two "Men/Male" Witnesses = two "Women/Female" Witnesses =2:282
-
That is an interesting post. I will look at it from that point of view see if it fits.
Salaam
Salaam/Peace Huruf,
it absolutely and perfectly fits, in my understanding, in every aspect of it, (as I mentioned
part of those clear Reasons/Evidences above).And here again especially due to the Fact that
(an "tadilla" ihdahuma = if "one" of them "goes astray",
in this Verse above (=2/282) should never be attributed exclusively to "Women" therein,
because when we read QURAN TESTAMENT in its whole context, we can clearly see that"dalla" (=to "go astray" due to any kind forgetfulness, or negligence, or any other shortcomings therein)
is a trait that may/should rightfully be attributed to all "Humans" (=i.e. to all "Men" and to all "Women", equally)
in every Issue (=7/149), and especially and also with regard to "numbers" above (=i.e. because it is essentially
related to a "debt" in this specific context above),because, for example, those who argued and contradicted about the specific "numbers" of
the Dwellers of Cave here (=18/22)
were essentially "Men" and "Women" therein again, in the first place.So we can clearly see that "Men" could also easily "dalla" (="go astray"
also and especially with regard to "numbers" therein, first of all (=18/22),therefore, I believe it should never be attributed exclusively to "Women" above (=2/282),
but it should absolutely be attributed to all "Men" and to all "Women", equally,
also therein above (=2/282).Greeeeeeat illustrative post. I love common sense based interpretations. Thank you for it
Salam peace
Salaam/Peace Virginia,
All our Thanks, dear Sister, are always absolutely and only to our LORD AL-LAH.
(=28/70 = 55/1-2 = 75/39 = 49/13)Remain in peace/salaam.
Whatever I say that may be perfectly Correct and Right is from AL-LAH,
and whatever I say that may be totally mistaken or wrong is from
my own self (shortcomings) (=34/50) -
Salaam/Peace to all brothers and sisters,
so, let us clearly see this most essential and important Verse, in this respect,
now here thus===============
282- O you who believe, when you transact a loan for any specific period, then you shall write it down.
And let a scribe among you write, equitably; and let not the scribe refuse to write, as AL-LAH has taught him, let him write.
And let the person who is borrowing dictate to him, and let him be conscious of AL-LAH, his LORD, and let him not reduce
from it anything.
But if the one who is borrowing is immature or weak or he cannot dictate himself, then let his guardian dictate, equitably;and bring "two-witnesses" from among your "men," but if there are not "two-men," then "(one) man" (will suffice),
and (it will apply exactly the same with regard to) "two-women," of whom you will be satisfied as witnesses,(=i.e. we may also thus equally bring "two-witnesses" from among our "women," but if there are not "two-women,"
then "(one) woman" (will suffice) in exact same manner above),so that if "one" of them (=i.e. "one" of those "two-men" above or/and "one" of those "two-women" above)
goes astray (due to forgetfulness, or negligence, or any other his/her shortcomings therein) then
"one" of them can remind the other.
............QURAN TESTAMENT 2/282
I believe this most essential and important Verse, in this respect, above
should rightfully and correctly be understood in this specific manner above, due to the Fact that- these essentially "feminine" verbs above
(an "tadilla" ihdahuma = if "one" of them "goes astray"),
("fatudhakkira" ihdahuma alukhra = then "one" of them can "remind" the other).may perfectly refer to the "nafs" = ("soul-self" of a man/male or a woman/female equally) therein,
as it (="nafs") is perfectly used to specifically refer to
"soul-self" of every man/male and every woman/female, equally,
in the very last Verse of this very same Chapter, in this respect, above 2 / 282 = 286
- It has been made perfectly clear to us by our Lord AL-LAH
that man/male or woman/female all believers could equally "go astray" (="dalla"), in any specific issue,
at some point in their lives,
and then they may truly repent and return to HIM when they are rightfully "reminded" therein
===============
149- When they (=i.e. all of those man/male and woman/female believers therein) regretted their action
and realized that they had "gone astray" (="dalloo") therein, they said?Unless our LORD have Mercy on us and Forgive us, we will be of the losers.?
QURAN TESTAMENT 7/149
Remain in peace/salaam.
Salaam,
This actually makes a lot of sense. Thank you for pointing it out and shedding light on a much misinterpreted ayat.
Regards,
Janet. -
wishful thinking or God words choose one...
God words are clear if two(witnesses)men are absent then ... one man and two women...
.. now look properly as per 17 36
And call for evidence two witnesses among your men.And if not there are two men then one man and two women
first case ===> two men
in case there are not two men then the same case ====> 1 man 2 women
simple math simple logic...
-
peace LD3, all,
If I have understood you correctly, your translation would imply the Arabic refers back to non-explicit word (i.e. nafs). Almost always (always?) when for example verbs/pronouns are used they refer back to an explicitly mentioned preceding noun/word in the context, not a non-explicit word. To claim the Arabic can refer back to a non-explicit word is a dangerous precedent with regard to opening up huge variation in interpreting many verses.
For your translation to at least be plausible, it would require at the very least another example of this in Quran, an example that is solid.
Personally, this verse does not pose a problem for me
http//misconceptions-about-islam.com/two-female-witnesses-one-male.htm -
I think there is no need of thinking of any nafs.
The explanation if one forgets the other can remind her, it is because it giving the explanation at the end but logically it would apply to both instances, that of two men and that of two women. In fact, that is the very reason why for anything two witnesses are required, be it men or women or one of each.This is indeed a sharp observation of Last Day. Breaking the spell.
Salaam
-
Peace, doesn't hold up under cross reference/context nor can it refer to nafs since 2nd case there are three people.
2282 ... and let witness they of witnesses two from rijlikum/menfolk yours so if not being dual rajulayni/menfolk two farajulun/so man wa-im'ra-atni/and women two from who thou agreeing from the witnesses that errs i'dhum/one of them dual so contemplate i'dhum/one of them dual l-ukh'r/the other (f)...
2825 so came to him i'dhum/one of them dual (f) ...
2826 said (f) i'dhum/one of them dual (f) ...5319 have so seen you the goddess and the uzza
5320 and manat the third (f) l-ukh'r/the other (f) -
I think I am coming to agree with Last Day, except, as I pointed out in a previous message, the need to invent anynafs at all, the concordance can perfectly apply to the last feminine persons and still be understood that if it were two men or a man and a woman it woud be the same, the same principle would apply.
I think that the two su make up for one comes from cutting the flow of the discourse, and the merit of Last Day, which I acknowledge, has been precisely not to cut the flow and follow to conclusion, no to make piecemeal reading of the different phases of the raising of witnesses, but to take the whole operation as a unit.
The soundness of this understanding is in my veiw verified by the expression
out of those you approve as witnesses
This refers back to the two men and the one man and the two women, notice the word which is masculine or common plural, but not feminine, so it stretches all the way to the begining.
And the next bit
the the effect that the one can remind the other applies equally it it is two women, two men or one man and one woman. That is why it is always required the witnesses be at least two.
And it stands also to logic, because it contemplates that there could only be one man, what if there are no men at all? Four women?
On the other hand this part
Has systematically taken to mean or, rather, contrived to mean, if not wo men can be found, but it really, really, does not say that, but what it says simply is and if it is not two men, then one, and two women (and it can be understood the parallel proceeding as with men).
I think I have to give it to Last Day to have cracked one of the hardest nuts in the "invention" of the mysoginistic Qur'an.
Salaam
-
the book is amazing... provide hints/signs lot of times..
the verse we are dealing is 2 282
just move one number from right to left like this .. 2228 now see whats there...But the men will have a degree over them. God is Noble, Wise.
i request from lastday and all to reinterprete it... i also feel unjustice here with address to womens.. &
God is wise and noble no doubt about it . and there is a reason behind every decision and command what he made for his servants..
at the face value its sounds to me a degree/darja of waiting period... but again whatsoever the topic is its confirmed that the male have degree instead of females.. i hope we can reinterpret darja/degree as equal so that interpretation will be fit..
group
-
the book is amazing... provide hints/signs lot of times..
the verse we are dealing is 2 282
just move one number from right to left like this .. 2228 now see whats there...But the men will have a degree over them. God is Noble, Wise.
i request from lastday and all to reinterprete it... i also feel unjustice here with address to womens.. &
God is wise and noble no doubt about it . and there is a reason behind every decision and command what he made for his servants..
at the face value its sounds to me a degree/darja of waiting period... but again whatsoever the topic is its confirmed that the male have degree instead of females.. i hope we can reinterpret darja/degree as equal so that interpretation will be fit..
group
walilrrijali AAalayhinna darajatun
With the li the "AAalayhinna" is referring to the rijaal themselves.
But how is that possible? AAalayhinna is feminine, and rijaal is masculine.
Maybe in this case we should neglect that and insist that it should be understood that men have degrees over women. -
And above all we must remember the words that come before the daraja within which it must be understood. Those words that come before, in fact, God does not really mean them, He just said that to be nice to women but really He does not want that, He is really on the side of males, as it should be, docile to their bidding
An to them (feminine) the same rights as against them (feminine)
This means nothing, what means is the degree, the marvellous, fresh delicious degree.
So a degree, a degree of what? Obviously of responsibility for the creature there might be, they are responsible for it as the Qur'an clearly establishes.
Salaam
-
Great subject LastDay3, very sensitive to say the least. However,
the ayat in question (2282) I believe the traditional interpretation
to be correct i.e., 1 man = two women in the matter of contracts and
witnessing, but in matters of empathy I would say 1 woman = 2 men!
balancepeace
-
I think I am coming to agree with Last Day, except, as I pointed out in a previous message, the need to invent anynafs at all, the concordance can perfectly apply to the last feminine persons and still be understood that if it were two men or a man and a woman it woud be the same, the same principle would apply.
I think that the two su make up for one comes from cutting the flow of the discourse, and the merit of Last Day, which I acknowledge, has been precisely not to cut the flow and follow to conclusion, no to make piecemeal reading of the different phases of the raising of witnesses, but to take the whole operation as a unit.
The soundness of this understanding is in my veiw verified by the expression
out of those you approve as witnesses
This refers back to the two men and the one man and the two women, notice the word which is masculine or common plural, but not feminine, so it stretches all the way to the begining.
And the next bit
the the effect that the one can remind the other applies equally it it is two women, two men or one man and one woman. That is why it is always required the witnesses be at least two.
And it stands also to logic, because it contemplates that there could only be one man, what if there are no men at all? Four women?
On the other hand this part
Has systematically taken to mean or, rather, contrived to mean, if not wo men can be found, but it really, really, does not say that, but what it says simply is and if it is not two men, then one, and two women (and it can be understood the parallel proceeding as with men).
I think I have to give it to Last Day to have cracked one of the hardest nuts in the "invention" of the mysoginistic Qur'an.
Salaam
I think it takes a bit of getting used to see it the way Last Day has shown. It took me at least, but once that i got down to it, I really would have trouble seeing it the way we have been told. Something or rather several things clash.
Also we should not forget 39.18
who listen to what is said and follow what is best in it. These are the ones God has guided; these are the people endowed with understanding.
Is making the testimony of a woman or two women half the testimony of a man really the best meaning that can be had from this aya. That would not say a lot about the aya but it would indeed say a lot about the listener. Whichs also turns out to be en many other cases.
The "if there are not two men" clashes with the
out of those you approve as witnesses
According to this, it would seem that there is not a question of there not being a wide enough pool to choose witnesses, neither of males or of females, and also the wording is not "if there are not two men, but if it is not two men, that is, if those picked are not two men, then one man and two women, etc.
This is the same self serving of inserting particles like "only" when they are not there, like in the inheritance ayas.
We all can ask ourselves the question if we are going to write a pledge or contract right now, what do we trust males more than females to be good witnesses? I can't see that is the case. I can see that we may trust or distrust particular persons, but as to sex...?
Please, those who would trust more one sex than the other in a matter of their own, can they confirm that they trust more any two men than any two women?
Rather we would guide ourselves by the sentence
out of those you approve as witnesses
regardless of the sex.
Salaam
-
===============
282- O you who believe, when you transact a loan for any specific period, then you shall write it down.
And let a scribe among you write, equitably; and let not the scribe refuse to write, as AL-LAH has taught him, let him write.
And let the person who is borrowing dictate to him, and let him be conscious of AL-LAH, his LORD, and let him not reduce
from it anything.
But if the one who is borrowing is immature or weak or he cannot dictate himself, then let his guardian dictate, equitably;and bring "two-witnesses" from among your "men," but if there are not "two-men," then "(one) man" (will suffice),
and (it will apply exactly the same with regard to) "two-women," of whom you will be satisfied as witnesses,(=i.e. we may also thus equally bring "two-witnesses" from among our "women," but if there are not "two-women,"
then "(one) woman" (will suffice) in exact same manner above),so that if "one" of them (=i.e. "one" of those "two-men" above or/and "one" of those "two-women" above)
goes astray (due to forgetfulness, or negligence, or any other his/her shortcomings therein) then
"one" of them can remind the other.
............QURAN TESTAMENT 2/282
Salaam/Peace to All,
first of all, if we were to understand it (in traditional/classical manner) here as
and bring "two-witnesses" from among your "men," but if there are not "two-men,"
then "(one) man" and "two-women," of whom you will be satisfied as witnesses, .........then consequently, we would have had to absolutely accept that
that "(one) man" would never "go astray" (dalla) above,
because to "go astray" (dalla) is a trait which belongs exclusively to those "women," above.
And I think such an understanding/perspective/view is fundamentally and totally mistaken, wrong and
baseless here, for us, in the very first place.Because if we carefully and thoroughly look into the whole context of Quran Testament, our Lord AL-LAH
clearly and unmistakably teaches us thatto "go astray" (="dalla" due to any kind forgetfulness, or negligence, or any other shortcomings therein)
is a trait that should rightfully be attributed to all "Humans" (=i.e. to all "Men" and to all "Women", equally)
in every Issue (here =7/149),
and also with regard to "numbers" (here =2/282)because, for example, those who argued and contradicted about the specific "numbers" of
the Dwellers of Cave here (=18/22)
were essentially "Men" and "Women" therein again, in the first place.And we can also clearly see and witness it, time and again, in our everyday life
that all "Humans" (=i.e. all "Men" and all "Women", equally) can "dalla" (="go astray" due to any kind forgetfulness,
or negligence, or any other shortcomings therein) with regard to any issue, and also with regard to "numbers,"
time and again.So I strongly believe that to "go astray" (="dalla" due to any kind forgetfulness, or negligence, or any other
shortcomings therein) is a trait which should never be attributed exclusively to the "women," in the above Verse,
or anywhere else. This would be totally contradictory to the whole Context and perfect Teaching of QURAN TESTAMENT,
from the very beginning, above.Secondly,
(an "tadilla" ihdahuma = if "one" of them "goes astray"),
("fatudhakkira" ihdahuma alukhra = then "one" of them can "remind" the other).may perfectly refer to the "nafs" = ("soul-self" of a man/male or a woman/female equally) therein,
as it (="nafs") has perfectly been used to specifically refer to
"soul-self" of every man/male and every woman/female, equally,
in the very last Verse of this very same Chapter above,
in such a specific (same/similar) Context again, therein
===============
286 AL-LAH does not burden a "nafs" (=i.e. "soul-self" of every man/male and every woman/female, equally)
except with what it can bear. For it is what it earns, and against it is what it commits.
"Our LORD, so do not mind us if we forget or make mistakes; .............===============
So again, our Lord AL-LAH clearly and unmistakably teaches us
that "nafs" (=i.e. "soul-self" of every man/male and every woman/female, equally)
can forget or make mistakes above, and so thus equally) they can also "dalla" (="go astray"),
as it is perfectly indicated again also in this above Verse;so I believe we can thus perfectly and legitimately refer to "nafs" (=i.e. "soul-self" of every man/male and
every woman/female, equally) due to the specific Connection between these
two essential Verses, in this respect, above2/282 = 286 due to such a perfectly parallel and absolutely complementary Teaching therein.
(*There is no QURANIC prohibition against such a meaningful and coherent connection and referral above
2/282 = 286
man-made classical/traditional Arabic lexicons and the specific rules therein can/should never hinder us from
the Perfect Ways of our Lord AL-LAH (our One and Only TEACHER) here 55/1-2 = 75/17-19And again, also due to the fact that "all Men" (=Rijaal) and "all Women" (=Nisaa) are
perfectly described as the descendants of one "nafs" (="soul-self", equally, here (=4/1),
so also in this connection, we can again perfectly and legitimately refer to "nafs" (="soul-self" of every man/male
and every woman/female, equally) again in this specific Verse above================
.......... and bring "two-witnesses" from among your "Men" (=your "Rijaal),"
but if there are not "two-Men" (="Rajulayn)," then "(one) man" (will suffice),
and (it will apply exactly the same with regard to) "two-Women" (="Amraataan"),
of whom you will be satisfied as witnesses,so that if "one" of them (=i.e. "one" of those "two-men" above or/and "one" of those "two-women" above)
goes astray (due to forgetfulness, or negligence, or any other his/her shortcomings therein) then
"one" of them can remind the other.
............QURAN TESTAMENT 2/282
As we see these "two-Men" (="Rajulayn)," and "two-Women" (="Amraataan)"
can legitimately be referred to as "Nafs" (=i.e. "Soul-Self" of every Man/Male
and every Woman/Female, equally as the perfect descendants of this
ancestor "Nafs" (=i.e. "Soul-Self", from the very beginning, above,
in this specific Connection hereQURAN TESTAMENT
"Men" & "Women" = each of them can perfectly be referred to as "Nafs" equally, here (=2/282)
because these
"Men" & "Women" are perfectly described as descendants of this ancestor "Nafs" here, equally (=4/1),
from the very beginning.And finally, the specific word "al-ukhra" (=i.e. "the other"
can clearly refer tothe other one of "two men" or/and the other one of "two women", equally,
in this specific Context above (=2/282), as it can clearly refer tothe other one of "two groups" here (=49/9)
Remain in peace/salaam.
Whatever I have said that may be perfectly Correct and Right is from AL-LAH,
and whatever I have said that may be essentially or partially mistaken or wrong
may only be from my own self (shortcomings) (=34/50) -
Peace -
may perfectly refer to the "nafs" = ("soul-self" of a man/male or a woman/female...
And finally, the specific word "al-ukhra" (=i.e. "the other"
can clearly refer tothe other one of "two men" or/and the other one of "two women", equally, ...
No, again get your genders/context straight...
- the 2nd part there are 3 people not two!
- in context it can never refer to two men!
- the reading comes across as senseless!
2282 ... and let witness they of witnesses two from menfolk yours so if not being dual menfolk two so a man and women two from who thou agreeing from the witnesses that errs i'dhum/one of them dual (f) so contemplate i'dhum/one of them dual (f) l-ukh'r/the other (f)...
2825 so came to him i'dhum/one of them dual (f) ...
2826 said (f) i'dhum/one of them dual (f) ...5320 and manat the third (f) l-ukh'r/the other (f)
-
No, again get your genders/context straight...
- the 2nd part there are 3 people not two!
- in context it can never refer to two men!
- the reading comes across as senseless!
Salaam/Peace Noon,
in my understanding
- the 2nd part there are 2 people not three.
- in context it can perfectly refer to "two men" or/and to "two women," equally.
- the reading comes across as perfectly sensible.
so please, pay attention to how I clearly see it here
= and bring-as-witnesses
= two-witnesses
= from among your Men,
= but if there is not two-Men
= (then) one-Men (will suffice). full stop
= And (it shall apply exactly the same as/in the above situation with regard to) two-Women,
(=i.e. we may also prefer to bring two-witnesses from among our Women, but if there is not two-Women
then one-Woman will suffice; equally and exactly as/in the above situation.)= from whom you will be satisfied --(among those Men or/and among those Women above,
equally)-- of/as Witnesses.= so that if "one of them" (=i.e. "one of those two-Men" or/and "one of those two-Women" above)
goes-astray (due to forgetfulness, or negligence, or any other his/her shortcomings therein),= then "one of them" (=i.e. "one of those two-Men" or/and "one of those two-Women" above)
may remind the other (=i.e. the other "one" already mentioned above).Remain in peace/salaam.
