid formula. The jurists, my Lords, were men of their age. Women were absent from commerce; prudence demanded caution. Was it betrayal to guard contracts with safeguards? Or was it responsible ijtihad? Moreover, the diversity of interpretations — legalist, contextual, feminist — is not confusion but richness. Islam celebrates Ikhtilaf as mercy. To insist on one eternal meaning, as Rasheed does, is a kind of hermeneutical absolutism alien to our tradition. My Lords, plurality is strength, not weakness. What we see as apparent contradictions are the very essence of the Qur’an’s dialogical openness. To reduce this to one static meaning is to silence the text’s polyvalence, to freeze it in time. My Lords, I urge the Court: do not reduce divine speech to one frozen plainness. Let us honour its multi-vocality, its openness, its interpretive wealth.” (Ashrof, pleased with himself, nods theatrically, as though Gadamer and Arkoun themselves had just testified in his favour. The court, however, looks unconvinced.) Justice Hakeem (arching an eyebrow): In other words, everything is interpretation, and no interpretation binds? Ashrof (smiling with faux humility): Better to say, My Lord, that every interpretation is a contribution to the ongoing symphony of meaning. To silence even one voice is to wound the text itself. Justice Hakeem (raising an eyebrow): “Counsel, are you suggesting that clarity is confusion and confusion is clarity? That umm al-kitab is open to endless dispute, and that foundational law is a free-for-all of hermeneutics?” (Ashrof shifts uneasily, fumbles with notes, mutters Arkoun again, and tries to drown the courtroom in philosophical fog.) Scene Three: Amicus Curiae’s Intervention Justice Hakeem: Let us hear from the amicus curiae, Naseer Ahmed, invited by this court for his expertise. Naseer sb (Amicus Curiae, stepping forward with measured clarity) “My Lords, let us sweep aside the fog and return to the text: ‘…and get two witnesses from among your men; and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such that if one of them errs, the other can remind her. The witnesses should not refuse when they are called upon.’ (2:282) The Meaning is Muhkam — clear, decisive, foundational. Where, in this text, is ambiguity? Legal Sufficiency: Two testimonies suffice. This is the Qur’an’s standard, which has become the accepted legal standard across the world. Joint Testimony: The provision allows two women to testify jointly, presenting a single testimony. They may consult one another because they are a single unit of testimony. Independent witnesses, by definition, cannot confer. Independent Testimony Not Barred: The plaintiff is at liberty to produce two independent women as witnesses if he wishes, without any male witness. If one or both err, the case collapses — the plaintiff’s problem, not anyone else’s. The judges, the courts and the plaintiff cannot have any objection to a woman witnessing independently. Need for enabling provision: The Quran clarifies with verse 43:18, the need for the enabling joint testimony provision for female witnesses. It points to cultural conditioning that makes them less likely to recall a business event and not to any genetic or inherent deficiency in females. The Enabling Nature: This is a facilitation, a concession, an easing. Not a restriction.The Flaw in the Jurists’ Logic The jurists perverted this concession into a doctrine of deficiency: “two women equal one man.” But this: Contradicts the text — which speaks of joint, not independent testimony. Three testimonies (one man + two women independently) now require all three to match exactly, or the case collapses. Weakens reliability — three independent testimonies are more fragile than two; a chain with three links breaks more easily than a chain with two. Thus, the jurists made the problem of reliability worse, not better. Excludes women — because ordinary Muslims, seeing the increased risk, dispensed with female witnesses altogether. Thus, what God revealed as inclusion, the jurists enforced as exclusion. . No mathematics is needed to see this. Any common Muslim could see that producing three witnesses was riskier than producing two. The natural result? Women were quietly excluded from contracts altogether. This is not feminist hermeneutics, nor reformist relativism. It is simply the letter and spirit of the Qur’an The Indictment Therefore, My Lord, the jurists Ashrof defends are guilty of: Contradicting the plain meaning of the verse. Turning an enabling concession into a disabling restriction. Effectively depriving women of participation in contractual life for centuries. Justice Adil (nodding): “Concise. Clear. Muhkam.” Scene Four: The Surprise Witness Rasheed (rising again): “My Lords, with your permission, I call a witness — Aziz — to speak not as counsel, but as observer of patterns.” Justice Hakeem: “Proceed.” Aziz (taking the stand): “My Lords, I submit that Ashrof’s entire strategy is transparent: He defends the classical distortion as ‘valid tradition,’ never condemning it outright. He brands the plain reading of Naseer as ‘literalism’ — even while secretly preparing to appropriate it. Later, he will present that same clear, logical, text-faithful reading as his own ‘feminist, liberatory breakthrough.’ It is a two-step dance: first, shield tradition from charges of betrayal; second, claim the plain meaning under the banner of ‘humanistic hermeneutics.’ My Lords, this is not scholarship. It is opportunism dressed up in Gadamer’s cloak.” Scene Five: The Verdict Justice Adil (pounding gavel): We have heard enough. Bench of Adil and Hakeem (deliberating, then speaking together): “Mr. Ashrof, your invocation of historical scholarship, Mutashabihat, Gadamer, Arkoun, and Fazlur Rahman has not answered the question. The Qur’an’s words are clear: two women may testify jointly to facilitate reliability. The classical jurists’ distortion imposed an unnecessary and counterproductive restriction. The Qur’an’s prescription is timeless. It is neither restrictive nor conditional. Women may witness independently. Any interpretation that contradicts this is invalid. Multiplicity, context, or hermeneutical sophistication cannot justify textually contradictory conclusions. The case is therefore decided in favour of the petitioner for the people. The Amicus Curiae’s plain, logical, and faithful reading stands vindicated.” [Gavel strikes. Court adjourns.] (Ashrof fumbles with his notes, muttering “polyvalence… Gadamer… Arkoun…” as the courtroom disperses in laughter.) Epilogue As the gavel fell and the court adjourned, one truth echoed louder than Ashrof’s citations: the Qur’an speaks with clarity, while sophists hide behind fog. Fourteen centuries of scholastic smoke could not extinguish the simple flame of reason. And so, let us leave the courtroom with a couplet: حقیقتکودھندلانہیںسکتافلسفےکاغبار جوآیتہےمحکم،وہیہےزمانےکاقرار (The dust of philosophy cannot cloud the truth revealed; What is Muhkam in the Qur’an remains the world’s binding seal.) Courtroom Drama – Exhibits on Qur’an 2:282 Bench of Adil and Hakeem presiding. Rasheed’s PIL ongoing. Exhibit A: The Text “…and get two witnesses from among your men; and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such that if one of them errs, the other can remind her. The witnesses should not refuse when they are called upon.” Plain meaning: Two men suffice. If not, a man + two women jointly. Joint testimony allows correction (“if one errs, the other reminds”). No restriction: Women may testify independently. No time limit: The verse does not say this is a temporary provision. Exhibit B: The Chain Analogy Scenario 1 – Classical Jurists’ Interpretation: One man + two women as independent witnesses. Each witness must give a perfect, identical account. Weakest link principle: If any witness errs, the case collapses. Result: Reliability decreases instead of increasing. Scenario 2 – Correct Plain Meaning (Naseer Sb): Two women testify jointly. One can correct the other. Reliability improves because joint testimony is designed as a safeguard. Result: Logical, efficient, textually faithful. Visual Aid: Classical: Man (O) + Woman1 (O) + Woman2 (O) → if any fails → Case Fails Plain Meaning: Woman1 + Woman2 joint → if one errs → Other corrects → Case succeeds Exhibit C: Mathematical Logic Suppose each witness has a 90% chance of accurate testimony. Classical formula: 3 independent witnesses → Probability all succeed = 0.9 × 0.9 × 0.9 = 72.9% Joint testimony: 2 witnesses, with one correcting the other → Probability case succeeds ≈ 90% (better reliability). Observation: Classical jurists made reliability worse, not better. Commentary: Logic and mathematics were not required; simple common sense suffices. Exhibit D: Amicus Curiae Testimony (Naseer Sb) Joint testimony is enabling, not restrictive. Women may testify independently, if chosen. No verse-imposed limitation exists. Classical jurists’ “two women equal one man” is a textual distortion, logically counterproductive, and socially exclusionary. Exhibit E: Ashrof’s Fog Machine Invokes ijtihad, Mutashabihat, Gadamer, Arkoun, Fazlur Rahman. Claims multiplicity is richness. Distracts from clear text. Outcome: Appeals to authority and rhetorical sophistication, not Qur’anic fidelity. Bench Verdict: Qur’an 2:282 is clear, decisive, and Muhkamat. Classical jurists’ interpretation is invalid: it worsens reliability and excludes women unnecessarily. Textual fidelity, logic, and plain meaning prevail over 1400 years of evasive scholastic fog. Amicus Curiae’s reading stands vindicated. Moral: Even centuries of scholastic sophistry cannot override what the verse plainly says. ------ A frequent contributor to NewAgeIslam.com, Naseer Ahmed is an independent researcher and Quran-centric thinker whose work bridges faith, reason, and contemporary knowledge systems. Through a method rooted in intra-Quranic analysis and scientific coherence, the author has offered ground-breaking interpretations that challenge traditional dogma while staying firmly within the Quran’s framework. His work represents a bold, reasoned, and deeply reverent attempt to revive the Quran’s message in a language the modern world can test and trust. URL: https://www.newageislam.com/debating-islam/inclusion-exclusion-jurists-betrayed-quran-2-282/d/136828 New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism