Here we are aiming to discuss the actual content of the hadith (which is in the previous blog)
This type of discussion is specific to Shii Fiqh. In Sunni Fiqh, if you are content that something is from the Prophet (SAW) i.e. a sanad critique, then you have no right to question the content of the hadith. However, for the Shi'a, content does matter, and if it goes against theology, Qur`an or absolute logic, then it CANNOT have come from an infallible, and thus must be disregarded. The Shi'a regard the theology, Qur`an and absolute logic to be stronger than chain-critique, which is fallible process.
For this narration, it seems clear to Saanei that there are many items that go against the legal and rational precepts that are obvious and clear to everyone, and that it goes against the reality of the world around us!
Firstly, there is a part of the hadith that is not relevant to our discussion which distinguishes Muslims and non-Muslims in terms of God's mercy and justice. The hadith implies that the testimony of a Muslim is accepted (compared to that of a non-Muslim) due to someone being a Muslim rather than their characteristics. This for him is against the absoluteness of God's justice. Further to this, it means that non-Muslims cannot testify against non-Muslims either, which does not make sense! Although this bit is not relevant to our discussion, the methodology used by Saanei is interesting....
Next, he discusses the parts about women, in particular the bit about women not praying due to her being in her period for half her life. He mentions several points of critique:
1. It is not 1/2 .... potentially 1/3 for some but this is a clear error in the content of the hadith, which the Prophet could not have made?
2. Women start praying before men (at bulugh), which means that in the end women pray similar amounts to men? So any discussion that women don't spend as much time of their life praying is irrelevant.
3. It is clearly not the quantity of prayers that matters but the quality...
4. There is a legal obligation not to pray, and thus women are following God's commands, which is a sign of strength in belief.
It is clear that the content in this part of the hadith is very difficult to accept, when it goes against legal and accepted understandings of religious teaching and rationality.
The next bit he discusses is the hadith about how there is always a woman who is worse than an evil man; and always a man who is better than a good woman. He notes that it is clear how this is against the principles of Islam that all women are worse than all men, as it then does not give the choice to women to be good, and it means that goodness is caused by gender first. In fact, he goes further to say that this is a prime example of a hadith that is against the Qur`an and all verses that talk about the equality of women (e.g. Aal-Imran: 195, Nahl: 97, Ahzab: 35, Ahzab:73, Hujurat 13), and how the distinguishing factor is taqwa.
He then discusses the "deficient in intellect" point in the hadith. He says this is such a general statement , that does not give exception to anyone! How can this be? What is also interesting according to Saanei is that the Prophet never used this verse in his discussion of "deficiency of intellect".
Following these discussions, he says it is clear that such talk is not possible to come from a person such as Ali ibn Abu Talib!
Tuesday 27 October 2009
Hadith 1 on the inferiority of women
The pre-hadith discussion is worth reading to give a bit of background as to hadith study! The hadith that is chosen by Saanei is one that is from Hasan al-Askari from Ali ibn Abu Talib. It is relatively long so I will only translate the relevant bits:
"A woman stopped in front of the Messenger of Allah and said: '....what is the issue with two women being equal to one man in testimony concerning inheritance?' So the Messenger of Allah said: '...because you are deficient in religion and intellect.'. She replied: 'What is the deficiency in our religion?' He said: 'Women spend half their life not praying due to their period, and you curse a lot*, and are ungrateful to the grace of Allah. If one of you spend 10 years or more with a man and he is good to you but if one day, he does not give you what you want, or is antagonistic towards one of you, she would reply: 'What good have I seen from you ever!'...then the Prophet said 'There is no evil man except that there is a woman who is more evil. There is no good woman except one such that there is a better man than her.." (Tafsir al-Burhan 1:263)
* not 100% sure of the translation here
It is clear how this shows that the reasoning is not forgetfullness but the deficiencies in woman. Saanei begins his critique by studying the chain of narrators:
1. There is no chain of narrators to the book in which this was quoted. For famous books such as the 4 Shii collections (al-Kafi, al Tahdhib, al-'Istibsar, and Man la yahduruhu al-faqih), we don't need a chain of narration TO the book because they were well known. However, for a book such as this, we need to be sure that there has not been any changes made to the book, as there are examples in history where books have been altered or falsely attributed to people
2. The chain of narrators (from the book to Hasan al-Askari) is mursal - this means that there are gaps in the chain and thus we cannot rely on it. The danger in relying on such a hadith is that:
A. The chain may have had someone untrustworthy in it, and the narrator thus chose to omit him
B. The narrator of the hadith may have wanted to attribute something to Hasan al-Askari without any proof
Thus from this discussion, the chain of narrators (sanad) is not something that can be relied on. This by itself is enough to disregard a hadith. However, to understand Saanei's thinking, it is worth looking at how he discusses the matn (content) of the hadith.
"A woman stopped in front of the Messenger of Allah and said: '....what is the issue with two women being equal to one man in testimony concerning inheritance?' So the Messenger of Allah said: '...because you are deficient in religion and intellect.'. She replied: 'What is the deficiency in our religion?' He said: 'Women spend half their life not praying due to their period, and you curse a lot*, and are ungrateful to the grace of Allah. If one of you spend 10 years or more with a man and he is good to you but if one day, he does not give you what you want, or is antagonistic towards one of you, she would reply: 'What good have I seen from you ever!'...then the Prophet said 'There is no evil man except that there is a woman who is more evil. There is no good woman except one such that there is a better man than her.." (Tafsir al-Burhan 1:263)
* not 100% sure of the translation here
It is clear how this shows that the reasoning is not forgetfullness but the deficiencies in woman. Saanei begins his critique by studying the chain of narrators:
1. There is no chain of narrators to the book in which this was quoted. For famous books such as the 4 Shii collections (al-Kafi, al Tahdhib, al-'Istibsar, and Man la yahduruhu al-faqih), we don't need a chain of narration TO the book because they were well known. However, for a book such as this, we need to be sure that there has not been any changes made to the book, as there are examples in history where books have been altered or falsely attributed to people
2. The chain of narrators (from the book to Hasan al-Askari) is mursal - this means that there are gaps in the chain and thus we cannot rely on it. The danger in relying on such a hadith is that:
A. The chain may have had someone untrustworthy in it, and the narrator thus chose to omit him
B. The narrator of the hadith may have wanted to attribute something to Hasan al-Askari without any proof
Thus from this discussion, the chain of narrators (sanad) is not something that can be relied on. This by itself is enough to disregard a hadith. However, to understand Saanei's thinking, it is worth looking at how he discusses the matn (content) of the hadith.
Final Look at his Qur'anic understanding
Later in the book, Saanei discusses the Quranic view again so it makes sense for me to bring it here as it is a good summary of his viewpoint.
The Quran is the primary source of all legal injunctions, and it is clear that the verse (2:282 as explained in previous blogs) is concerning financial matters (and there are many ahadith that support this point of view, and ijma' supports this as well). The question that must be asked is:
"Is the inequality in financial matters:
1. absolute
2. able-to-be-generalised-to-other matters
3. true for all time
4. not able to be contextualised;
Does it imply that testimony of two women instead of one man is because of the position of a woman AS a woman, or does the verse imply a contextualised ruling, based on the cause* and not on the fact that she is a woman" (Page 87)
*He has noted that the cause is the possibility of forgetting due to the lack of expertise of the general woman at that time.
Saanei's question makes it clear that it does not make sense that all these four extrapolations hold to something that is very specific. He also says that the cause is clear from the grammatical construction of the sentence, and this is confirmed by the fact that two women are sufficient, because one can remind the other. This is a clear indication that the cause is forgetfulness from the women.
Therefore, when the forgetfulness is not present, the ruling does not apply. This tactic is used all the time in jurisprudential discussions and it seems appropriately used here.
Now to ahadith!
The Quran is the primary source of all legal injunctions, and it is clear that the verse (2:282 as explained in previous blogs) is concerning financial matters (and there are many ahadith that support this point of view, and ijma' supports this as well). The question that must be asked is:
"Is the inequality in financial matters:
1. absolute
2. able-to-be-generalised-to-other matters
3. true for all time
4. not able to be contextualised;
Does it imply that testimony of two women instead of one man is because of the position of a woman AS a woman, or does the verse imply a contextualised ruling, based on the cause* and not on the fact that she is a woman" (Page 87)
*He has noted that the cause is the possibility of forgetting due to the lack of expertise of the general woman at that time.
Saanei's question makes it clear that it does not make sense that all these four extrapolations hold to something that is very specific. He also says that the cause is clear from the grammatical construction of the sentence, and this is confirmed by the fact that two women are sufficient, because one can remind the other. This is a clear indication that the cause is forgetfulness from the women.
Therefore, when the forgetfulness is not present, the ruling does not apply. This tactic is used all the time in jurisprudential discussions and it seems appropriately used here.
Now to ahadith!
Thursday 22 October 2009
Consistency - requirement of religion?
Today I met with a friend of mine from Syria - a philosopher and a very clever guy. He gave a very interseting potential answer to my difficulty with consistency.
My problem (amongst other things!) is that the conservative tradition has developed over 100s of years to become something that has not that much inconsistency. It has worked pretty well to have a system, within which it makes sense. The modernist tradition is relatively new, and this paradigm shift in thought, is very inconsistent at the moment, with a push for using reason in some instances, and not in others. And the question on what to do when the conservative tradition is not something that makes sense to an individual, but the modernist tradition is still maturing....
The problem is that it is difficult/inconsistent to follow the modernist view in some aspects, and a conservative view in others. So can this be done?
Marius quite interestingly made the following point: we are imperfect beings, in an imperfect world, trying to work towards the infinite. It is impossible to achieve true consistency or purity. Everything in this world that we do is defective BUT what the aim is to become less defective. We can strive for more consistency but inconsistency is not a problem.
He gives the example of a two-person world. In such a world, the infinite demands of the other must be considered by the individual in true morality. Now if there are millions of people, true morality requires you to consider the infinite demands of everyone! This is impossible. Thus we are left with a morality that requires betrayal of the rights of some for the few. Thus the morality is defective but we can strive to make ourselves more moral - even though true morality remains impossible.
Therefore, given our circumstances, we can only strive to achieve what we genuinely believe to be God's will, even if it is inconsistent, it is our best attempt and that is something that must not be discarded as an inconsistent genuine attempt at getting to God's will is better than a consistent attempt that doesn't make sense to the individual.
Next post will be back on the ahadith - sorry for sidetracking!
My problem (amongst other things!) is that the conservative tradition has developed over 100s of years to become something that has not that much inconsistency. It has worked pretty well to have a system, within which it makes sense. The modernist tradition is relatively new, and this paradigm shift in thought, is very inconsistent at the moment, with a push for using reason in some instances, and not in others. And the question on what to do when the conservative tradition is not something that makes sense to an individual, but the modernist tradition is still maturing....
The problem is that it is difficult/inconsistent to follow the modernist view in some aspects, and a conservative view in others. So can this be done?
Marius quite interestingly made the following point: we are imperfect beings, in an imperfect world, trying to work towards the infinite. It is impossible to achieve true consistency or purity. Everything in this world that we do is defective BUT what the aim is to become less defective. We can strive for more consistency but inconsistency is not a problem.
He gives the example of a two-person world. In such a world, the infinite demands of the other must be considered by the individual in true morality. Now if there are millions of people, true morality requires you to consider the infinite demands of everyone! This is impossible. Thus we are left with a morality that requires betrayal of the rights of some for the few. Thus the morality is defective but we can strive to make ourselves more moral - even though true morality remains impossible.
Therefore, given our circumstances, we can only strive to achieve what we genuinely believe to be God's will, even if it is inconsistent, it is our best attempt and that is something that must not be discarded as an inconsistent genuine attempt at getting to God's will is better than a consistent attempt that doesn't make sense to the individual.
Next post will be back on the ahadith - sorry for sidetracking!
Leaps in traditionalist and modernist thought
Before I move on, I think it's important for me to explain a few points (based on discussions about my blog).
There is a misunderstanding that the reformists/liberals/modernists/critical thinkers...etc. want to impose their view on the Qur`an and ahadith, and do exactly what they accuse the traditionalists of (imposing their misoginistic views...etc. on the Qur`an). However, it is important to take a step back and see what the leaps/jumps that are taken on both sides and see which makes more sense:
1. That of the traditionalists - that A. hadith in one context apply in other times ; B. ahadith (which have less reliability than the Qur`an) should be used to explain the Qur`an (which is tawatur plus more) The first view has two major leaps, both of which in my view, are completely unjustifiable and don't go together with reason. The second view has a leap - because it requires detailed thinking on deriving the spirit of the Qur`an and Islam - but this is a leap that must be taken as the other alternative is potentially illogical and dangerous.
There is a misunderstanding that the reformists/liberals/modernists/critical thinkers...etc. want to impose their view on the Qur`an and ahadith, and do exactly what they accuse the traditionalists of (imposing their misoginistic views...etc. on the Qur`an). However, it is important to take a step back and see what the leaps/jumps that are taken on both sides and see which makes more sense:
1. That of the traditionalists - that A. hadith in one context apply in other times ; B. ahadith (which have less reliability than the Qur`an) should be used to explain the Qur`an (which is tawatur plus more)
2. That of modernists/reformists - that there must be a Qur`anic worldview derived from the Qur`an which is used in conjunction with philosophy, reason and the spirit of islam to explain the Qur`an and ahadith where the context has changed, or it is unclear
Wednesday 21 October 2009
"Liberal"
After writing my previous blog, it seems that I need to be careful with terminology. A friend of mine pointed out the ambiguity and potentially unintended consequences of using the term "liberal" when referring to either myself or "liberal" scholars. The fact is that he is right - this term does have many connotations associated with it.
So here is my chance to define what I mean when I use the term liberal:
A liberal for me in the religious context - what one may term a "religious liberal" is someone who is:
1. Religious i.e. within the fold of the religion and still belieiving in the core parts of the religion and its practices i.e. believes in one God, the Qur`an, Prophethood, prays, fasts...etc.
2. BUT is willing to look at some of these practices/beliefs again, understanding the implications of our current context and desire for rationality, not just taking from what "our fathers" (/parents!) have passed down to us;
This means the "religious liberal" has an open mind, and is willing to challenge (only willing - does not have to actually challenge) long-held views and theories.
The main problem I see with this, however, is that although there have been centuries of work building on the previous methodologies in usul al-fiqh...etc., comparatively little work has been done to create a holistic and consistent jurisprudential framework, rooted in liberal principles. Therefore, although the "traditional" (I really normally don't like labels but it's the only way to make my point!) methodology has a relatively consistent view on most things, based on its principles, the liberal methodology does not have a comparable body of work.
This is the reason why I am very interested that Saanei seems to have discussed these views using a more "liberal" methodology, as this would imply that such work is being done, although I am not yet sure if this is consistently applied everywhere!
Anyway, next post will be back to the book and will discuss one hadith. It will be useful for two reasons:
1. We will see how hadith study happens
2. We will see how HE uses "liberal" principles in his study, which (as far as I'm aware) are different to the traditional view.
So here is my chance to define what I mean when I use the term liberal:
A liberal for me in the religious context - what one may term a "religious liberal" is someone who is:
1. Religious i.e. within the fold of the religion and still belieiving in the core parts of the religion and its practices i.e. believes in one God, the Qur`an, Prophethood, prays, fasts...etc.
2. BUT is willing to look at some of these practices/beliefs again, understanding the implications of our current context and desire for rationality, not just taking from what "our fathers" (/parents!) have passed down to us;
This means the "religious liberal" has an open mind, and is willing to challenge (only willing - does not have to actually challenge) long-held views and theories.
The main problem I see with this, however, is that although there have been centuries of work building on the previous methodologies in usul al-fiqh...etc., comparatively little work has been done to create a holistic and consistent jurisprudential framework, rooted in liberal principles. Therefore, although the "traditional" (I really normally don't like labels but it's the only way to make my point!) methodology has a relatively consistent view on most things, based on its principles, the liberal methodology does not have a comparable body of work.
This is the reason why I am very interested that Saanei seems to have discussed these views using a more "liberal" methodology, as this would imply that such work is being done, although I am not yet sure if this is consistently applied everywhere!
Anyway, next post will be back to the book and will discuss one hadith. It will be useful for two reasons:
1. We will see how hadith study happens
2. We will see how HE uses "liberal" principles in his study, which (as far as I'm aware) are different to the traditional view.
Tuesday 20 October 2009
Pre-Hadith Discussion
One of the major problems faced by liberal scholars is their attitude to ahadith because the ahadith in general are much more misognynistic and illiberal than the Quran. The focus of these scholars has thus been very much on the Qur`an, sometimes completely disregarding the sayings of the Prophet (SAW).
There must, however, be some recognition of the Prophet (SAW)'s life as the Qur`an itself tells us to obey the Prophet (as well as Allah) and what else could that mean? We cannot just ignore 10000s of reports about a period in history that is integral to the beginning of our faith.
At the same time, we cannot blindly look at these reports without framing them in the correct context, and this is what "reformist" scholars have tried to do by maintaining two important things when discussing traditions from the Prophet:
1. The hadith CANNOT in any sense, go against the essence of the Qur`an - its wordview - its Weltanschauung
2. Any hadith must be understood in the context of its time and culture
These two are supplemented by hadith analysis (authenticity question):
1. The chain of narrators (sanad) cannot have any person in it, who is not known to be trustworthy
2. The contents of the hadith (matn) must make sense as something that could come from the Prophet or Imam
What is very interesting, is that Ayatullah Saanei did not immediately go to the hadith analysis stage after discussing the Quranic ayat. He started by framing the discussion on the ahadith in the way that liberal reformists have been doing. He states that the Quranic view of women is positive (e.g. the usage of gender neutral terms such as Bani Adam (children of Adam), Ulul Albab (those of understanding), Insan (humankind)...etc.) and thus any hadith that goes against this and is unjust to the rights of women is against this Quranic worldview. Such ahadith must be understood in the light of the Quran (not the other way around - a vital distinction). In addition, he says that if they cannot be reconciled, then such ahadith (even if they have passed the authenticity test) must be cast aside or left for the Imams to consider.
After this, he does start looking at ahadith one-by-one, and I think that the analysis of a few ahadith, will give you a useful insight as to how critique of ahadith can and does take place.
I have written about this in more detail in the past so if you would like my article on what i consider to be a paradigm shift in Shii jursiprudence, please gimme a bell!
There must, however, be some recognition of the Prophet (SAW)'s life as the Qur`an itself tells us to obey the Prophet (as well as Allah) and what else could that mean? We cannot just ignore 10000s of reports about a period in history that is integral to the beginning of our faith.
At the same time, we cannot blindly look at these reports without framing them in the correct context, and this is what "reformist" scholars have tried to do by maintaining two important things when discussing traditions from the Prophet:
1. The hadith CANNOT in any sense, go against the essence of the Qur`an - its wordview - its Weltanschauung
2. Any hadith must be understood in the context of its time and culture
These two are supplemented by hadith analysis (authenticity question):
1. The chain of narrators (sanad) cannot have any person in it, who is not known to be trustworthy
2. The contents of the hadith (matn) must make sense as something that could come from the Prophet or Imam
What is very interesting, is that Ayatullah Saanei did not immediately go to the hadith analysis stage after discussing the Quranic ayat. He started by framing the discussion on the ahadith in the way that liberal reformists have been doing. He states that the Quranic view of women is positive (e.g. the usage of gender neutral terms such as Bani Adam (children of Adam), Ulul Albab (those of understanding), Insan (humankind)...etc.) and thus any hadith that goes against this and is unjust to the rights of women is against this Quranic worldview. Such ahadith must be understood in the light of the Quran (not the other way around - a vital distinction). In addition, he says that if they cannot be reconciled, then such ahadith (even if they have passed the authenticity test) must be cast aside or left for the Imams to consider.
After this, he does start looking at ahadith one-by-one, and I think that the analysis of a few ahadith, will give you a useful insight as to how critique of ahadith can and does take place.
I have written about this in more detail in the past so if you would like my article on what i consider to be a paradigm shift in Shii jursiprudence, please gimme a bell!
Monday 19 October 2009
Women Witnesses
I am currently reading a book by Ayatullah Saanei on women's rights in Islam. It is most interesting not necessarily because of what he says but because it is a religious scholar saying it!
Firstly, he quite rightly talks about the difference between rules that are specific to women because of specific characteristics, and those that are due to her position as a woman. For example, if you see a sentence in the Quran saying:
"In the garden, don't eat the apple in order that you do not fall sick"
You can (using Usuli techniques i.e. logic!), deduce a few things:
1. This injunction is to do with being in the garden and CANNOT be extended outside the garden
2. This injunction would not apply if you are not going to fall sick
Similarly in Surah Baqarah, verse 282, it says:
"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." (Shakir)
After he discusses non-plausible arguments about why this is not relevant, he very carefully uses traditional Usuli techniques to explain how this is not relevant now:
1. He notes that this is to do with debts only and should not be extended to other contexts. This would be wrong, and not what is said in the Qur`an.
2. He notes that the reasoning ('illa) is that if one of the women errs, the other should remind them. This means that it is clearly to do with the fact that the woman might err. If the context changes, and perhaps the man might err, then the injunction would apply to the man. He goes further and remarks that it is clear that women being witnesses is not seen as less than a man BECAUSE she is a woman as there are examples of when women's accounts and testimonies are considered more important than men's e.g. to do with women's issues. This makes it clear that the ONLY consideration that matters is if it is likely that one of them might make a mistake.
3. He also notes earlier that the point of testimony is to reach satisfaction of what happened. There is little doubt that this can happen with women as well, as this happens in normal life.
Therefore, he concludes that based on the Qur`an, there is no doubt that a woman's value as a witness is the same as a man, and any difference will be dependent on their characteristics as people, rather than based on their gender.
There are only two questions remaining:
1. So why were women mentioned in this ahadith. It is plausible that in those days, matters to do with debts and other financial details were, in the most part, dealt with by men, and thus most women would not be well equipped to give witness in such cases. But this would only apply IF she might err and to remind her, simliar to if there was a man in a context that he was unfamiliar.
2. What about all the ahadith that discuss this topic.... this is the next chapter and will keep you informed!
Firstly, he quite rightly talks about the difference between rules that are specific to women because of specific characteristics, and those that are due to her position as a woman. For example, if you see a sentence in the Quran saying:
"In the garden, don't eat the apple in order that you do not fall sick"
You can (using Usuli techniques i.e. logic!), deduce a few things:
1. This injunction is to do with being in the garden and CANNOT be extended outside the garden
2. This injunction would not apply if you are not going to fall sick
Similarly in Surah Baqarah, verse 282, it says:
"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." (Shakir)
After he discusses non-plausible arguments about why this is not relevant, he very carefully uses traditional Usuli techniques to explain how this is not relevant now:
1. He notes that this is to do with debts only and should not be extended to other contexts. This would be wrong, and not what is said in the Qur`an.
2. He notes that the reasoning ('illa) is that if one of the women errs, the other should remind them. This means that it is clearly to do with the fact that the woman might err. If the context changes, and perhaps the man might err, then the injunction would apply to the man. He goes further and remarks that it is clear that women being witnesses is not seen as less than a man BECAUSE she is a woman as there are examples of when women's accounts and testimonies are considered more important than men's e.g. to do with women's issues. This makes it clear that the ONLY consideration that matters is if it is likely that one of them might make a mistake.
3. He also notes earlier that the point of testimony is to reach satisfaction of what happened. There is little doubt that this can happen with women as well, as this happens in normal life.
Therefore, he concludes that based on the Qur`an, there is no doubt that a woman's value as a witness is the same as a man, and any difference will be dependent on their characteristics as people, rather than based on their gender.
There are only two questions remaining:
1. So why were women mentioned in this ahadith. It is plausible that in those days, matters to do with debts and other financial details were, in the most part, dealt with by men, and thus most women would not be well equipped to give witness in such cases. But this would only apply IF she might err and to remind her, simliar to if there was a man in a context that he was unfamiliar.
2. What about all the ahadith that discuss this topic.... this is the next chapter and will keep you informed!
Welcome
Salaam Alaykum all
This is my first blog ever! The aim of this blog is just to keep you informed when I read something interesting...most people don't have the time to read a whole book on something but might be able to read a summary of a few thoughts....and that's the point of this blog!
Hope you enjoy it! :)
This is my first blog ever! The aim of this blog is just to keep you informed when I read something interesting...most people don't have the time to read a whole book on something but might be able to read a summary of a few thoughts....and that's the point of this blog!
Hope you enjoy it! :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)