From: m21757@mitre.org (G)
Subject: Re: Contradictions in Quran
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 15:03:02 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.010549.2855@cs.yale.edu> ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU 
(Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:
> In article <1992Aug11.210820.23575@linus.mitre.org>, m21757@mitre.org 
(G) writes:
> 
> > > man's.  This is consistent with the rest of the Qur'an -- nowhere is
> > > it stated that two women's statements are equal to one man's.  Of
> > 
> > Well, the verse certainly implies so.
> 
> No it doesn't.  The second woman does not make any statement at all if
> there is no mistake, and it is thus incorrect to conclude that two
> women's statements are equal to a man's statement for financial
> transactions.

You logic eludes me, maybe we are miscommunicating or I'm missing some
vital piece of information.  The point is that 'if' the man makes a mistake
no one questions it because his word is acceptable without someone else
corroborating it. This is not true for the woman. That is if 2 male witnesses disagree there is a dilemma, if the 1 male and 1 female witness disagree a second woman _must_ have been present to resolve the dilemma.  It is a case
of obvious substitution one man for two women.

> > > woman to correct any potential mistakes.  You might not need one --
> > > all it says is that she should be there in case.  Historically, and 
in
> > > many societies *today*, women have not been as well represented in 
the
> > > financial world as men.  Hence this situation.  Now I would expect a
> > > lot of arguments against this as not being representative of western
> > 
> > Any comparisons to Western society are irrelevant right now.
> 
> Not at all.  The argument is that current society has developed to the
> extent where the Islamic recommendation on financial transactions has
> become obsolete.  I showed why that is not the case.


I see, you are saying that the Islamic conditions still exist today.  I would
agree with that.  We would say then, that both types of conditions exist today, one where women are still not involved in financial transactions and another (at least) where women are well aware.  My point is that we cannot
apply a law uniformly if it is outdated in one area.
 
> > > society today, etc.  That may be true, but one must remember that the
> > > Qur'an is a timeless document which has to be applicable at all 
times.
> > > And it doesn't change the fact: the second witness doesn't come into
> > > play unless the first one makes a mistake.  Even in that situation 
she
> > 
> > This is really stretching it.  Since one cannot know ahead of time 
that one
> > of the women is going to make a mistake you must *always* have two
> > women.
> 
> Yes, I never claimed otherwise.  But the second one is not a part of
> the transaction if the first one does not err.

In a society where a particular man and a particular woman have the same
qualifications the need for a second one should be unnecessary.  Why not
have another witness for everyone that errs (whether man or woman)?

 
> > > merely points this out.  There is no question of doubting equality of
> > > votes.  Most importantly, though, the critic does not recognize the
> > 
> > The main point is not about who is performing the transactions the 
point 
> > is on how many and who could be a witness.  The persons performing the 
> > transactions have never been at issue.
> 
> To the contrary, if people are pointing to alleged inequality of men
> and women in Islam, that is very much an issue.

No the issue that was brought up, (I brought it up) was specifically about
witnesses and not on those performing the transactions.

 
> > > main point.  The passage quoted above does not place any restrictions
> > > on who is performing the transaction.  It could be two women
> > > performing a transaction who use men as witnesses.  A woman is free 
to
> > > perform all the transactions she desires.
> > > 
> > > Now let us look specifically at the example you cite.  Suppose you
> > > pick two men as witnesses, both of whom have questionable financial
> > > backgrounds and capabilities.  Well, the Islamic law does not 
restrict
> > > you from calling in one thousand other witnesses to correct them in
> > 
> > Whether it does or not, I don't know.  But I wouldn't accept 1000 
people
> > who were not recognized as witnesses to have any bearing on the 
validity
> > of an accepted witnesses views.  If that was so, you and I could have a
> > contract have 2 witnesses.  Then I could call in 1000 people who would 
> > 'correct' the only other 2 (or 3) people who were actually there.
> > This does not make sense. 
> 
> What you say clearly does not.  But it also has little to do with what
> I said.  What I am saying is that there is no restriction in Islam
> which says that you cannot have additional male witnesses present to
> correct the original male witnesses.  Hence, if you feel your choice
> of witness was not reliable, there is nothing to prevent you from
> having additional witnesses.


The Qur'an is talking about the minimal number and character of those
witnesses.  That is what I'm discussing, not how many additional you can
have.  No law would/should mandate you cannot have more witnesses.
 
> > > case of error.  You could always do that.  How about the female CEO
> > > you speak about above?  Well, presumably, she will not err, so the
> > > second woman won't ever have to open her mouth.  Where is the 
problem?
> > 
> > The problem is that you still need to have the other woman in the first
> > place even though it is unnecessary.   
> 
> Why is this a problem?  Does it reduce the reliability of the first
> statement in any way?  Does it lessen the importance of the first?  If
> the first witness is that reliable then what is the problem?

Right, if the first female witness is that reliable, why mandate having 2?

 
> > > > I don't see why the law has to be changed to account for anything
> > > since it is not discriminatory in the first place.  If you call
> > 
> > It certainly is discriminatory, as far as I can see.
> 
> Well, I guess you and I see very differently...

I guess so.
 
> > > questionable witnesses in the first place, you can call further
> > > witnesses -- the law does not prohibit that possibility.  If you call
> > 
> > Witnesses have to be recognized as such, you cannot arbitrarily call 
someone
> > and claim they are witnesses.
> 
> Huh?  I think you are confusing issues here.  We are not talking about
> witnesses to a crime.  We are talking about witnesses to a financial
> transaction.  For example, if you and I carried out a financial
> transaction, we may want witnesses for our transaction.  We can then
> call people to be our witnesses.  There is no particular qualification
> for such a witness, I can call whom I want, you can call whom you
> want.

Huh?  I'm not talking about witnesses to a crime either.  Maybe I misunderstood you. You didn't quote this section completely, so I can't
respond to this right now.
 
> -- Shakil


Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.indian