Brunei adopts sharia law
- Thread starter onu1886
- Start date
Dubious
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2012
- Messages
- 37,717
- Reaction score
- 80
- Country
- Location
Ok lets give you a comprehensive answer:you dont have an answer its kjust call me a fool and say hey problem solved
Major Misunderstanding : Is the woman’s testimony half that of a man in Islam ?:
Despite the equality in Islam, some people either driven by ignorance or envy deny that equality. They refer to a certain verse in the holy Quran that they consider to be a proof that a woman’s testimony is half that of a man.
The Verse says : "And get two witnesses out of your own men. And if there are not two men (available), then a man and two women, such as you agree for witnesses, so that if one of them (two women) errs, tile other can remind her. And the witnesses should not refuse whethey are called on (for evidence)." (Surah 2:282 )
Sheikh Mahmud Shaltut says: The verse does not address the question of the status of the testimony. It rather addresses the methods of verification and establishment of confidence about the individual's rights at the moment of transaction.
The verse actually begins: "O you who believe! When you contract a debt for a fixed period, write it down. Let a scribe write it down in justice between you. Let not the scribe refuse to write as Allah has taught him," until it reaches " And get two witnesses out of your own men. And if there are not two men (available), then a man and two woman, so that if one of them (two women) errs, the other can remind her." (Surah 2:282 )
Therefore the situation is one of verification and documentation of rights and not one of judgment. Thus the verse points to the best ways of documentation and verification by which partners in a deal can have maximum security. This therefore does not mean that a single woman's, or a group of woman's testimony without a man's does not count in establishing rights nor is to be taken by a judge since the maximum required in jurisdiction is "evidence".
Along this line of thinking, jurisprudent Ibn Al-Qayyim establishes that "evidence" in Islamic Law is more comprehensive than testimony; confirming "evidence" is the factor in establishing rights, what makes it "evident" and consequently what is to be considered by the judge.
The judge pronounces his verdict on the basis of decisive evidence, even if it were a non-Muslim's testimony as long as he feels it worthy of his trust.
This leads Sheikh Shaltut to the conclusion that when two woman's testimonies are counted as one man's testimony, it is not because of some weakness or flaw in her mentality which would involve, in turn, a defect in woman's humanity.
The verse, however, was so worded as to address the norms of that time, which are still very much the same for the majority of women. They do not attend debt registration sessions or transactions. The fact that some women take part in such activities does not alter the basic facts of life that it is not very common among women to get involved in financial transactions. Yet again, the verse serves as guidance on maximum verification. In some places, the tendency is for a woman to make transactions and witness the writing of debts; it is the people's right to accept a woman's testimony as they accept that of a man as long as they do this with equal confidence in both sexes’ memories.
Also the context and style of the verse is such that it cannot relate to law or the judicial forums of the state. It is not that after addressing the courts it has been said that if such a law suit is presented before them by a claimant then they should call in witnesses in the prescribed manner.
On the contrary, the verse directly addresses people who lend or borrow money over a fixed period. It advises them that if they are involved in such dealings, an agreement between the two parties must be written down, and to avoid dispute and damage, only witnesses who are honest, reliable and morally sound should be appointed. At the same time, their personal involvements and occupations should be suited to fulfill this responsibility in a befitting manner. The verse does not at all mean that a law suit shall stand proven in a court only if at least two men or one man and two women bear witness to it.
The famous Islamic jurisprudent Sheikh Muhammad Abdou when commenting on the verse :
"O you who believe! When you contract a debt for a fixed period, write it down. Let a scribe write it down in justice between you. Let not the scribe refuse to write as Allah has taught him," until it reaches " And get two witnesses out of your own men. And if there are not two men (available), then a man and two woman, so that if one of them (two women) errs, the other can remind her." (Surah 2:282 )
He said that cause of this verse was that it was not the custom of women in that age to be involved in financial affairs that’s why her memory in financial deals is weaker than that of a man however this is not the case when it comes to domestic affairs where a woman’s memory is stronger than that of a man.
During the time of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, there were Muslim women who did business, their testimonies were not questioned. If she is the sole owner of a business it would be ludicrous to have her find another woman to validate her agreement. So this is not even extended to all business transactions... only those in which she is not directly involved.
Since I am not a scholar in this field so I quoted scholars now you got your answer? The verse was for that time...It can be changed as my post 383 clearly states the laws can be adjusted to the modern time as now women do take part in financial transactions...
Who is the fool? Still you...and you actually demanded that I make you look like one!
Answer in post 383 + post 409
That is if you really are interested you will read...
On the other hand, a single woman's claim that she is virgin when accused of adultery by four male witnesses, stands unvitiated provided a midwife establishes the validity of her claim.
Does this mean women are above men?
see how your logic backfires!
Last edited:
I belive you follow a different version of islam...
check this out..
sunnahonline (doooot) com/library/fiqh-and-sunnah/419-why-two-women-witnesses
----
Dubious
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2012
- Messages
- 37,717
- Reaction score
- 80
- Country
- Location
No I just flood myself with knowledge so people dont take me for a ride of stupidity 
Rulings about woman's testimony have filled the sections of kitab al-qada' (administration of justice) where jurists have identified minutely where and when women can function as qualified witnesses. It is not difficult to discern underlying concern for justice when one takes into account stringent requirements to establish evidence for accusation against anyone in Muslim society. However, there is no doubt that the tone of the rulings is set by the powerful male jurist, who, in most cases, ignores the female evaluation of her own social situation, for instance in divorce, that furnishes the object of the ruling. There is almost an a fortiori argument derived from the Q. 2:282 to support the implied inherent inequality of sexes which then makes men take charge of a woman's affairs as determined by the competent legal authority. The religious epistemology that was constructed on revelational knowledge in the juridical studies has served the Muslim jurists' endeavors in extracting unconditional commandments from the conditional and culturally conditioned references, both in the Qur'an and the Sunna dealing with the historical Muslim social universe.
sharia law is good if you are a muslim and follow the rules..
no exception..
and if you are non muslim.. you are not allowed to propagate your religion and also you have to pay some money yearly...
and also muslim who want to convert or reject religion are condemn to death...
also you cant have a gf or bf .. and no drinking
so no free will..
it is not for me... may be it is for you.. buy hey.. you can do all these things in personal level... why you want to enforce on others..
no exception..
and if you are non muslim.. you are not allowed to propagate your religion and also you have to pay some money yearly...
and also muslim who want to convert or reject religion are condemn to death...
also you cant have a gf or bf .. and no drinking
so no free will..
it is not for me... may be it is for you.. buy hey.. you can do all these things in personal level... why you want to enforce on others..
Dubious
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2012
- Messages
- 37,717
- Reaction score
- 80
- Country
- Location
The Testimony of Women in Islamic Law
by Dr. Taha Jaber Al-Alwani
The only verse in the entire Qur'an to equate the testimony of two women to that of one man is the so-called verse of debt (ayat al dayn), which occurs in Qur'an 2:282. This verse contains a significant amount of material that later jurists categorized variously as recommended or merely instructional (irshad) and without legal import. However, very few jurists opined that the recording of debts, witnessing, and all other matters dealt with in the verse may be categorized as obligatory (wajib).
Whether we agree or disagree with a particular school, there is near unanimity among all jurists that the Qur'an's mention of testimony in relation to transactions was revealed to advise Muslims on how they might reduce the possibility of misunderstandings arising among themselves. Therefore, the entire matter of testimony was revealed to humanity by way of instruction. Obviously, instruction is one thing, while binding legal precepts are another matter entirely.
The verse of debt, moreover, may be seen as connecting testimony, the taking of witnesses, the agreement of both parties to the contract at the time of its ratification, and the judge's (qadi) acceptance of testimony given by the witnesses, as follows:
and call upon two of your men to act as witnesses; and if two men are not available, then a man and two women from among such as are acceptable to you as witnesses... (2:282)
The verse goes on to explain the reason for seeking testimony from two women in place of the testimony of one man, by saying "...so that if one of them should make a mistake, the other could remind her" (2:282).
Thus, the verse indicates clearly that there are differences in the ability of women to serve, under the prevailing social conditions, as competent witnesses and givers of testimony in cases involving financial transactions. The relevant wording implies, that in general, transactions were not often matters of concern to women at that time. It also indicates that the actual witness would be one woman, even though her testimony might require the support of another woman who would "remind" her if necessary. Thus, one woman acts as a guarantor for the accuracy of the other's testimony.
Obviously, then, the two are not on the same level, for one witness is supposed to be knowledgeable and aware of that to which she is testifying. As such her testimony is legally acceptable. The other witness is considered merely a guarantor, for the basis of all legal testimony is that it should aid the judge in reviewing the case as if he/she had been an actual witness thereof. Moreover, testimony is considered a legal responsibility so as to instill within the witness a heightened sense of his/her awareness of God and of the importance of the undertaking, so that he/she will not be careless with the testimony or swayed by emotions or personal feelings. If the verse were understood in this way, it is likely that many of the past and present disputes surrounding it could be avoided, for the main cause of such disputes has been the belief that the verse has binding and legal significance.
Furthermore, classical scholars appended another matter to the verse's guidelines concerning testimony, one that had absolutely nothing to do with the distribution of responsibilities addressed in the verse: their assumption that the verse pointed to women's natural inferiority, especially in terms of their mental and physical abilities, despite its clear reference to women living at the time of revelation—a time when there were few or no opportunities for women to receive an education, to occupy positions of responsibility in society, or to undertake work that would increase their experience in ways that would make "being reminded" unnecessary. However, once society passes beyond that stage and women are allowed to participate more fully in its affairs, and in transactions in particular, there should no longer be a need for such arrangements.
The question for consideration is whether or not, on the basis of the verse's circumstantial context ('illah), the testimony of one woman may be accepted even when the teaching of the verse is that two women should testify. Before dealing with this question, however, and before examining whether or not it is legitimate or whether it may be answered in the affirmative or the negative, we must reflect on several different issues.
The First Issue
The Qur'an, as discourse, was directed toward a people who, before its revelation, had little or no regard for women and who did not allow their inclusion in matters considered the domain of men. In fact pre-Islamic Arab society sanctioned female infanticide.
And they ascribe daughters unto God, who is limitless in His glory, whereas for themselves [they would choose, if they could, only] what they desire; for, whenever any of them is given the glad tidings of [the birth of] a girl, his face darkens, and he is filled with suppressed anger, avoiding all people because of the [alleged] evil of glad tiding which he has received, [and debating with himself:] shall he keep this [child] despite the contempt [which he feels for it]—or shall he bury it in the dust? Oh, evil indeed is whatever they decide! (16:57-59)
According to the Qur'anic commentator, Fakhr al Din al Razi:
Men in the period of jahiliyah would go into hiding when they knew that their wives were about to give birth. Then, if they were told they had fathered a son, they rejoiced. But if they learned that the newborn was a girl, they were saddened, and would stay in seclusion, trying to make up their minds about what they should do with the child: shall he keep this [child] despite the contempt [which he feels for it]—or shall he bury it in the dust? Should he keep the child alive, as an object of perpetual disdain, or simply do away with it?
Nor was this phenomenon very far removed from the period of revelation. In fact, some early Muslims had killed their infant daughters. Qays ibn 'Asim once said to the Prophet: "O Prophet of God! In the days of ignorance I buried alive seven daughters." The Prophet replied: "For each one of them, set free one slave." The man said: "But I have only camels." So the Prophet told him: "Then for each one, sacrifice a camel (at the Hajj)."
Another man told the Prophet: "I have never been able to taste the sweetness of faith, even though I have accepted Islam. In the days of ignorance I had a daughter. One day, I told my wife to dress her up. When my wife sent her out to me, I took her to a distant valley in the desert where nothing grew. At that place, I threw my daughter down from my camel, and rode away. When I left her, I heard her calling to me: 'Father! You have killed me!' Now, whenever I think of her and what she said, I find that nothing helps me." The Prophet replied: "Whatever wrongs took place in the days of ignorance are abolished by Islam. And whatever wrongs take place in Islam may be abolished by repentance (istighfar)."
The Qur'an transported the people of those times to the realm of faith in absolute gender equality. This single article of faith, perhaps more than any other, represented a revolution no less significant than Islam's condemnation of idolatry, and its censure of blind faith passed, without examination, from one generation to another. Theoretically, such equality may seem a relatively simple matter to accept. But when it comes to the practical implementation of any new social model, problems are certain to arise. In the case of early Muslim society, given the long-established customs, attitudes and mores of pre-Islamic Arabia, it was necessary to implement such changes in stages and to make allowances for society's capacity to adjust itself accordingly. For example, if God had prohibited wine by degrees, as related by 'A'ishah, it follows that He would do the same in the case of an issue of far greater importance and sensitivity in that society, namely, the equality of men and women. It would appear that the Qur'an sought gradual change via prudent and judicious means, rather than all at once, in which case the possibility of rejection and negative reactions might have been greater. Thus, its initial intent was to instruct Muslims in the ways of a truly civilized society, one in which economic, social, or other changes would be integral to its development. Such change, moreover, is designed to occur in accord with the Qur'anic teachings for introducing reform on the basis of the two readings: that of revelation and that of the natural universe. And this is what the verse of debt brings to us.
The Qur'an, in its own subtle manner and with characteristic sagacity, places the reclassification of women as fully participating members of society on its agenda for reform. By establishing a role for woman in the witnessing of transactions, even though at the time of revelation they had little to do with such matters, the Qur'an seeks to give concrete form to the idea of woman as participant:
and if two men are not available, then a man and two women from among such as are acceptable to you as witnesses (2:282)
The objective is to end the traditional perception of women by including them, "among such as are acceptable to you as witnesses," and to bring about their acceptance as full partners in society by means of this practical recognition. In this way, the Qur'an seeks to overcome the psychological impediments of men that prevent them from accepting women as their equals in society. At the time of revelation, the question of numbers was irrelevant, as it was the equality of women that the Qur'an sought to emphasize. Even the matter of witnessing served merely as a means to an end or as a practical way of establishing the concept of gender equality, for what was critically significant was the Qur'an's application of the principle of equality, not only on a religious or otherworldly level, but on the levels of human society, interpersonal relations and, most pointedly, commerce. Under the prevailing circumstances, all of this was extremely important.
Thus, it was as if the Qur'an, in its subtle attempt to bring about major change in a society whose customs constituted a major obstacle in the way of that change, sought to address that society in an "acceptable" manner by implying that women were somehow less important as witnesses in such matters. As a result, the testimony of two women would equal that of one man. It was as if the Qur'an had recognized society's view that women, in general, are quicker to forget matters related to affairs with which they had little or nothing to do, especially when these were usually conducted and concluded orally.
Furthermore, the society's oral culture was dominated by two cultures: that of pagan Arabia and its female infanticide and that of the People of the Book (Christian and Jewish inhabitants of Arabian towns) who considered woman the chief reason for humanity's fall from Paradise. Under those circumstances and by means of this approach, the change sought by the Qur'an was not change that would overturn completely the society's customs, but rather a modification or a judicious laying of foundations for the acceptance of Qur'anic teachings about equality in general. Otherwise, it is more than obvious that the "forgetfulness" taken as a circumstantial context for the legal ruling regarding the acceptance of two women's testimony in place of one man's is a trait shared equally throughout the world. From the beginning of history, each man and woman has been subject to it. In fact, Adam is characterized as having forgotten the covenant of his Lord, a matter of far greater importance. (By going into the forbidden forest and eating the forbidden fruit)
Both the pagan Arabs and the Arabian People of the Book believed that women were somehow a lesser breed than men. Indeed, the dominant culture on the Arabian peninsula at the time was that of the Christians and the Jews, both of which refused to grant equality to women.
The Second Issue
It must be admitted that Christian, Jewish, and Muslim scholars have neglected the wisdom of their respective revelations concerning the equality of the sexes. Qur'anic commentators and jurists in particular seem to have ignored the broader intellectual aspects of a woman's testimony. In addition, some seem to have allowed themselves to completely overlook the basic Qur'anic principle of gender equality, even though this teaching is mentioned in literally hundreds of Qur'anic verses. Instead, they have engrossed themselves in studies emphasizing biological and psychological differences, thereby attempting to derive evidence from divine revelation to support the attitudes and customs of their pre-Islamic heritage.
Such a decidedly un-Islamic bias has prevented Muslim scholars from considering the issue of a woman's testimony in light of the broader Qur'anic teachings of equality. Instead of looking at the issues as a mere division of labor, they considered it as one based on natural incompetence. Taking their cue from Jewish, Christian, and pagan Arab traditions and attitudes, they dwelt on a "woman's natural tendency to be forgetful and fall into error" and her physical "disabilities." Did God not say, they argued: "if one of them should make a mistake, the other could remind her" (2:282), thereby reading nor more than the letter of revelation and without taking into consideration the verse's context or attempting a balanced reading of woman or of nature?
In essence, Muslim jurists and Qur'anic commentators allowed their cultural prejudices to color their discussions on the subject of women. In their ignorance, they used those verses declaring the competence and equality or women to "prove" the contrary. Using the same perverted logic, they dealt with the subject of the shares due to women through the laws of inheritance.
The Third Issue
Let us turn now to a discussion of the meaning of "mistake" (dalal) in the verse in question. According to the Arabic Lexicon, the underlying meaning is "absence." Later, the word was used to indicate any turning from the right way, whether intentionally or otherwise. The word came to be used in the sense of "to forget," for the reason that one who forgets is one for whom the right way is absent. The wisdom in the Qur'an's choice of this word, rather than the one usually chosen to mean "to forget" (nisyan) or "to err" (khata) is perhaps that the meaning of dalal is broader and more comprehensive than the other two, as a mistake in testimony may be either intentional or unintentional.
The Fourth Issue
Since most commentators have explained that the meaning of dalal in this verse is probably "to forget," it would be best here if we paused to consider the meaning of the infinitive, "to forget," which is oversight and dereliction. This too may come about either intentionally or unintentionally.
The Fifth Issue
Commentators differ in their interpretations of "reminding" in the verse: "if one of them should make a mistake, the other could remind her," (2:282). For example, Sufyan ibn 'Uyaynah opined that a woman who gives testimony, and who is helped through another woman's reminding, becomes legally equal to a man. Other commentators, including al Tabari, rejected this view on the grounds that the other's "reminding" has the effect of causing the first woman to remember something she had forgotten:
by Dr. Taha Jaber Al-Alwani
The only verse in the entire Qur'an to equate the testimony of two women to that of one man is the so-called verse of debt (ayat al dayn), which occurs in Qur'an 2:282. This verse contains a significant amount of material that later jurists categorized variously as recommended or merely instructional (irshad) and without legal import. However, very few jurists opined that the recording of debts, witnessing, and all other matters dealt with in the verse may be categorized as obligatory (wajib).
Whether we agree or disagree with a particular school, there is near unanimity among all jurists that the Qur'an's mention of testimony in relation to transactions was revealed to advise Muslims on how they might reduce the possibility of misunderstandings arising among themselves. Therefore, the entire matter of testimony was revealed to humanity by way of instruction. Obviously, instruction is one thing, while binding legal precepts are another matter entirely.
The verse of debt, moreover, may be seen as connecting testimony, the taking of witnesses, the agreement of both parties to the contract at the time of its ratification, and the judge's (qadi) acceptance of testimony given by the witnesses, as follows:
and call upon two of your men to act as witnesses; and if two men are not available, then a man and two women from among such as are acceptable to you as witnesses... (2:282)
The verse goes on to explain the reason for seeking testimony from two women in place of the testimony of one man, by saying "...so that if one of them should make a mistake, the other could remind her" (2:282).
Thus, the verse indicates clearly that there are differences in the ability of women to serve, under the prevailing social conditions, as competent witnesses and givers of testimony in cases involving financial transactions. The relevant wording implies, that in general, transactions were not often matters of concern to women at that time. It also indicates that the actual witness would be one woman, even though her testimony might require the support of another woman who would "remind" her if necessary. Thus, one woman acts as a guarantor for the accuracy of the other's testimony.
Obviously, then, the two are not on the same level, for one witness is supposed to be knowledgeable and aware of that to which she is testifying. As such her testimony is legally acceptable. The other witness is considered merely a guarantor, for the basis of all legal testimony is that it should aid the judge in reviewing the case as if he/she had been an actual witness thereof. Moreover, testimony is considered a legal responsibility so as to instill within the witness a heightened sense of his/her awareness of God and of the importance of the undertaking, so that he/she will not be careless with the testimony or swayed by emotions or personal feelings. If the verse were understood in this way, it is likely that many of the past and present disputes surrounding it could be avoided, for the main cause of such disputes has been the belief that the verse has binding and legal significance.
Furthermore, classical scholars appended another matter to the verse's guidelines concerning testimony, one that had absolutely nothing to do with the distribution of responsibilities addressed in the verse: their assumption that the verse pointed to women's natural inferiority, especially in terms of their mental and physical abilities, despite its clear reference to women living at the time of revelation—a time when there were few or no opportunities for women to receive an education, to occupy positions of responsibility in society, or to undertake work that would increase their experience in ways that would make "being reminded" unnecessary. However, once society passes beyond that stage and women are allowed to participate more fully in its affairs, and in transactions in particular, there should no longer be a need for such arrangements.
The question for consideration is whether or not, on the basis of the verse's circumstantial context ('illah), the testimony of one woman may be accepted even when the teaching of the verse is that two women should testify. Before dealing with this question, however, and before examining whether or not it is legitimate or whether it may be answered in the affirmative or the negative, we must reflect on several different issues.
The First Issue
The Qur'an, as discourse, was directed toward a people who, before its revelation, had little or no regard for women and who did not allow their inclusion in matters considered the domain of men. In fact pre-Islamic Arab society sanctioned female infanticide.
And they ascribe daughters unto God, who is limitless in His glory, whereas for themselves [they would choose, if they could, only] what they desire; for, whenever any of them is given the glad tidings of [the birth of] a girl, his face darkens, and he is filled with suppressed anger, avoiding all people because of the [alleged] evil of glad tiding which he has received, [and debating with himself:] shall he keep this [child] despite the contempt [which he feels for it]—or shall he bury it in the dust? Oh, evil indeed is whatever they decide! (16:57-59)
According to the Qur'anic commentator, Fakhr al Din al Razi:
Men in the period of jahiliyah would go into hiding when they knew that their wives were about to give birth. Then, if they were told they had fathered a son, they rejoiced. But if they learned that the newborn was a girl, they were saddened, and would stay in seclusion, trying to make up their minds about what they should do with the child: shall he keep this [child] despite the contempt [which he feels for it]—or shall he bury it in the dust? Should he keep the child alive, as an object of perpetual disdain, or simply do away with it?
Nor was this phenomenon very far removed from the period of revelation. In fact, some early Muslims had killed their infant daughters. Qays ibn 'Asim once said to the Prophet: "O Prophet of God! In the days of ignorance I buried alive seven daughters." The Prophet replied: "For each one of them, set free one slave." The man said: "But I have only camels." So the Prophet told him: "Then for each one, sacrifice a camel (at the Hajj)."
Another man told the Prophet: "I have never been able to taste the sweetness of faith, even though I have accepted Islam. In the days of ignorance I had a daughter. One day, I told my wife to dress her up. When my wife sent her out to me, I took her to a distant valley in the desert where nothing grew. At that place, I threw my daughter down from my camel, and rode away. When I left her, I heard her calling to me: 'Father! You have killed me!' Now, whenever I think of her and what she said, I find that nothing helps me." The Prophet replied: "Whatever wrongs took place in the days of ignorance are abolished by Islam. And whatever wrongs take place in Islam may be abolished by repentance (istighfar)."
The Qur'an transported the people of those times to the realm of faith in absolute gender equality. This single article of faith, perhaps more than any other, represented a revolution no less significant than Islam's condemnation of idolatry, and its censure of blind faith passed, without examination, from one generation to another. Theoretically, such equality may seem a relatively simple matter to accept. But when it comes to the practical implementation of any new social model, problems are certain to arise. In the case of early Muslim society, given the long-established customs, attitudes and mores of pre-Islamic Arabia, it was necessary to implement such changes in stages and to make allowances for society's capacity to adjust itself accordingly. For example, if God had prohibited wine by degrees, as related by 'A'ishah, it follows that He would do the same in the case of an issue of far greater importance and sensitivity in that society, namely, the equality of men and women. It would appear that the Qur'an sought gradual change via prudent and judicious means, rather than all at once, in which case the possibility of rejection and negative reactions might have been greater. Thus, its initial intent was to instruct Muslims in the ways of a truly civilized society, one in which economic, social, or other changes would be integral to its development. Such change, moreover, is designed to occur in accord with the Qur'anic teachings for introducing reform on the basis of the two readings: that of revelation and that of the natural universe. And this is what the verse of debt brings to us.
The Qur'an, in its own subtle manner and with characteristic sagacity, places the reclassification of women as fully participating members of society on its agenda for reform. By establishing a role for woman in the witnessing of transactions, even though at the time of revelation they had little to do with such matters, the Qur'an seeks to give concrete form to the idea of woman as participant:
and if two men are not available, then a man and two women from among such as are acceptable to you as witnesses (2:282)
The objective is to end the traditional perception of women by including them, "among such as are acceptable to you as witnesses," and to bring about their acceptance as full partners in society by means of this practical recognition. In this way, the Qur'an seeks to overcome the psychological impediments of men that prevent them from accepting women as their equals in society. At the time of revelation, the question of numbers was irrelevant, as it was the equality of women that the Qur'an sought to emphasize. Even the matter of witnessing served merely as a means to an end or as a practical way of establishing the concept of gender equality, for what was critically significant was the Qur'an's application of the principle of equality, not only on a religious or otherworldly level, but on the levels of human society, interpersonal relations and, most pointedly, commerce. Under the prevailing circumstances, all of this was extremely important.
Thus, it was as if the Qur'an, in its subtle attempt to bring about major change in a society whose customs constituted a major obstacle in the way of that change, sought to address that society in an "acceptable" manner by implying that women were somehow less important as witnesses in such matters. As a result, the testimony of two women would equal that of one man. It was as if the Qur'an had recognized society's view that women, in general, are quicker to forget matters related to affairs with which they had little or nothing to do, especially when these were usually conducted and concluded orally.
Furthermore, the society's oral culture was dominated by two cultures: that of pagan Arabia and its female infanticide and that of the People of the Book (Christian and Jewish inhabitants of Arabian towns) who considered woman the chief reason for humanity's fall from Paradise. Under those circumstances and by means of this approach, the change sought by the Qur'an was not change that would overturn completely the society's customs, but rather a modification or a judicious laying of foundations for the acceptance of Qur'anic teachings about equality in general. Otherwise, it is more than obvious that the "forgetfulness" taken as a circumstantial context for the legal ruling regarding the acceptance of two women's testimony in place of one man's is a trait shared equally throughout the world. From the beginning of history, each man and woman has been subject to it. In fact, Adam is characterized as having forgotten the covenant of his Lord, a matter of far greater importance. (By going into the forbidden forest and eating the forbidden fruit)
Both the pagan Arabs and the Arabian People of the Book believed that women were somehow a lesser breed than men. Indeed, the dominant culture on the Arabian peninsula at the time was that of the Christians and the Jews, both of which refused to grant equality to women.
The Second Issue
It must be admitted that Christian, Jewish, and Muslim scholars have neglected the wisdom of their respective revelations concerning the equality of the sexes. Qur'anic commentators and jurists in particular seem to have ignored the broader intellectual aspects of a woman's testimony. In addition, some seem to have allowed themselves to completely overlook the basic Qur'anic principle of gender equality, even though this teaching is mentioned in literally hundreds of Qur'anic verses. Instead, they have engrossed themselves in studies emphasizing biological and psychological differences, thereby attempting to derive evidence from divine revelation to support the attitudes and customs of their pre-Islamic heritage.
Such a decidedly un-Islamic bias has prevented Muslim scholars from considering the issue of a woman's testimony in light of the broader Qur'anic teachings of equality. Instead of looking at the issues as a mere division of labor, they considered it as one based on natural incompetence. Taking their cue from Jewish, Christian, and pagan Arab traditions and attitudes, they dwelt on a "woman's natural tendency to be forgetful and fall into error" and her physical "disabilities." Did God not say, they argued: "if one of them should make a mistake, the other could remind her" (2:282), thereby reading nor more than the letter of revelation and without taking into consideration the verse's context or attempting a balanced reading of woman or of nature?
In essence, Muslim jurists and Qur'anic commentators allowed their cultural prejudices to color their discussions on the subject of women. In their ignorance, they used those verses declaring the competence and equality or women to "prove" the contrary. Using the same perverted logic, they dealt with the subject of the shares due to women through the laws of inheritance.
The Third Issue
Let us turn now to a discussion of the meaning of "mistake" (dalal) in the verse in question. According to the Arabic Lexicon, the underlying meaning is "absence." Later, the word was used to indicate any turning from the right way, whether intentionally or otherwise. The word came to be used in the sense of "to forget," for the reason that one who forgets is one for whom the right way is absent. The wisdom in the Qur'an's choice of this word, rather than the one usually chosen to mean "to forget" (nisyan) or "to err" (khata) is perhaps that the meaning of dalal is broader and more comprehensive than the other two, as a mistake in testimony may be either intentional or unintentional.
The Fourth Issue
Since most commentators have explained that the meaning of dalal in this verse is probably "to forget," it would be best here if we paused to consider the meaning of the infinitive, "to forget," which is oversight and dereliction. This too may come about either intentionally or unintentionally.
The Fifth Issue
Commentators differ in their interpretations of "reminding" in the verse: "if one of them should make a mistake, the other could remind her," (2:282). For example, Sufyan ibn 'Uyaynah opined that a woman who gives testimony, and who is helped through another woman's reminding, becomes legally equal to a man. Other commentators, including al Tabari, rejected this view on the grounds that the other's "reminding" has the effect of causing the first woman to remember something she had forgotten:
Clearly, the mistake that might be made by one of the women in the testimony she gives would be her forgetting, like the mistake made by a person in a matter of religion, when they are unsure of something and stray from the truth. So, if one woman should become this way, how is it possible that another's reminding her will make her as if she remembered the testimony she had forgotten and mistaken?
Qur'anic commentators who came after al Tabari did not go beyond these two positions, namely, that the woman remembered after being reminded (and could then be legally equal to one man, but only with the help of a "reminder") or that the combination of the reminding woman and the forgetful woman is, in legal terms, equal to one man who remembers.
In his Ahkam al Qur'an, Ibn al 'Arabi, after mentioning the opinions summarized above, asked rhetorically: "What if there is one woman with one man, so that the man can remind her if she forgets? What is the wisdom in that?" Immediately, however, he goes on to nullify the question by stating: "The answer is that Allah legislates what He wills, and He knows better what wisdom lies behind His legislation. It is certainly not essential that His creation should know and understand the wisdom in what He legislates for their betterment and welfare."
In their interpretations of "mistake" and "remind," Qur'anic commentators have approached the issue from a perspective based on the assumption that the division of testimony for women into halves is somehow connected with women's inherent inequality to men. This idea has been shared by classical and modern commentators alike, so that generation after generation of Muslims, guided only by taqlid (imitation), have continued to perpetuate this faulty understanding. Certainly, the attitudes engendered by such a misunderstanding have spread far beyond the legal sphere.
Based on the above, I would like to say that the purpose of this particular article of legislation was to emphasize the Qur'anic principle of gender equality by means of a practical formula. The subject of this principle is, furthermore, by no means limited to witnessing and legal testimony, regardless of whether we consider this a right, a responsibility, or a partnership in the affairs of society. The important thing is that the presence of two women as witnesses to such affairs is held to be essential, even if one is there only to remind the other in the event that she forgets. Thus, Ibn al 'Arabi's question is valid: What if a man is there to remind the woman witness? If the point is to remember the event after it has been forgotten, it should suffice that a man remind the woman if she forgets. The emphasis, however, on the necessity of having two women is so that they may support one another in the matter of the testimony and in breaking down the psychological barriers erected by society, regardless of their numbers. All of this is a part of the miraculous nature of the Qur'an, which has paved the way for major social changes in the spheres of economics, law, relationships and social structures within one single verse.
The Sixth Issue
But how was this "miracle" perverted into the indictment (or the insinuation) that it became, and one that generations of Muslims have had little success in refuting? There are several reasons for this, among them:
1. The dominant culture at the time of revelation was, as mentioned earlier, a mix of pagan Arab, Christian, and rabbinical Jewish, all of which had little regard for women, minimized their role, stressed their natural inferiority to men, and refused to grant them equality.
2. The prevailing social customs were dictated by an oral legal tradition passed down from generation to generation by the male elders of the tribes. This tradition was perpetuated via the proverbial Arab veneration of their elders and their ancestors.
3. The prevailing social structure was predicated on military and commercial success, and both, owing to their physical nature, were the domain of men— military success depended on the force of arms and commercial success depended on the movement of caravans across great expanses of desert.
4. Family honor was a key element in that society, and women were perceived as weak links in the chain that made up the preservation of that honor. Thus, men felt it was their duty to control women.
These and other factors led Islamic-Arabic thought to dwell upon the physical and mental differences between men and women whenever it encountered texts from the Qur'an or the sunnah that dealt differently with men and women, especially in matters of witnessing, inheritance, and indemnity for bodily injury. For example, consider al Razi's extraordinarily biased commentary, written in the seventh century A.H., on Qur'an 2:282.
Qur'anic commentators who came after al Tabari did not go beyond these two positions, namely, that the woman remembered after being reminded (and could then be legally equal to one man, but only with the help of a "reminder") or that the combination of the reminding woman and the forgetful woman is, in legal terms, equal to one man who remembers.
In his Ahkam al Qur'an, Ibn al 'Arabi, after mentioning the opinions summarized above, asked rhetorically: "What if there is one woman with one man, so that the man can remind her if she forgets? What is the wisdom in that?" Immediately, however, he goes on to nullify the question by stating: "The answer is that Allah legislates what He wills, and He knows better what wisdom lies behind His legislation. It is certainly not essential that His creation should know and understand the wisdom in what He legislates for their betterment and welfare."
In their interpretations of "mistake" and "remind," Qur'anic commentators have approached the issue from a perspective based on the assumption that the division of testimony for women into halves is somehow connected with women's inherent inequality to men. This idea has been shared by classical and modern commentators alike, so that generation after generation of Muslims, guided only by taqlid (imitation), have continued to perpetuate this faulty understanding. Certainly, the attitudes engendered by such a misunderstanding have spread far beyond the legal sphere.
Based on the above, I would like to say that the purpose of this particular article of legislation was to emphasize the Qur'anic principle of gender equality by means of a practical formula. The subject of this principle is, furthermore, by no means limited to witnessing and legal testimony, regardless of whether we consider this a right, a responsibility, or a partnership in the affairs of society. The important thing is that the presence of two women as witnesses to such affairs is held to be essential, even if one is there only to remind the other in the event that she forgets. Thus, Ibn al 'Arabi's question is valid: What if a man is there to remind the woman witness? If the point is to remember the event after it has been forgotten, it should suffice that a man remind the woman if she forgets. The emphasis, however, on the necessity of having two women is so that they may support one another in the matter of the testimony and in breaking down the psychological barriers erected by society, regardless of their numbers. All of this is a part of the miraculous nature of the Qur'an, which has paved the way for major social changes in the spheres of economics, law, relationships and social structures within one single verse.
The Sixth Issue
But how was this "miracle" perverted into the indictment (or the insinuation) that it became, and one that generations of Muslims have had little success in refuting? There are several reasons for this, among them:
1. The dominant culture at the time of revelation was, as mentioned earlier, a mix of pagan Arab, Christian, and rabbinical Jewish, all of which had little regard for women, minimized their role, stressed their natural inferiority to men, and refused to grant them equality.
2. The prevailing social customs were dictated by an oral legal tradition passed down from generation to generation by the male elders of the tribes. This tradition was perpetuated via the proverbial Arab veneration of their elders and their ancestors.
3. The prevailing social structure was predicated on military and commercial success, and both, owing to their physical nature, were the domain of men— military success depended on the force of arms and commercial success depended on the movement of caravans across great expanses of desert.
4. Family honor was a key element in that society, and women were perceived as weak links in the chain that made up the preservation of that honor. Thus, men felt it was their duty to control women.
These and other factors led Islamic-Arabic thought to dwell upon the physical and mental differences between men and women whenever it encountered texts from the Qur'an or the sunnah that dealt differently with men and women, especially in matters of witnessing, inheritance, and indemnity for bodily injury. For example, consider al Razi's extraordinarily biased commentary, written in the seventh century A.H., on Qur'an 2:282.
The nature of women is dominated by forgetfulness owing to a predominance of cold and wetness in their physical constitution. The joining of two women in forgetting is less likely than the occurrence of forgetting in just one woman. That is why two women are to take the place of only one man.
He also maintains that the verse in question could be read in different ways, namely, "so that when one makes a mistake," as if making a mistake is a foregone conclusion, and, "willing that when one makes a mistake," as if to say that it is the will of God that one of them make a mistake. He justifies this bizarre assertion by saying:
He also maintains that the verse in question could be read in different ways, namely, "so that when one makes a mistake," as if making a mistake is a foregone conclusion, and, "willing that when one makes a mistake," as if to say that it is the will of God that one of them make a mistake. He justifies this bizarre assertion by saying:
Here, there are two purposes. The first is to bring about testimony, and that will not take place unless one of the two women reminds the other. The second is to explain that men are better than women, so that it becomes clear why it is just to equate two women to one man. Now this explanation will be served only if one of the two women actually forgets. Moreover, if both purposes are to be served, and there is no way that will happen unless one of the women forgets and the other reminds her, then without doubt that is what is sought.
The reader will note how this greatly respected scholar attempted to put words in the mouth of the Qur'an for the sole purpose of supporting prevalent social ideas, despite the fact that this would result in the destruction of a principle that the Qur'an seeks to establish as one of the most important of all its principles—gender equality! But consider how a scholar of al Razi's stature could state with authority that God stipulated that there be two female witnesses just so He could cause one of them to forget and thereby establish the principle of male superiority!
...[W]itnessing (shahadah) and legal authority (wilayah) are two totally separate matters. This point, however, is one that was ignored by many jurists in their discussions of why a woman's testimony is equal to only half of a man's testimony. Rather, witnessing should be understood as an attempt to present the judge with an objective picture of something that took place so that he/she can make a fair judgment. All of the ten or more conditions stipulated by the jurists for witnesses were formulated in order to achieve the objective of not dictating the ruling to the judge. Since Islam considers the ruler as God's deputy (khalifah) and as responsible for carrying out His will by implementing the Shari'ah (i.e., the ruler has no sovereignty in his/her own right), then how can one say that a witness has legal authority over a judge or that a witness dictates the judgment to the judge?
To summarize, then, there is no difference between men and women in terms of their abilities, their propensity to forget, in the possibility of their colluding to present false witness, or in their ability to speak either the truth or fabrication. Moreover, the objectives of the Qur'an do not include anything that would indicate otherwise. Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest that there is anything other than equality between the sexes.
The reader will note how this greatly respected scholar attempted to put words in the mouth of the Qur'an for the sole purpose of supporting prevalent social ideas, despite the fact that this would result in the destruction of a principle that the Qur'an seeks to establish as one of the most important of all its principles—gender equality! But consider how a scholar of al Razi's stature could state with authority that God stipulated that there be two female witnesses just so He could cause one of them to forget and thereby establish the principle of male superiority!
...[W]itnessing (shahadah) and legal authority (wilayah) are two totally separate matters. This point, however, is one that was ignored by many jurists in their discussions of why a woman's testimony is equal to only half of a man's testimony. Rather, witnessing should be understood as an attempt to present the judge with an objective picture of something that took place so that he/she can make a fair judgment. All of the ten or more conditions stipulated by the jurists for witnesses were formulated in order to achieve the objective of not dictating the ruling to the judge. Since Islam considers the ruler as God's deputy (khalifah) and as responsible for carrying out His will by implementing the Shari'ah (i.e., the ruler has no sovereignty in his/her own right), then how can one say that a witness has legal authority over a judge or that a witness dictates the judgment to the judge?
To summarize, then, there is no difference between men and women in terms of their abilities, their propensity to forget, in the possibility of their colluding to present false witness, or in their ability to speak either the truth or fabrication. Moreover, the objectives of the Qur'an do not include anything that would indicate otherwise. Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest that there is anything other than equality between the sexes.
Dubious
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2012
- Messages
- 37,717
- Reaction score
- 80
- Country
- Location
1stly, about the paying bit please read last few pages..already discussedsharia law is good if you are a muslim and follow the rules..
no exception..
and if you are non muslim.. you are not allowed to propagate your religion and also you have to pay some money yearly...
and also muslim who want to convert or reject religion are condemn to death...
also you cant have a gf or bf .. and no drinking
so no free will..
it is not for me... may be it is for you.. buy hey.. you can do all these things in personal level... why you want to enforce on others..
secondly, about condemn to death please bring your prove
3rdly, no gf/ bf , drinking ...all these bring problems in society you want to do it do it in your own country where your gf can also look for other bf under free will...
As for enforce on...if it is not causing harm to the society why not? I am more interested in a society which is healthy and not breaking apart due to drunks beating wives, DIV deaths, rapes, relationships gone bad, sexually transmitted diseases and many more ills...You enjoy them, hey good for you! Freedom for you
Tshering22
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2010
- Messages
- 18,431
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
If they don't accept UCC then they will be made to accept it by hook or crook. Because if all other communities have no problem, THEN they have no right to complain.
Even after this if they don't agree, pack their bags to Saudi or wherever they feel is heavenly.
Ok even if I agree that sharia is good and blah blah..1stly, about the paying bit please read last few pages..already discussed
secondly, about condemn to death please bring your prove
3rdly, no gf/ bf , drinking ...all these bring problems in society you want to do it do it in your own country where your gf can also look for other bf under free will...
As for enforce on...if it is not causing harm to the society why not? I am more interested in a society which is healthy and not breaking apart due to drunks beating wives, DIV deaths, rapes, relationships gone bad, sexually transmitted diseases and many more ills...You enjoy them, hey good for you! Freedom for you
It cant be implemented.. first of all you need good people..
Will you live in taliban sharia?? or nawaz sharif sharia?? or zaid hamid sharia ( no hizab
) sharia .. or any other..How can you make sure that it is being implemented in good way??
I cant see present Pakistanis (specially young pakistanis) can ever live under sharia.. just see their lifestyle in facebook and twitter..
..un sab bicharo ko bhagna parega pakistan se hahaha...
-------------------------------
and btw all laws are good if their implementers are good and same applies to sharia ( for muslims)
Dubious
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2012
- Messages
- 37,717
- Reaction score
- 80
- Country
- Location
My other post in this thread covered that...as to why Pakistan cant have Shariah (just yet)
My other post covered that I will never live in Taliban shariah coz they call it Shariah I call it Jahalat! As for the others..Further, in Shariah you split the court...it is not directly under the govt. Which is not the case in Pakistan...Will you live in taliban sharia?? or nawaz sharif sharia?? or zaid hamid sharia ( no hizab
How can you make sure that it is being implemented in good way??
Well, that depends...Like I said Shariah is not all about punishments...it has other aspects to and another post of mine also covered how some countries have mixed laws...Plus if you had read post 383 it shows Shariah can be adjusted based on the circumstances....Plus to actually enable certain of the punishments say the 4 witness for adultery...you actually need 4 people who have seen it happen from start till end and after testifying they can be given similar punishment for not stopping said crime...So not sure who will testify to get equal punishment...I cant see present Pakistanis (specially young pakistanis) can ever live under sharia.. just see their lifestyle in facebook and twitter..
un sab bicharo ko bhagna parega pakistan se hahaha...
In such sense the law is not as strict as people make it sound...Solid prove in Shariah is the hardest part then we have certain cases like rape where a woman can get a rape kit done + put her hand on the Quran say she got raped and that is it...the guy gets punished! Proof + testimony
As for the chopping hands for stealing....its not for stealing 1 loaf of bread or for stealing one apple...it is when the stolen good amount to say 1 months income or something...there is a threshold...if you steal above that you loose your limbs...Again proof + testimony or just proof will do!
Well the laws are no different for non Muslims (except laws of worshiping that is different because other religions are allowed to freely practice their religion and this is protected by Shariah anyone causing any disturbance will be subjected to punishment)...
The thing about Shariah is we need the court to be non politically bound. That is the only condition + you can also have consultant system like Iran had (not sure what their law is now) where like the jury the judge has a shura (The noun شورى (shura), alone, means "consultation" and refers to (among other things) a topic in Islamic law or sharia) ...the law itself is awesome...though not perfect but still impressive to know that 1400 years ago such a law was running and that is amazing! And like post 383 suggest you can modify it to suit todays date...but the basics will still be like adultery is still a sin...but who will testify? Stealing is still a sin (but isnt it even in 20th century?) murder is still a sin (same case in 20th century) so why do people get surprised? Simply coz they know not the basics!
these Ignorant people with no knowledge go deep to attack something they dont know Another person talking out of ignorance...
I am not sure why the word Shariah is equated to only what is in their brain ...people define a thing by its definition but some define it with their brain Our Mullahs do the same...Coz I said so...who cares what is written but coz I said so...so it has to be that way...and if those Mullahs are called Extremist then those jumping in with no knowledge are exactly the same
Last edited:
Pakistanisage
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2011
- Messages
- 9,450
- Reaction score
- 18
- Country
- Location
Their Country - Their Rules....
Similar threads
