Two Female Witness

[wanderer]

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

[Amira]

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.

[Amira]

I don't understand. This wasn't supposed to happen.

[wanderer]

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

[Amira]

Thank you for the links, but I'll have to figure this out tomorrow. I can't do anything else right now.

[Amira]

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]."