QM Forum
The Quran => General Discussions => Topic started by: Amira on November 07, 2016, 03:52:00 AM
-
Salam everyone :) There many possible explanations for the 2 female witnesses rule in financial transactions. Most of them say that during the 7th century, women were generally excluded from financial matters and may have gotten confused when giving testimony in court, or that they had no education, so they couldn't handle financial court cases.
However, I saw this earlier:
"Consider, for example, Qur’anic verse 2:282, which describes the mitigation of a financial dispute by requesting the presence of two male witnesses or otherwise one male and two female witnesses. From this verse, male scholarship concludes that a single man’s testimony is equal to that of two women’s, regardless of whether the dispute in question is the ratification of a contract between a loaner and a debtor as specified in the Qur’an.[3] The Qur’an makes no qualitative equivalence between a male witness and two female witnesses. Furthermore, Q2:282 itself can be read to designate only one of the women as a witness, and the other as a guarantor to “remind” her should she err or become intimidated in the male-dominated jurisdiction of financial transactions, but the second woman is read by male scholarship as a witness nonetheless, and not merely as a supporter, creating an opportunity to read women’s testimony as less accurate or less valuable. This is the popular reading despite the fact that the verse continues to caution, “Let no scribe be harmed, nor any witness. For if you do so, indeed, it is grave disobedience [of God] in you” (Q2:282), which clarifies that the supporting woman’s purpose is to ensure that the female witness is not threatened by the domineering party breaching the contract, and not necessarily that of an official witness. In the context of the Qur’an, if the first woman “forgets” or “errs” it is in the face of potential harm. Additionally, it has been noted by Islamic feminists that the Arabic word for “she errs” or “she forgets” used in the Qur’an is tadilla from the word dalal, (as opposed to nisyan, which is literally forgetfulness); tadilla describes forgetfulness or error of a particular nature: forgetting the right way (of God) when confronted by an external interest, in this case a threat."
Source: https://thefatalfeminist.com/2015/10/28/reverence-the-wombs-that-bore-you-on-unearthing-a-female-legacy-transgressive-to-the-patriarchal-social-order/
*Disclaimer: The girl who wrote the above article holds a lot of...interesting...views, not all of which I agree with. However, many of her interpretations shed light on disputed verses.
-
Hi Amira-
Some notes:
-On this particular matter, you are correct (not the writer), the second witness is only required as 'backup'. This is because when the Quran was revealed, women had little education, and therefore were liable to error in the matter of financial testimony. In the eyes of God, the testimony of a man and a woman are equal, this can be identified in Surah al-Nur and the case of zina.
- I would like to caution you against using any writing sourced from self proclaimed "Muslim feminists". These deviants only seek to overhaul and replace the Quran with their own Westernized, liberal mindsets, to correct "patriarchal influences" or some similar nonsense. They claim that the Quran is "sexist" and that it's clear directives on things like inheritance must be "reformed" to make it approvable to them
-I firmly believe that the Quran views men and women as complete equals in the eyes of God, and bestows upon women numerous rights and privileges that would have been alien to them at the time. However, that does NOT mean that Islam is 'feminist'. Feminism is an ideology that is in direct opposition to the Quran, and any attempts to try to interpret Islam according to its whims should be opposed.
-As Quran centric Muslims, we should remain wary of any biases that come into play when individuals interpret the Quran, whether they be from the "traditionalist, orthodox" camp, or the "modern, liberal" camp.
Regards
wanderer
-
Dear Wanderer,
When you say as "a backup", do you mean that at times only one women will suffice for testimony ?
-
Yes, the text says "IF she errs, the other one can remind her" Therefore, if she does not err, the other woman does not need to testify. Brother Joseph talks about it here: http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=330
Regards
wanderer
-
Salam Wanderer. First of all, I never said I approve of modern feminism. I think it's pretty ridiculous. That's why I put a disclaimer on my first post. The girl who wrote the article is an almost extreme feminist, and while I like her, I don't agree with many things she writes. Also, you can't call every single feminist a deviant.
Secondly, I don't see what's wrong with the interpretation she put forward. You should judge her argument, not the fact that she is a feminist. The paragraph I posted is about a specific verse, not about traditional feminist tropes like unrestrained sexual liberation.
Thirdly, this is off topic, but I found a translation you might like. Take a look at the one by Yahya Emerick.
-
Edit: I do agree that we should be wary of biases that may arise when different groups put their spin on Quranic interpretation. And the idea that verses about things like inheritance need to be "reformed" is, as you stated, nonsense. :)
Edit #2: The translation I recommended does have one problem: It agrees with the 72 virgin legend. Other than that, I haven't found anything particularly concerning in it.
-
Hi Amira
I did look at her interpretation. Its flimsy. I'm busy now, but later I'll talk about why, God willing. I don't think "all feminists are deviants" but I do belive that feminism, as an ideology, is fundamentally opposed to Islam. Feminism teaches that each woman has full control over her body, Islam teaches that human's bodies belong to God alone. Trust me though, if she had put forth a good argument, I would have acknowledged it. But she did not. I've never heard of this translation, by the way, can you share a link?
Regards
Wanderer
-
Response to your second edit:
:)
-
I agree that humans' bodies belong to God, and unlike what feminism normally teaches, nobody of either gender has the right to sell themselves that way.
Aside from that, here's the link:
https://www.amazon.com/Meaning-Holy-Quran-Todays-English/dp/1450549535
I don't have a pdf of the translation. The author does employ hadiths to explain the circumstances of revelation. However, the language makes sense and doesn't deviate from the verses' meaning. For instance 4:34 is translated correctly. And there is a mention of the infuriating 72-virgin thing, but it's not major.
I'll write more later. I also have work now, but I'm putting it off as usual. ::)
-
Thanks. I'll check it out later inshaallah.
P.S. A fellow procrastinator I see :)
Regards
wanderer
-
For additional information I recommend:
http://misconceptions-about-islam.com/two-female-witnesses-one-male.htm
-
Although the verse states "so that if one of the women errs, then the other can remind her" This does not automatically mean that the requirement for two women for testimony is reduced to one if she does not err. Maybe it means whether or not she errs, two women are still required for testimony. In other words, maybe it means that two women should show up, if one errs then the other should remind her, but even then the testimony of two women is still required.
Is there a clear argument to deny this plausible interpretation ?
-
If that is true what is the point of the text even mentioning a possible error on the woman's part? The text is clear: Two woman must be there, but only one is necessary (to testify) unless she errs. The interpretation you posit doesn't really fit the text.
Regards
wanderer
-
Thank you for sharing your perspective. The issue needs more thought on my part :)
-
Hi Wanderer, do you know what was wrong with her interpretation yet? I haven't found any issues and I noted that the link Wakas shared also includes the possibility of the woman being intimidated by the party breaching the contract.
I'd like to write more, but I'm temporarily incapacitated due to the sheer horror going on right now in Washington. This has nothing to do with the verse we're discussing, but everyone, JUST PRAY. Go and pray right now and keep at it the whole night long. Pray for the future of this world. I'm sorry for the panic, but this is a desperate situation, and the sad thing is, I'm entirely serious. I can't believe this is happening. I'm done.
-
Sorry, for the late response, but my issue with her interpretation is primarily that the verse offers absolutely no hint of 'intimidation of the woman' or that the second woman is supposed to be there for 'safety'. The 'no scribe/witness shall be harmed' part is completely disconnected from the part about the multiple witnesses, and applies to both genders. Therefore, I respectfully find this a wholly unwarranted interpolation.
P.S. Are you referring to the current US presidential elections?
Regards
wanderer
-
That's an interesting observation. I'll have to think about what you said for a while and then reply, because right now, I can hardly speak coherently.
Wakas, do you have any idea whether the grammatical argument in my first post makes sense? The paragraph stated something about a word that signals intimidation from external sources.
Yes, I'm referring to the current elections. I apologize to the moderators for going off subject, but this is absolutely insane. I. Cannot. Believe. This. World. I'm completely disillusioned by humanity right now.
-
I don't understand. This wasn't supposed to happen.
-
While the writer is correct that the words used can indicate forgetting in the face of potential danger, this is not its exclusive application, and one that arguably is out of place in this context. Again, 'the no scribe should be harmed part' is gender-neutral, so if this interpretation is accepted, the question would arise that, why are the two witnesses not applied to men as well? For a full idea of what this word the writer cited is used for in the Quran, see here: http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=Dll#(2:282:67)
Regards
wanderer
-
Thank you for the links, but I'll have to figure this out tomorrow. I can't do anything else right now.
-
Salam and thank you all for your input. :) I think there are a few ways to interpret that verse, and overall, I agree with Wakas's interpretation from the link he shared:
"The Quran implies that the man has a wider duty of care than the female, regarding maintenance of the family/household [2:228, 2:233, 4:34, 65:6], and since women are biologically endowed with certain qualities such as pregnancy and breastfeeding this naturally makes them more likely to raise children, so generally speaking men are likely to have more experience in financial transactions. Another reason for this one-man and two-woman witness arrangement could be the protection of women from being subjected to high pressure by the party breaching the contract, which is mentioned at the end of the above verse. The presence and support of other women might reduce the pressure and possibility of perjury.
This case is also unique in the sense that it requires witnesses to be chosen, which is different to being an accidental witness to a crime for example.
Elsewhere in Quran it states the underlying principle of transactions/trade and that is it must be mutually agreed upon [4:29], which would also mean the witnesses would have to be agreed upon, as implied in 2:282. Thus, it could be argued that this core principle could be applied in a situation when no men were available and only women witnesses were available, as long as the transacting parties agreed. This hypothetical is not explicitly discussed however.
For other situations, such as a sole accusation by the husband against his wife of infidelity a female's testimony is equal to and effectively cancels out a male's testimony [24:6-9].
Likewise, in other examples in which witnesses are required, no differentiation is made between males and females [4:15, 5:106, 65:2]."