The 2 witnesses in [2:282]

wildguest1956

Salaam JM

Peace samia

Another understanding of this verse is that the first "i7daahuma" refers to one of the two testemonies (also feminine) needed, and the second "ihdahuma" refers to one of the women; thus it could be understood in this way

Are you sure the word for ?testimony? (alshshahada ?) is feminine ?
This word is not present in ; but only in , is it not a problem ?

Anyway, it is true that dalla can mean ?he became lost??, cf http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume5/00000081.pdf

"If one of the two testemonies is lost/escaped (the witness), then one of the women will remind the other".

But it implies that it is the testimony of one of the two women which is lost, isn?t it ?
Why would the testimony of a woman be more likely to be lost that the one of a man ?

This is because the condition for a witness is to be sound, and the "dhalaal" is contrary to that. A misguided person cannot testify. Also, the "dhalal" is not forgetness.

Good remark.

Also, from a linguistic point of view, if the first "i7dahuma" referred to the first woman, there is no need to repeat it to elude to the second woman, and it would be"If one of the two women is misguided , the other will remind her"; but the literal translation is "If one of the two women is misguided, one of the two women will remind her".

I would rather say is "that one of the two is confused/lost, one of the two reminds the other".
Or " the other reminds one of the two " ?

Anyway, I agree with you it is strange that ihdahuma is repeated 2 times.
As well as I find it strange that in (for ?if?) is missing.

We should also remember that this is a condition. If the testemony did not escape the woman, there is no need for another woman to remind her, and her testemony is accepted. This further means that a woman witness, even if testemony escapes her, this will not inavlidate her as a witness, unlike the case of male witness.

Could you rephrase ? I don't understand.

Peace

wildguest1956

bro jm

can you tell us what are you trying to link exactly between 2282 and 499?

thanks

The grammatical structure in-fa is good in whereas it seems to me weird in .

Samia

Salaam JM
Yes, shahaad is feminine.

What drew my attention in this verse is the repetition of "i7daahuma" which is not eloquent; as well as the verb "dhalla" which is very negative and is linked to blindness, not to forgetness. Since we have "shaahid", there is no need to have "shahada" in words as it is what the "shaahid" is going to testify, so there is no problem here.

I think God does not want to give the woman witness a negative characteristic like "dhalaal" or even "forgetness", so that it would be taken as a lable. So, let it be the testemony that lost its way to the woman; or that the woman is not doing this forgetness in purpose.

As for the two verbs "tadhilla" and "tudhakkira", they are both in the "subjonctive" or with "fat7a", therefore "an" cannot be the conditional "in" as you well observed. But it is quite common to use this style, which means (in case that the...gets lost=fi 7aalati an tadilla) the other will have to remind her 3ala alukhra an tudhakkiraha).

We should also remember that this is a condition. If the testemony did not escape the woman, there is no need for another woman to remind her, and her testemony is accepted. This further means that a woman witness, even if testemony escapes her, this will not inavlidate her as a witness, unlike the case of male witness.

Could you rephrase ? I don't understand.

I mean, in case that the testimony of the woman is not lost (and therefore she remembered it), then there is no need for another woman to remind her. Her testimony is enough, since God gave a specific reason why two women are needed in this situation. It is also not ncessarily that ALL the testemony is lost, just a part of it remebered by one woman is acceptable and the other part remembered by the other woman is also acceptable; but in the case of men here, if the man forgets part of his testimony, then it is all void.

wildguest1956

I think God does not want to give the woman witness a negative characteristic like "dhalaal" or even "forgetness", so that it would be taken as a lable. So, let it be the testemony that lost its way to the woman; or that the woman is not doing this forgetness in purpose.

What do you mean by ?the testimony lost its way to the woman;? ?
I don?t understand.

As for the two verbs "tadhilla" and "tudhakkira", they are both in the "subjonctive" or with "fat7a", therefore "an" cannot be the conditional "in" as you well observed.

Understood.

But it is quite common to use this style, which means (in case that the...gets lost=fi 7aalati an tadilla) the other will have to remind her 3ala alukhra an tudhakkiraha).

I am sorry, but I don?t understand again.
Could you rephrase ? And give an example from the Quran of the grammatical structure you are talking about ?

We should also remember that this is a condition. If the testemony did not escape the woman, there is no need for another woman to remind her, and her testemony is accepted. This further means that a woman witness, even if testemony escapes her, this will not inavlidate her as a witness, unlike the case of male witness.

Could you rephrase ? I don't understand.

I mean, in case that the testimony of the woman is not lost (and therefore she remembered it), then there is no need for another woman to remind her. Her testimony is enough, since God gave a specific reason why two women are needed in this situation. It is also not ncessarily that ALL the testemony is lost, just a part of it remebered by one woman is acceptable and the other part remembered by the other woman is also acceptable; but in the case of men here, if the man forgets part of his testimony, then it is all void.

What happens if there are 2 males witnesses, and that one of them lose his testimony ? Can the other witness remind him ?

Peace

unknownuser

Hello

Actually the verse is inclining that it may be the case of the women period, under this circumstances I believe the women body is not really as stable as it should be I guess her mental mind will be affected too

so it is quite possibe that the verse means if one of them got the period,

Just a thought and a conjecture

Salam

unknownuser

bro jm

can you tell us what are you trying to link exactly between 2282 and 499?

thanks

The grammatical structure in-fa is good in whereas it seems to me weird in .

Salam

And if two parties of the believers quarrel, make peace between them; but if one of them acts wrongfully towards the other, fight that which acts wrongfully until it returns to Allah's command; but if it returns, make peace between them with justice and act equitably; surely Allah loves those who act equitably.

(9)

-> The grammar structure in both is 100% perfect , in 499 the ?Fa In? is a start of a new sentence that is why we have the Fa, the Quran used the Fa many times at the start of new sentence that can be dealt totally independent from the previous sentence, in here the first sentence is ? ?, i.e. ? And if two parties of the believers quarrel, make peace between them;?, can you see the semi colon used in the English translation?, now the next sentence can be totally independent from the previous one, regarding Grammar, ? ?, i.e. ? but if one of them acts wrongfully towards the other, fight that which acts wrongfully until it returns to Allah's command;?, and ?Fa In? is translated as ?BUT IF? and I believe that it is very accurate translation, this is obvious from the next sentence that also can be dealt interdentally from the previous sentence hence we have a semi colon after this sentence and the new one will also start with ?Fa In? , ?But if?, as we can see ? ?, i.e. ? ; but if it returns, make peace between them with justice and act equitably;?, so the Fa before the In is like the Wa to break long sentences.

In 2282, it is a totally different story, we don?t see the Fa in front of In, therefore we can?t break the sentence at the ?In

O you who believe! when you deal with each other in contracting a debt for a fixed time, then write it down; and let a scribe write it down between you with fairness; and the scribe should not refuse to write as Allah has taught him, so he should write; and let him who owes the debt dictate, and he should be careful of (his duty to) Allah, his Lord, and not diminish anything from it; but if he who owes the debt is unsound in understanding, or weak, or (if) he is not able to dictate himself, let his guardian dictate with fairness; and call in to witness from among your men two witnesses; but if there are not two men, then one man and two women from among those whom you choose to be witnesses, so that if one of the two errs, the second of the two may remind the other; and the witnesses should not refuse when they are summoned; and be not averse to writing it (whether it is) small or large, with the time of its falling due; this is more equitable in the sight of Allah and assures greater accuracy in testimony, and the nearest (way) that you may not entertain doubts (afterwards), except when it is ready merchandise which you give and take among yourselves from hand to hand, then there is no blame on you in not writing it down; and have witnesses when you barter with one another, and let no harm be done to the scribe or to the witness; and if you do (it) then surely it will be a transgression in you, and be careful of (your duty) to Allah, Allah teaches you, and Allah knows all things.

(282)

-> See ? ?, i.e. then one man and two women from among those whom you choose to be witnesses, so that if one of the two errs, the second of the two may remind the other;?, the words starting from ? ? i.e. ? so that if one of the two errs?, can?t be separated from the words before it because we don?t see a Fa, in fact ? so that if one of the two errs? is the reason for selecting two women witnesses instead of one man, this is obvious from the Arabic word ?In? which was translated as ?So That?, i.e. we can?t add a Fa before In because what after In is very much connected to what before In as the reason to what was before In, and the connection word is ?In?

Salam

Samia

Salaam JM

I think God does not want to give the woman witness a negative characteristic like "dhalaal" or even "forgetness", so that it would be taken as a lable. So, let it be the testemony that lost its way to the woman; or that the woman is not doing this forgetness in purpose.

What do you mean by ?the testimony lost its way to the woman;? ?
I don?t understand.

I know this is "clumsy" English, but I was trying to "literally" explain an Arabic expression which does not exist in English. An example of an analogical expression is I like this, which translates in Arabic as ya3jibuni haatha. Notice that in English "I" is subject whereas it is "direct object" in Arabic (the suffixed pronoun i).
In lisnul 3arab, under "Dalla"

Dalla forget (literally if remembrance escapes him). An example given to that verse 2052 "laa yDillu rabbi wa la yansa; best translated in French (as it has a similar construction to Arabic) rien ne l'echappe.
Some scholars relate the first "i7daahuma" to "memory f." other than to testemony.

However, there is even a better explanantion which is each of the two "i7daahunna" refers to each of the two women, to give the understanding that each of them (the women) may forget a different part of the testemony and each will remind the other. This definitely is different from one woman forgets, the other reminds her (taDillu i7daahuma fa tudhakkiruha alukhra). It is mutual forgetting and reminding.

We should also remember that this is a condition. If the testemony did not escape the woman, there is no need for another woman to remind her, and her testemony is accepted.
Could you rephrase ? I don't understand

This is a specific situation written agreements, loans, business transactions..not really women domain in general. But what if a woman is specialized in these matters? The probability of her forgetting anything is equal to the probability of a man having the same problem, therefore she would not need another woman to remind her, and her testemony is equal to that of a man.

God explained exactly why in this case two women maybe needed, so there is no basis of generalising this situation and applying it to other testemonies, on false or non-substantiated grounds of women being deficient in their minds (and religion), or that they are moody because of their menses..etc etc; things you read in "fiqh" books to justify women subordination.

In verse 246-9 the testemony of the woman is not only equal to that of the man, but it overrules it. Can we generalize that? No. Because this is also a specific situation.

What happens if there are 2 males witnesses, and that one of them lose his testimony ? Can the other witness remind him ?

No. God did not give them this privilige. The testemony is not valid

Could you give an example from the Quran of the grammatical structure you are talking about ?

I tried my best, but I couldn't find an example of a similar grammatical structure in the Qur'aan. If someone can help, please do.

Samia

Salaam

I asked my sister about this verse, and she explained to me that "an taDilla" is best translated as "lest she forgets". And she gave me examples of this expression in the following verses

6 70; 155-156
11 12

wildguest1956

-> The grammar structure in both is 100% perfect , in 499 the ?Fa In? is a start of a new sentence that is why we have the Fa, the Quran used the Fa many times at the start of new sentence that can be dealt totally independent from the previous sentence, in here the first sentence is ? ?, i.e. ? And if two parties of the believers quarrel, make peace between them;?, can you see the semi colon used in the English translation?, now the next sentence can be totally independent from the previous one, regarding Grammar, ? ?, i.e. ? but if one of them acts wrongfully towards the other, fight that which acts wrongfully until it returns to Allah's command;?, and ?Fa In? is translated as ?BUT IF? and I believe that it is very accurate translation, this is obvious from the next sentence that also can be dealt interdentally from the previous sentence hence we have a semi colon after this sentence and the new one will also start with ?Fa In? , ?But if?, as we can see ? ?, i.e. ? ; but if it returns, make peace between them with justice and act equitably;?, so the Fa before the In is like the Wa to break long sentences.

OK.

In 2282, it is a totally different story, we don?t see the Fa in front of In, therefore we can?t break the sentence at the ?In

-> See ? ?, i.e. then one man and two women from among those whom you choose to be witnesses, so that if one of the two errs, the second of the two may remind the other;?, the words starting from ? ? i.e. ? so that if one of the two errs?, can?t be separated from the words before it because we don?t see a Fa, in fact ? so that if one of the two errs? is the reason for selecting two women witnesses instead of one man, this is obvious from the Arabic word ?In? which was translated as ?So That?, i.e. we can?t add a Fa before In because what after In is very much connected to what before In as the reason to what was before In, and the connection word is ?In?

What you are saying is strange. You say in which was translated by "So That", but, though I see "So That" in the translation, I don?t see the in in Arabic ; instead, I see a an.

Anyway, I guess you have not understood my question.

an tadilla ihdahuma fa tuthakkira ihdahuma al-okhra is translated by "So that if one of the two forgets/is lost , then one of the two reminds the other".

My question is Where is the "if" (in Arabic, in) ?

If you have a look at , you will see the in is there.

Peace

wildguest1956

Salaam JM

I think God does not want to give the woman witness a negative characteristic like "dhalaal" or even "forgetness", so that it would be taken as a lable. So, let it be the testemony that lost its way to the woman; or that the woman is not doing this forgetness in purpose.

What do you mean by ?the testimony lost its way to the woman;? ?
I don?t understand.

I know this is "clumsy" English, but I was trying to "literally" explain an Arabic expression which does not exist in English. An example of an analogical expression is I like this, which translates in Arabic as ya3jibuni haatha. Notice that in English "I" is subject whereas it is "direct object" in Arabic (the suffixed pronoun i).

I am sorry, but I don?t understand. You know, I am only a beginner in Arabic.
What is the verb in ya3jibuni ? could you write it with Arabic letters ?

In lisnul 3arab, under "Dalla"
Dalla forget (literally if remembrance escapes him). An example given to that verse 2052 "laa yDillu rabbi wa la yansa; best translated in French (as it has a similar construction to Arabic) rien ne l'echappe.

According to Lane, dalla can mean
i) He was, or became confounded, or perplexed, and unable to see its right course
ii) It became lost, it perished, came to nought, or passed away.
See http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume5/00000081.pdf

Maybe dalla can mean "he has forgotten" (if lisan al arab says that, it should be true) ; but let?s look at la yadillu rabbee walayansa in

Here is the usual translation of this part of the verse

la = not
yadillu = he errs
rabbee = my lord
wa = and
la = not
yansa = he forgets

Which gives "my lord does not err (dalla) and does not forget (yansa)"

Assuming dalla = "he has forgotten", would you translate this verse by "my lord does not forget (dalla) and does not forget (yansa)"?

NB All translators have rendered yansa by ?he forgets? ; however, I don?t know where they have got this.
This word writes .
Can someone tell me what is the last letter?
It looks like a (yaa) Without the 2 dots below.
And what is the verb ?
Is it what we can see in Lane (http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume8/00000287.pdf) under the root Nun-Siin-Waw ?

Some scholars relate the first "i7daahuma" to "memory f." other than to testemony.

Which scholars ?

However, there is even a better explanantion which is each of the two "i7daahunna" refers to each of the two women, to give the understanding that each of them (the women) may forget a different part of the testemony and each will remind the other. This definitely is different from one woman forgets, the other reminds her (taDillu i7daahuma fa tudhakkiruha alukhra). It is mutual forgetting and reminding.

In this explanation, the 2 women remain each other.
But, why is it a better explanation than ?one woman remain the other? ?

We should also remember that this is a condition. If the testemony did not escape the woman, there is no need for another woman to remind her, and her testemony is accepted.
Could you rephrase ? I don't understand

This is a specific situation written agreements, loans, business transactions..not really women domain in general. But what if a woman is specialized in these matters? The probability of her forgetting anything is equal to the probability of a man having the same problem, therefore she would not need another woman to remind her, and her testemony is equal to that of a man.

God explained exactly why in this case two women maybe needed, so there is no basis of generalising this situation and applying it to other testemonies, on false or non-substantiated grounds of women being deficient in their minds (and religion), or that they are moody because of their menses..etc etc; things you read in "fiqh" books to justify women subordination.

In verse 246-9 the testemony of the woman is not only equal to that of the man, but it overrules it. Can we generalize that? No. Because this is also a specific situation.

OK, so, your explanation for the need of 2 women in place of a man is that business transactions should not be women?s domain (the women have a different role in society than men).
It is the same explanation as here http//www.quranicteachings.co.uk/witness.htm

I think the explanation of free-minds (women can be incapacitated) is false. What is your opinion?
cf http//www.free-minds.org/women/2to1.htm

What happens if there are 2 males witnesses, and that one of them lose his testimony ? Can the other witness remind him ?

No. God did not give them this privilige. The testemony is not valid

There is something I perhaps don?t understand.
What is the utility of the testimonies?

Could you give an example from the Quran of the grammatical structure you are talking about ?

I tried my best, but I couldn't find an example of a similar grammatical structure in the Qur'aan. If someone can help, please do.

OK

Salaam

I asked my sister about this verse, and she explained to me that "an taDilla" is best translated as "lest she forgets". And she gave me examples of this expression in the following verses

6 70; 155-156
11 12

Interesting idea !
It would give "Lest one of the two forgets/is lost , then (in that case) one of the two reminds the other".

But, in this case, is the subjunctive in tuthakkira still justified ?

Many thanks for your research

Peace

wildguest1956

This word writes .
Can someone tell me what is the last letter?
It looks like a (yaa) Without the 2 dots below.

Peace JM,

It is a alif maqsuura.

A yaa? written without any dots is sometimes used to represent the sound of the long vowel aa. This job is usually done by the ?alif, which is the next letter we will deal with. But in some cases ? and this happens only at the end of a word ? a yaa? without dots is used instead of 'alif. In Arabic grammar the yaa? without dots at the end of a word is called 'alif maqsuura. Literally, this means "shortened 'alif", and is so called because the sound aa, normally a long vowel, is then pronounced short.
http//pistolero.unilang.org/arabe/yaa.html

Peace

Samia

Salaam JM
Sorry for the belated response

I am sorry, but I don?t understand. You know, I am only a beginner in Arabic.
What is the verb in ya3jibuni ? could you write it with Arabic letters ?

Some scholars relate the first "i7daahuma" to "memory f." other than to testemony.

Which scholars ?

One or two of the classic interpreters. Do you want a name/s? If yes, I will post it. I do not remember it now.

However, there is even a better explanantion which is each of the two "i7daahunna" refers to each of the two women, to give the understanding that each of them (the women) may forget a different part of the testemony and each will remind the other. This definitely is different from one woman forgets, the other reminds her (taDillu i7daahuma fa tudhakkiruha alukhra). It is mutual forgetting and reminding.

In this explanation, the 2 women remain each other.
But, why is it a better explanation than ?one woman remain the other? ?

Because it is direct. We do not have to (presume) things or (guess) which "i7dahunna" belongs to whom.

Interesting idea !
It would give "Lest one of the two forgets/is lost , then (in that case) one of the two reminds the other".

But, in this case, is the subjunctive in tuthakkira still justified ?

Well, either we subject (tudhakkira) to the human grammar and find a reason for putting the verb in the subjunctive, like saying (fa 3alal alukhraun tudhakkiraha &#1575, or just presume that our grammarians have not grasped all the grammar in the qur'aan, and that not all the rules of the subjunctive verbs, for example, have been understood.

This word writes .
Can someone tell me what is the last letter?
It looks like a (yaa) Without the 2 dots below.
And what is the verb ?

It is pronounced like the alif. It is always a final letter. It occurs in prepositions ( ) , nouns ( ) in which case it is a marker of the feminie like the taa' marbuta, and in verbs ( ) indicating that in the perfect form or when deriving any other word from them and it this letter is no more final, it will change into ya ( ).