First of all you have to keep in mind the fact that this particular injunction has very little to do with a court of law and is restricted to witnessing an agreed upon "financial" transaction. This particular injunction is definitely in favor of women and is a requirement at the time of witnessing the transaction, there is nothing preventing any one of them testifying alone in a dispute resolution since the need for the companion is an aid covering all circumstances, instead of getting into complicated qualification criteria, this injunction also promotes the sisterhood unity in a heavily male-dominated societies and prevent women being pressured into giving away their assets. Just imagine the scene in a court room if you want to go down that line. Two women show up against one man to give evidence, who do you think will be believed :)
Besides there are enough get out clauses in the verse to get out of this requirement. "In case one forgets" is the reason given for it and it is clear from the verse that women have been given the option to take a partner so that both can contribute towards the same testimony. This is not a case of two women giving two different testimonies. From this we can see that it is not a memory issue but the familiarity or lack of it with financial transaction that are the sole focus of the injunction. If there is a women chartered accountant I am sure her testimony will be equal to that of a man, the necessary adjustment in the law does not seem unreasonable but once again why would a woman in her right senses give up the privileged of having an extra witness on her side.
This is not a case of one man against two women, the fact that a minimum of two men are required even if you totally exclude the women as a witness puts thing in perspective. There is no such thing as half a witness.
We must remember when there is a "he said she said" situation then the word of the women is taken over a man. That is also a Quranic injunction. Obviously there is a place and time for different laws to be applied in the interest of justice, it's never a case of explaining away but understanding the clear word of God
Whoa, please provide details.
ReplyDelete