in giving testimony or in discharging a trust. The circumstances of the verse’s revelation indicate that it concerned a breach of trust, for the two had been called upon to testify and entrusted with property. Entrusting them with property, however, does not depart from legal analogy; its ruling is clear and required no specific revelation, unlike accepting their testimony. What disclosed their wrongdoing was the discovery of some of the bequeathed property in the possession of someone who had purchased it from them, after it had been found listed in the will and they had been questioned about it and denied knowing of it.

His words:

“From among those against whom the two incurred guilt”

may incorporate the meaning “wronged them,” and thus take the preposition “against,” as one says concerning usurpation, “You have wrongfully seized my property.” Hence it is said:

“Our testimony is more truthful than theirs, and we have not transgressed,”

meaning: as they transgressed.

Then He says:

“That is more likely to make them give testimony properly, or fear that their oaths will be countered by other oaths.”

The hadith of Ibn ʿAbbās in al-Bukhārī explicitly states that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, ruled in accordance with the Quran: he transferred the oath to the two claimants, after having required the defendants to swear, once it was discovered that the two had incurred sin. This discovery came through the purchasers’ report that they had bought the “vessel” from them, after the two had said, “We have not seen it.” The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, then required the two claimants with the foremost entitlement to swear, took the “vessel” from the purchaser, and handed it over to the claimant; the sale was thereby invalidated. This could not have been the case had the two admitted selling the vessel, for there would have been no need for the two claimants’ oath had they acknowledged that it was the testator’s vessel and that they