Quran 2:282, lets deal with this guys/gals
-
-
Baitachal, for me that is settled. Sister Lastday started a thread with a magnificent insight into the aya. As far as I am concerned, tht is the right interpretation, which saves us from setting us back or forth on any century, it is plain common sense and perfectly in accordance with Qura'nic style and also coherent with the whole formulation. The formulation that two women are more required than two men cannot match all the facts of the qura'nic formulation.
here is the thread
https//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9609062.msg398785#msg398785
I will always remember this post and thread.
Salaam
-
I talked about it some years ago. The verse is talking about financial contracts and not court cases. Similarly, it has nothing to do with two women being equal to one guy, but the fact that illiteracy shouldn't be an excuse to not having a witness.God explains it with And do not be weary to write it, whether it is small or large, for its term.
But the give away is this
But if the one who has the obligation is of limited understanding or weak or unable to dictate himself, then let his guardian dictate in justice. And bring to witness two witnesses from among your men.This is then followed by that whole bringing of two women who unfortunately are also uneducated like the guy. God is basically giving an example of what to do in an extreme situation.
But what I have just realized now is that God here seems to be pointing out that you can't trust the testimony of one man in this for which two females must be accompanied by him.
-
For all the reasons tht I have explained, I do not think that it is talking about one man and two women instead of another man. It does nto fit. It takes for granted that although there may be two men there will always be one man. That does not make sense. It is possible that there ar enot two men but it is impossible that there is no one man? Whimsical. S what should be done of no man is there one, woman, two women four women?
It took me some time to go through this after Lastday put the initial message but, I really waited and took time to go through the whole lot and I do have to agree with Lastday take, because it is the only way there are no inconsistencies and also is in accordance with reality.
On the other hand I do not buy into that habit of making the Qur'an fit forever the vIIth century. For a starter we do not have any dim idea of what the contet was like there and then, and we are led into conjecture abut things that we do not know. That hing that you reel and others have expressed the Qur'an could have made explicit be it with the smallest of words. But the thing is that we have a general injunction which is formulated giving a lot of leeway to adapt to circumstances, like doing with a single witness which in law is about the worst possibility. And the possibility of the women being scarce with capacity, that also is taken care of perfectly with the general injunction contained in the aya
of those who satisfy you as witnesses.
If it is good for all time, then it should be formulated accordingly which I think it is the case with this aya. And I do not think it so much a matter of financial expertise but of private agreements and contracts regarding money.
Salaam
-
Sister Lastday started a thread with a magnificent insight into the aya.
Uh...LastDay is a man.
-
peace all,
Here is a word for word according to the Arabic
http//corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=2&verse=282#(22821)Note the use of resumption particle Arabicfa (THEN/SO), which is a particle that links two statements together, e.g. one before and one after, note the use of the conditional Arabicin (IF), and note the use of the feminine
... And call for evidence two witnesses from amongst your rijal/men, THEN/SO IF there are not two men
SO/THEN a man and two women from whom you agree of the witnesses,
(so) that (if) errs/forgets one of the two SO/THEN one can remind the other...Simplified conditional clause
IF not two men THEN a man and two womenHowever, it should be noted that transactions must be mutually agreed upon and the verse clearly states the witnesses must be agreed upon - mutual agreement is the key principle - thus the transacting parties could choose whomever they agreed upon, whether it be one man and one woman, 2 women only, 6 men and 2 women etc etc.
-
On the other hand I do not buy into that habit of making the Qur'an fit forever the vIIth century. For a starter we do not have any dim idea of what the contet was like there and then, and we are led into conjecture abut things that we do not know. That hing that you reel and others have expressed the Qur'an could have made explicit be it with the smallest of words. But the thing is that we have a general injunction which is formulated giving a lot of leeway to adapt to circumstances, like doing with a single witness which in law is about the worst possibility. And the possibility of the women being scarce with capacity, that also is taken care of perfectly with the general injunction contained in the aya
of those who satisfy you as witnesses.
Sorry, I forgot to add one "uneducated" man. But yeah, the example shouldn't be taken as the rule for all situations. The idea is just to make sure that the contract is done in front of witness. I see the entire verse to be more modern. I wish it was implemented here. Currently, in the United States, you can bring in a witness without thinking about whether this person will come to your rescue with a testimony in the future. I do wish it was the same in the court for juries. Right now, we are forced to participate. They don't care who you are. If they select you randomly then you have to show up in the court or trouble.
-
peace all,
Here is a word for word according to the Arabic
http//corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=2&verse=282#(22821)Note the use of resumption particle Arabicfa (THEN/SO), which is a particle that links two statements together, e.g. one before and one after, note the use of the conditional Arabicin (IF), and note the use of the feminine
... And call for evidence two witnesses from amongst your rijal/men, THEN/SO IF there are not two men
SO/THEN a man and two women from whom you agree of the witnesses,
(so) that (if) errs/forgets one of the two SO/THEN one can remind the other...Simplified conditional clause
IF not two men THEN a man and two womenHowever, it should be noted that transactions must be mutually agreed upon and the verse clearly states the witnesses must be agreed upon - mutual agreement is the key principle - thus the transacting parties could choose whomever they agreed upon, whether it be one man and one woman, 2 women only, 6 men and 2 women etc etc.
You say
" THEN/SO IF there are not two men"It does not say that
it says what you write after
"If not two men"which is the same as "if it is not two men"The meaning changes. It is not at all saying that if there ar e not two men, whether there are or not is not to the point the point is if it is not two men you pick. No hint is giving as to the abundance or lack of men or women.
I recommend readin thread
Assuming that only two men are available is wrong and makes the look nonsensical. Again, what guarantees that always but always if there are not two men it is absolutely sure that always there is going to be one man, so that he can be with two women. What sense does that make. Fromwhense such n assurance. What if there ar eno men at all? four women? three? Two would suffice? Then why need a man if there are to be two women.
There is absolutely no obligation of taking two men if there are two men. The whole population is included in
of those who satisfy you as witnesses.
Again I recommend reading this thread
https//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9609062.msg398785#msg398785
Salaam
