Hello My grand teacher🌹,
Excuse me, my question is irrelevant to this post:
I read dear Jawaid Ahmed's comment regarding female testimony but let me say that I was not convinced.
*Could you please teach me the philosophy of 2:282, Do we always need a prerequisite man beside a woman even in a modern community/society with many competent educated women and we can't take only 2 women as our financial witnesses instead of «2men» or «1man+1woman» options ?
I found this comment of dear brother Noman waseem and an article of Tolueislam very interesting and logical :
--------------Tolueislam> Miss Shamim Anwar-----------------------::
"rules and regulations regarding the moral support of the second woman to the female witness in financial matters become redundant when women become confident and experienced in these matters. In fact, when this happens, there is no reason why two female witnesses will not do when no male witness is forthcoming, such a situation can arise especially today, and it neednt be a prerequisite that one witness has to be a male...
..The significant phrase in this sentence is “erreth through forgetfulness”. It points its finger to a very unhappy state of affairs for which the society should hang down its head in shame. It indicated a particular the of mind-nervous, lack of confidence, inexperienced, alien to public duties and activated of a free alert citizen. It laments that the women are bred in such a way that they cannot live and thin beyond outward show of glamorous ornaments and empty and meaningless finery and actualize their genuine latent potentialities as human beings, so they vainly try to fill in the vacuum with objects that have no real worth. The serious things of life, if ever they are confronted with one, makes them nervous and loose their balance, so much so, they “they cannot even plead their own cause”, leave alone helping and defending other. Even if her cause is just, she has been made incapable of putting forward her arguments, and instead she gets confused and bursts into tears. This is what the man-dominated society has done it its women folk.
Thos was true not only of the Arab women at the advent of Islam but is true even today in Pakistan in majority of the cases—a state of affairs that is well summarized in the phrase , “ the bungled women”. Ornaments are today a symbol of weak, helpless and empty life. Men are described as “ bungled women” if they manifest such feminine traits.
The Quran was referring to such women bred in the unnatural way of life, when it said that two women should represent one man as witness. If they are two, the can help and support each other in case they get confused and forget. In other words the second woman is present only to assist the first. Nowhere does it say that in intelligence two women are equal to one man. In fact if women are inherently unintelligent then even hundred women will not be equal to one man.
But this shall not be the case when the Quranic Social Order is established. It will change the whole outlook of men and women, and a new generation of women will emerge. Women will then me ‘created as a new creation’. They will have intellectual and emotional harmony with men ; they will be eloquent and expressive in speech, capable of speaking for themselves and others ‘ the y will be self-confident and independent. Then as witness they will be equal to men. The original injunction therefore fails to apply to this “new creation”.
Personally I see the Qur'an as a timeless guidebook, but not to be followed blindly on literal terms across all times. That doesn't mean that the guidance therein is wrong, but that as civilization evolves, we should have enough knowledge and wisdom to reflect on its teachings and, having understood what conditions they were meant for, and what social issues they were meant to solve, we should be able to further understand conditions in which they should no longer apply.
For example, in more primitive societies where there is a break down of state and rule of tribes, a time when marriage for women was more a requirement for financial security than an expression of love and agency, in other words a strongly patriarchal society, one might reason that the rule allowing men of sound finances and character to marry up to four orphans was meant as a socially-acceptable means to provide said financial security to said orphan women who otherwise may have had little chance to survive socially and financially in such a society. And even this was only allowed in a state of fear, during wartime for instance.
But in modern welfare states and meritocracies, such a rule should be seen as no longer applicable with 24:32 (i.e. "marry the singles among you") winning out.
Similarly, this rule seemingly equating two women to one man in financial matters seems clearly meant for another time and different circumstances that might be found in primitive patriarchal societies that often limited the freedom of women to engage in public life or be held responsible for financial matters.