Hatem al-Haj – FJT06 Fiqh of the Judiciary & Testimonies – Book of Testimonies
AI: Summary ©
The importance of witnessing and testifying in a legal process is crucial, as it is crucial to establish a claim and avoid jail time. The speakers discuss the need for testimony to prove debts and the importance of history in establishing fair statements about justice and equity. They stress the need for believers to testify and consider their actions as evidence of their actions. The importance of reconciliation and testing testimony is emphasized, as it is crucial to assert debts and be aware of one's own actions and intentions. The speakers emphasize the need for humble and considerate treatment of men and women, and emphasize the need for thorough investigation of claims and testimony.
AI: Summary ©
Start something
to proceed.
Now inshallah we'll start with the last Kitab, or the last book, in Kitab it on the Hanbury primer written by Alibaba Kodama, Allah with Aiden, the 620, after his era,
in some of the Hammadi books they consider a crowd which was the chapter on confession slash acknowledgement to be a book or in and of itself, here it made it a car has a chapter for anyway, I talked to you before about the division
into books and chapters and I said that is not as you may expect, that you know, chapters are always
under books or the books are always made of several chapters. But now inshallah we will start the book of testimonies, then we will have
the chapter on those whose testimony is rejected the chapter on those whose testimony is rejected.
So, the man says here, on there, the book of testimonies Kitab, shahadat, to her model show her that he or her photokey failure.
Witnessing legally consequential events, there is a difference between witnessing and testifying both a cuckold Shahada both are called Shahada, but one of them is the Hmong and one of them is one of them is to witness something legally consequential, and one of them is testify about to testify about.
So witnessing legally consequential events and testifying as to what was witnessed is a foreign key failure.
There is a little bit of a difference in the math.
Whether the coaches testifying is part of the CFIA communal obligation for Farber is an individual obligation. And you must we
must know by now that pharmacopoeia means that if some people do it, the rest of the community will be absolved of guilt. And if no one does, it turns to the community will be guilty, versus the community, those of the community who are able to do it, watching the dead as part of the failure, you know,
things like that. So,
now, the hammer, the Shahada is part of the key failure means what the hammer is to witness, if people call you to witness if people call you to witness and they already have a quorum. They already have enough witnesses, and they call you to witness a contract. They have like four or five people witnessing the contract, and they call you to witness the contract. Are you required to go with them? Or to be a witness? You're not? If they only have one, and they want a second one?
You are required to witness a legally consequential
transaction.
You know, marriage say there's
different things you're required to witnesses. Now,
if now it's time to testify.
Now it's time to testify. And you've witness you will have witness.
Is it for the gift? So you will say what do you have to that's enough?
Or is it for dine hearts? I love this agreement and the mother. Of course, if he has only one witness able to come to testify you are required to go if he needs two witnesses, you cannot say to him,
you only need according to the honeyberries and Madison Sharpies as well. In sale transactions in monetary contracts. You only need what one witness and your oath to witnesses would be great. That's the perfect the beginner. But him the three minutes I have Maliki Shafi and Hanbury they will allow you also
to take an oath
If you have one witness to take to take the oath to establish your entitlement.
Now, on such basis, can one of two witnesses say to the claimant, okay, you have one witness already.
You don't need me taken oath. No, he can. Because there is a difference in weight between a vest and that we said in the company method, there is no difference in weight. You know, it's a controversial issue. And we talked about, you know, whether all the billionaires are equal or not, but then somebody must have
one witness and your oath is like, two witnesses, but you're forcing him to take an oath and taking an oath is a huge thing. They consider this to be a huge thing. I have two witnesses, I made you
a witness to this contract, I am entitled to your testimony. So you ought to go with them. Now.
We will come to some details about this Harkness, or this obligation to
witness and testify.
Keep in mind that
to provide your testimony to provide your testimony, there is a difference between how popular
her
and her dude, for instance,
you've for indication.
It is only permissible to provide testimony
is not required. If you decided to not testify. It's absolutely fine. There is no harm.
So someone witnessed, you know, the crime of fornication. They decided to just go home and forget about it. Is that fine? Absolutely fine.
Are they allowed to testify? If there are four trustworthy witnesses? They're allowed to testify? Yes. They are allowed to testify.
Of course, taking the risk that if one of them
declines, that testifying, they will all be flogged, the three others will be flogged, because, of course, so it's taken summaries. But they aren't allowed, they are not required, that is broken.
Why is this because
it's there based on leniency because Allah is lenient with his servants who can
who can lead that are based on miserliness. them, you know, because I bet are miserly, they would not give up their rights.
Therefore, it's a different it's different set of rights and different treatments. But when it comes to the Hadoop, you're not required to testify, you're allowed to testify. If you're saying the truth, and you have the quorum and everything. What if it is, how can I be bad, you're required to testify, if there is no one else that will testify?
you're required to witness
if there is no one else that can establish a quorum. you're required to testify if nothing's in there and no one else that can establish a quorum of
full quarter of witnesses. So
now we have a there is a particular issue here that is a little bit controversial because of seemingly contradictory proofs, seemingly contradictory proofs. We have one hubbies from zeidner follow the journey.
Who said pozez palla.
portner
The fire is so hard that
fire levy
Yeah, it be so hard that he
probably
that is reported by Muslim.
So since I've been credited Johnny's, the Prophet sallallahu Sallam said Should I not tell you you have the best of witnesses?
So of course, he said he who brings has he who testifies before he's asked we He who comes forward with his testimony before he is asked to testify.
Okay.
Then there is a hadith of by a Miranda Hussein
and wait to the Prophet sallallahu Sallam said, and this is a famous haviv of course, Hyrule Crone. Currently some of the
summer levina.
Summer levina.
Summer it
Yes. How do
you start shadowing?
Wow. Yeah, whoa, no, no.
What are you attend my noon?
100 now
while your phone
while varahi mosimane.
And this is reported by Bihari and Muslim.
Okay, so and that's how these should they not do the best witnesses those those who bring their weapons before their house. And that's how the youth of America has a burst of generations is my generation. And those who follow, and those who follow in one report and those who follow another report very interesting.
So Matt jaquan, and then there will come people? Yes, I do want to ask you such as they provide their testimony, even though they were not asked.
Or they provide their testimony and they are not being asked to testify. While who knows.
And they
are treacherous. They betray
others, and they cannot be trusted when they ruin our food. And they make vows and do not fulfill them. Well, I've heard of even salmon and they'll become, you know, obesity will become rampant among them. Or
Yeah, obesity, I guess. Seven is obesity, obesity will prevail among them.
It is, keep in mind, some people are genetically, some people genetically are genetically obese, you know, there is a genetic factor in this. So no matter how little they eat, they end up being overweight. And some people no matter how much they eat, they end up being slim. So this is not a condemnation of the people who are, you know, the way how some of the greatest were described as obese, you know, personal bias, the greatest word described as obese. So it's not a condemnation of people who are overweight. It's a condemnation of greed, condemnation of greed,
insatiable appetite, things like that, that will cause because this is not describing a particular individual. This is describing a community, a society and a society in which society, keep in mind, society in which obesity prevails, is a society of greed.
Not Not for every individual because some individual may be genetically predetermined to be overweight. So that's our condemnation of that individual. It's a condemnation of a society in which obesity is prevalent. Keep that in mind, because you have to you have to know how to understand the Hadees Otherwise, you will become just completely
ridiculous. So, anyway,
but this is this this is a contradiction, there is no contradiction. There is a seeming contradiction, but the Prophet does not contradict themselves otherwise. Therefore, we will have to find a way to reconcile and the scholars will have to use their synthesis. That is why synthesis is extremely important. It's not only comprehension and analysis
synthesis is can complete the computer extremely important.
Because the scriptures the text of Revelation is enormous in size, and without people capable of making the proper sentences, then you will have deviant sort of understanding. So the sentences that the scholars, or many of the scholars provided in this respect is that if the, if the person, the claimant, the person who's entitled,
knows that you know, and can testify, then you don't come to testify, and they ask you,
but if they don't know, then you come forward and tell them, I know, I have witnessed this. And if you need me to testify, I can come to testify.
Simple reconciliation, and why is reconciliation also. So if the person knows the claimant knows that you are aware of this particular transaction, and he can come and ask you and he knows you willingness? Like, you know, and he can come and ask you, okay, don't offer your testimony before you're asked.
Because some, some people like to testify, they're just like to be present and everything they like to always
be involved in everything.
There is overbearing, so yeah, believer should not be one of those people. They like also to basically attend every disputation and they thrive, on seeing people argue and seeing, like commotion and disputation and stuff like this. So a believer would not just, you know, mind your business.
He knows that, you know, course he knows, they'll come to you they know your willingness to to testify, okay? Stay at home until someone comes and asks you
and mind your business. So that's that's the proper way of reconciliation between these two reports. However, what are the two most Shahada
Prabhu at the end of Surah
Baqarah. Allah
says,
and do not conceal the testimony. And those who can see testimony are sinners, that he says, elbow is hard to send in his heart. He has a sinful heart.
The one who can see is the testimony of truth has a sinful heart.
Okay.
Then the SEC says,
give us money. Yakumo BRC was 900 pm.
It is I'm Cara Houma Valley coming right at the covenant.
Vina monoclonal kawah Amina, but because these who are there, and what are other unforeseen, I will add,
if there are only two people found who can do so it is required of them, whether regarding relatives or strangers, if they can both do this without incurring harm. This is due to the statement of Allah exalted as he or you have believed, be persistently standing firm and justice witnesses for our law, even if it be against yourselves, or your parents, you know, a big deal to testify against your parent, but Allah is telling you to testify against your parent.
If you have to, I mean, if your parent is on the wrong side, he testify against your parent.
And this particular verse was chosen by students in, you know, at Harvard University as one of the most sort of
fair, the fairest statements or the best statements on justice and fairness and equity.
Muslims tend to make a big deal out of these things. It doesn't add to our confidence at all, that it was chosen. It's a nice thing to say, No, no problem in siding here. But this is like a Student Association. It's not like you know, it's not a big deal. You know, as long as you understand that, it's not a big deal. You're fine. It's okay to cite it as long as you don't sort of get overexcited about it.
So anyway,
but this verse Oh, you will have believe, be persistently standing firm and justice witnesses for Allah, even if it be against yourselves for parents. Now there is a particular statement to hear that's interesting is that I'm kind of Homer Valley come in,
if they can both do this, that witnesses without incurring harm to themselves, their reputation, their family, for their property.
So can you like if you will incur harm, when you have the right to conceive? Or to not testify?
They are saying yes. And in fact, hold them as saying yes.
It's interesting, because, you know,
I actually find a little bit of difficulty here it's it's a, it's a gray area, it's a difficult area.
Because the provinces that are allotted
don't can see the testimony, but the provinces law that are that are, you know, Harmer, reciprocation of harm, and the profits that they've been apsic start with yourself when it comes to maintenance or sustenance, meaning your self should be prioritized. Put your mask on first, you know,
that's not the mask for COVID. That's, you know, on flight, you put your mask on first, if you lose that cabin, a cabin loses pressure. So you need oxygen or something, put your mask on first.
Put your life life jacket on first, before you start to hand out life jackets.
Things like that. Because you have a responsibility towards yourself, you have a responsibility towards yourself. And that's that's established that you, you have to be kind to yourself, you have to be good to yourself, you have to be kind to yourself, you have a responsibility towards yourself, it is not in any way shape or form.
A prescription against altruism, a prescription for egotism ignores selfishness.
But you can because you can be altruistic.
But you cannot be required require
to sacrifice your own interest for someone's, for someone else's interest. Now, I have to be honest with you that, you know, in order for us also to find the right sentences here. It depends on which harm are you afraid of? And which
choose? What do you establish with your testimony, the weights of these things have to be taken in consideration. And I think any believer will not decline to testify, or the fear of minor harm, if there is major benefit in that testimony, for the cause of justice for the cause of
kindness.
So we have to keep these things in mind anyway. But they're not requiring you to testify if it were cause harm.
Now the sheriff would go on to talk to you know, talking about which could be considered the bat by itself in some of the books it's about by itself, or chapter by itself, which is legally consequential events,
the classification of legally consequential events and the courtroom that you need in each category. So he says,
How much would be our bar to XL,
Xena, when you do have the file, I ask you to enter the arbitrary geralyn ajaran.
Legally consequential events that are witnessed
fall into four categories. Legally consequential events are witnessed fall into fall, four categories. Xena when a YouTuber had the
party
for vacation and anything which mandates it's had is not confirmed, accepted by for free, trustworthy main individuals for free, trustworthy made individuals to establish the crime have Xena What is my usual heart designer puppies *, how you know that is not between spouses, between spouses is hard but not that does not amount to a heart crime.
So the sheer compassion says
These are you know as you normally would you
do fornication and anything which mandates it's had is not confirmed accepted by for free trustworthy male individuals okay
then he will talk about the second category This is the strictest of all strictest category of home, Xena and whatever that would mandate it's
this is the strictest, strictest strictest category of all categories and then we will talk about the other categories and then we will talk about the testimony of women in some detail and
assignee and mal Who am I Oxford ob mad fast.
Roger
Roger Lynn ma Yamuna.
The second financial transactions and other contracts pertaining to them are confirmed by two main witnesses for a man and two women for a man along with the oath
of the claimant where a man along with horse of the claimant
we did say before that the new court which is denial of taking the oath or declining to take the oath well established
by in this particular case, so so financial transactions you need any in financial transactions, what do you need to meet witnesses, one male and two females, one male and the oath
in the Hanbury Mazda, they're all considered equal.
Okay.
According to authorize the view of the company males have to be more exact.
The third is she then says a 32. Now I don't have any memory region for that I asked her to a lobby Shahada to Raja.
Aside from the above two categories, any matters that men are customarily acquainted with can only be confirmed by the testimony of two men. So any matters that men are acquainted with would be
marriage divorce Raja which has to take take care of AIPAC emancipation, hiring, firing stablish of lineage to Allah which is allegiance to the emancipator and agency.
All of these things that men are familiar with
it will be
two main witnesses would be required.
And I will come back and if I forgot to remind me to the testimony of women, okay. Let me finish first whether she wants to say
hi, do you
want to be sure how that
happened terminal how to start is a watchtower may have been to be
further
tokuma radical in the base of the law is
okay for
issues that men do not have access to observe such as childbirth, menstruation, more than periods and body defects that are customarily covered there conceive are confirmed by the testimony of one trustworthy woman. This is because of walkabout. Having said that he married or my hair bent.
He said a black slave lady came and said I suckled I suckled you both. I then mentioned that to the Prophet sallallahu sallam, so he said, How can you keep her as your wife?
How can you keep her as your wife when the lady has claimed that she suckled both of you. So, he accepted her testimony concerning Sakhalin without any other corroboration.
Therefore, in these particular cases, it is preferable to have two women witnesses, but it is acceptable to be content with one woman as a witness in childbirth and keep in mind that these things are legally more consequential than many of the financial issues. So, if you have a financial issue, over like, $20 you need to men but things
Like child birth,
defects, waiting periods,
can menstruation
all of these things can be more legally consequential.
Then the SEC says
we're talking about OSHA that
he can
pass in yada FISMA
he was selected as the washer had to assault me, Maria was harder to
salt, which are harder to stack fee from and semi insane and your payroll reacting when Alicia had fish had hardly
the testimony of a person about their own act is acceptable, like the one who breastfed testifying about her breastfeeding, and the distributor, you know, the chapter on division, the one who made the division, testifying later on about his that viden testifying about his distribution, also the testimony of a brother for his own brother, or a friend for his friend, because in the next chapter, he will tell you the testimony for the spouse, the spouse, the parent,
the child, that's the ancestors, descendants, spouse, and
you're
basically
benefactors like if you are a servant in a household, you cannot testify for them, for the people in this household, because of the Hadith of the Prophet sauce.
So, but but he says here, the fact that your testimony for your father, your ancestors are descendants is not acceptable. This will not be extended to your brothers or your friends, it just your
ancestors and descendants, okay. But then he says, The brother for his own brother or a friend for his friend, the testimony of a deaf person about events that are that were seen the testimony of a blind person who is certain of the voice, the testimony of someone who was blind person who certain of the voice, things that are done over the phone. That's why but
you know, remember, in the past, we used to talk about the cat over the phone, and stuff like this, to establish the testimony, or the witnessing, of a shafa is having an issue with a blind person and will have an issue with others witnessing over the phone, the testimony of someone who was hiding at the time of witnessing, and the testimony of someone who heard the person confess something, even if the Confessor did not tell that witness witness what I say. So if you if people, if you hear people behind the wall, one of them says to the other, and you're quite sure of identities, and quieter of the voice. And one of them says to the other, I acknowledge that I call you $200. I acknowledge that
I borrowed from you $200, you come and testify, you're behind the wall, but you're sure of the voice, or you weren't hiding or you were not. You were not there he they were not seeing you. And you come and say I heard that your testimony will be accepted.
He testify for your brother, you testify for your friend accepted, it's expected that trustworthy because when we will come to talk about the hindrances, my wife and I had and basically included in this, you know, she wrote the Shahada, for the prerequisites
of Shahada, then just worthiness is a huge thing. But if you're trustworthy, then your testimony will be accepted even for your brother or friend. Why will it not be accepted for your ancestors and descendants, the ultimate dogma because it suspicion here would be huge, even trustworthy people can fall prey to their emotions or to their sort of affection for their spouses
or their parents and children.
Then that she says and then Charla come back, then we will go over the testimony of women after this. Then she said
As a
matter of a heartbeat, if bad was to corporate America to vehicle, but he does have a big shout out and that's
what I do so that he can harden
consoles.
If something such as lineage or childbirth is reported by so many people that it becomes established as true in one's heart, then one may testify about it. However, this is not permissible. In the case of hard or pea sauce. In the case of hard work ethos, everybody knows that this person is the child of that person, can you testify, everybody knows, it reaches you through the water, it reaches you through concurrence,
you know, a number of people that are that would confer certainty, impossible for them to collude on a lie. So confers certainty, everybody knows that this person is the spouse of this person, everybody knows that this person, you know, in marriage, you do need two witnesses, because that is required, but that he magmatic
accepts
the father also, in the in, you know,
in the heart mode, in the witnessing the three mazahub, they require two witnesses, the mathematic is okay with the father or his heart. That's the announcement. But anyway, so everybody knows that this person is the child of this person, everybody knows that this property is a walk, everybody knows that this property is owned by someone, it's called the medical mclubbe. That is not that is ownership.
Without a specific cause of transfer of ownership, you cannot testify that this person bought this property, just on the basis from that person, just on the basis of his father, but you could testify that this orchard belongs to this person, because everybody knows that this quarter, or this building belongs to that person, everybody knows that this person is the child of that person, and so on. So things that are known by or this is what this property is about things that are known by as the Father, then you could certainly
testify that everybody knows this, so conferring certainty. Now, this is not going to be acceptable, and what how do them consult us in the fixed penalties or equal retribution? Because on hidden cases, in particular, the evidentiary standard is higher.
For you know, no obvious reasons.
Then the chick says, we're talking about Oh, she had a two car walk it bothered Oh, Betty, the testimony of the cars if the car is the one who makes an unproven accusation of fornication.
So that is the money of the causes, and the like, will be accepted after their repentance after their repentance. Why is he saying this, because the canopies do not accept the testimony of the positive after the repentance. So to basically
point out the Hanbury position, in contrast to the hanafy position, he saying, we will accept the testimony of that person after their repentance.
And the basis of this which we will, you know, beyond the scope of this, but the basis is their understanding of the exclusion or is this now in the verse
in sort of the note.
So, now that we're done with the testimony,
the book of testimonies, let's go back to the testimony of women has promised so it seems that women are not allowed to testify in the authorized position of the Hanbury Moussa women are not
do not establish a quorum except
in
two scenarios.
So matters matters that men are usually not accustomed to
not not acquainted with or not privy to don't have access to
Because then the Shahada of women in this case will be accepted and one woman will be sufficient, one woman will be sufficient.
The other matters that the testimony of women would be accepted and in the authorized position of the unbury method is when women, when women,
financial issues, financial transactions to women will be will be accepted in place of one man in financial transactions. Now, in hidden disaster testimony is not accepted in matters about which
men
are acquainted or
to which men have access.
their testimony is not going to be accepted. It is the testimony of two men, by agreement in the contract of marriage, you two men are required for that testimony. And we would exclude this from our discussion.
We will exclude this from our following discussion. Because this is something that is required it's it's almost
an act of worship,
not an act of worship per se, but as we said marriage
count of all the transactions is the closest to the sphere of worship.
And things may not always
follow that PS and in other work analogies, or action analogies, as in other types of transactions, but excluding This one is then the discourse, contemporary discourse on this issue, traditional discourse and contemporary discourse on the testimony of women and why women's
testimony traditionally, in Islamic law, have been
unequal to man's testimony.
First of all,
I think her name was Elizabeth Loftus,
she had had important paper about men and women and the memory of men and women. And if you just can you Google her name, Elizabeth Loftus, and OFT us
memory men and women
I think about you know, yeah.
So, so, what she said
is that,
did you find it Okay, what she said
is that
men's memory
tends to be better than women's memory and male oriented
activities and functions,
women's memory, tends to be better than men's memory and female oriented activities and functions.
Just keep that in mind, because this is empirical
data here that is important that has like to begin that discussion. Men's memory is better than women's memory, and male oriented activities and functions or issues, women's memory is better than male men's memory in female oriented activities and functions. Now, our fuqaha if this is an empirical,
you know, piece of data here. So our fuqaha when they saw some scriptural evidence that Allah subhanaw taala in the Quran in Surah
Al Baqarah, because keep in mind that
this discussion is not all based on scriptures. Because in terms of the Scriptures, and in terms of the app and the hobbies, in this regard, there is room there is gray area here, there is room for controversy, and I'll tell you why. But to give, you know, the respect due to our focus and the good thoughts, to have good thoughts
In our tradition, keep that empirical. In fact, if you consider it fact in mind, for a piece of information in mind, and then to tell the fukuhara what are the main oriented activities and functions and what are the female oriented activities and functions and you will find them to be, particularly in their times, you will find this division that we just went over, to be very factual, to be very unbiased. So, things that belong to the world of women, one woman will be sufficient, well, that's huge.
One woman is sufficient things that belong and in some of them as I have one male is not sufficient. Some of them have one made and these particularly with respect to these issues, one mail would not be sufficient. So
so that's that's the beginning can now let's go back and look at our tradition and look at this our tradition and the reasons why they have these disagreements one.
So
So, Maddie, keys shafa, ease and cranberries.
Well consider the testimony of women.
In
largely in the matters that we have discussed financial transactions, and things that women are privy to, and men are not
very important the Hanbury method and the position of
demand honey for and keep in mind that that berry berry method was also influenced some extent, later generations of the method were influenced to some extent, by the magnet, a mayor's position, which is that crimes that take place among women, we will accept women's testimony about them.
Because if they if it is a public bathroom, and something happened in the public bathroom, where men and women are separated, and women came to testify about the crime that took place in their quarters, then we would accept the testimony of women in this case and the honeyberries
have accepted and adopted this position
as well. So
okay, so this is that a man position and some Maliki's also
and you can consider it to be the prevalent position among later honeyberries
whatever
happens
harmonica them among women and their quarters private quarters.
You know, a woman sells something a woman's not just something from some other woman this
the one of the positions in the Hanbury method along with the Hanafi when say in all things
except
sauce
in all things except hadoo, then sauce
now Edna hasn't and how shall canny
will say what? Everything women's testimony will be accepted and everything.
Whenever you find this agreement, and this this agreement is between monumental figures and our tradition, don't disregard this agreement and don't be too zealous about your own position. There is a reason why they disagree.
Greatly mams will usually not defy the category of this area, that which is certain in transmission certain implication
So if you come to someone like so canny, for instance,
who has like a bird's eye view on the tradition, and then you find the him
selecting a position that seems odd,
eccentric, don't dismiss has his own hardness or eccentricity, but try to figure out where he's coming from. And in general, you know, this, this would be a good way to go about things that does not necessarily mean that non mainstream physicians will be mainstreamed just simply by one Motorhead adopting them until there is some widespread acceptance as we have indicated in the past several times. But it means that you as a student of knowledge, should be humble enough, consider it enough, intelligent enough to understand that these great amounts would not disagree over an issue. That is clear as night and day. They wouldn't.
Okay, so where's this coming from?
And what is the contemporary discourse?
on this issue, you will find, you will find other people having a special understanding of that they may and position on women's testimony, he will find someone like
Dr. Adi jamaa, who is former Mufti of Egypt, not at all sympathetic to the amount of military mayor.
Although he has quite ambivalent feelings about him, so sometimes he's secular Islam, and, you know, and sometimes he's whatever.
But he has the, he goes back and forth, and he has quite ambivalent feelings about them.
And I don't know where they're coming from. Sometimes it's just it is very perplexing. Of course, he will consider this, if he hears this, he will think that that is because of my limitations.
But, but at any rate, he has his particular understanding, which he is in favor of. So he uses everything may or whatever he wants to.
So he has this for the understanding of that the main position on the testimony of women to justify accepting women's testimony in all cases, because that raise the
cap, I'm saying it right, and it's a Latin word ratio, legless
legs, which are the ratio leggies, you would know if Nan
ratio leg is the bread legal principle, the legal basis, the legal basis? Yeah. So the ELA or the legal basis
of women's testimony being half of man's testimony is important is consequential, we will look for that. So we will find two different approaches in the tradition, to the idler, to understanding that you find the mmrrc, for instance,
adopting the approach that is more sort of a Hellenistic approach to the issue, that that was basically the were the memorize he was a genius.
He was.
And that's the double edged sword of being exposed to
an Islamic knowledge and science a good thing, but much filtering needs to be done as well. Because the facts are relative facts, whatever, you know, the facts of your times
that are considered facts. They are not facts, like quote, unquote, facts, but what are considered facts in your time may not be in and of themselves facts. So during the time of edema, Razi, who died in about 605, after the Hydra during the family member Razi.
This Hellenistic medicine and Hellenistic understanding of the different physiology and biology between men and women, he attributed the the, the basically
he attributed the lesser intelligence of women to increased moisture in their body, the other increased moisture in their body.
This would this have an aesthetic view.
This is actually the father of medicine, Hippocrates.
That is his view.
of women and why they have those limitations, you have a, you have a different approach to the legal basis, which is championed, like by a department, a mayor and an email, I'm gonna pay him after him, him I'm going to pay him even more in terms of detailing his support for women, we mentioned that last time, nothing happened claiming
into his support for the testimony of women. We mentioned last time and his total where he said when Morocco had
a man it was certainly with Deanna trustworthy woman is just like a trustworthy man and truthfulness and honesty, truthfulness and religiosity. So, is very sad.
Having
reports from him,
that he said that this is because of what exposure because women had less exposure to financial transactions, therefore,
their understanding of these issues would be limited, because of their decreased exposure
customarily to these issues now. So doctor, it takes this position to say that if he is basically assigning diverse legal basis, to this ruling, then when women have increased exposure, become familiar with these issues, just like man, then their testimony will be accepted. But just like men, you will find also some others who adopted this position like Sheikh Muhammad Rasul, Allah, the contemporary
hula
and others. So.
So that is basically the discussion of the legal basis of this, whether it happened to me I would have supported that conclusion or not, I'm not talking about this, I'm just saying that this is based on his identification of the legal basis for distinguishing between the testimony of men and women
based on ethnic claims, defense of the use of women's testimony in his book a token,
and his sighting of him having a May and reporting from him.
Of course, the man to me added support to the testimony of women when about things that happened among them?
Because otherwise it wouldn't be.
It's just like, unfair to some extent, they cannot testify about something that happened in their midst.
And also, you know,
it is okay to question it is okay for a woman to question the rulings until she's comfortable, they come from a line then she stops
it is okay to question the rulings without being sort of defiant to the tradition without being disrespectful to the tradition, it is okay to question the rulings and then one is certain that they do come from Allah, that is well my intended and then we have to stop at that point.
But I as a, as a as a man, not a woman.
Hi. Also, you know, I also found that and I read a lot about the this particular issue by people from different backgrounds, different orientations.
For the first one who alerted me to the difficulty in visa issues, or
is he
reading some of his books and reading what he said particularly about this issue.
So if you have like, you know, four or five women or six or eight women testifying that this person killed that person, just completely dismissing that and accepting two men
or let's say 15 women,
completely dismissing that is is going to be problematic, like a magnet by him says the testimony of M selama. is worth the testimony of many men
and in fact why we did accepted the testimony of him
settlement alone.
So it is not as straightforward then there is room to basically investigate the matter but just approach that tradition lovingly and respectfully and critically, critically as well, as fine, but lovingly and respectfully. And keep in mind, that paper by Elizabeth Loftus.
One final thing I wanted to say about this, that they may an understanding of the concept of the unit itself will make all of those issues
all of those issues
much more rational
and less restricted. Because remember, they may say for Islam, Rahim Allah says that it bayona is whatever Tibet, you know,
whatever, by no means what clarification, whatever clarifies the truth. He says it was one sometimes for witnesses, sometimes three, but for the bankrupt person
establishing their insolvency after they were known to be solid. Sometimes three, sometimes two, sometimes one man and two women, sometimes one woman sometimes
didn't have to take those, sometimes Carina could have deleted had, which is basically tangible evidence. So he says that it varies. And it is not necessarily
it is not limited to that which was, which was received in the text.
It's not limited to that which was received in text, like, look at
the proof that the most cited proof that the woman's testimony is equal to half of the man's testimony, what is it?
Surat Al Baqarah chapter two verse 282, at Dane was the shadow shadow
for a
month or
so and and bring to witness the shadow shadow in America Rico.
Okay, bring to witness two of your men for enemy or coonara in and if they're ever, if you don't have two men available, then one man and two women
whose testimony you will accept your amendment.
In case one of them forgets the other one reminds or errors.
The other one reminds her. The other one reminds her. Now, obviously speaking, as we said before, men, like if you go to buy a car, for instance, you know, usually women will take, you know, a maid relative with them to purchase the car to go over the contract and things of that nature. Sometimes a maid could take a female lawyer. That's true. Also, someone can say that
to look over the contract.
So there is, but if you're talking about the default,
it will usually be the woman asking the man made relative to go with them.
So in this particular verse, Is this about evidentiary standard?
Now, many scholars nowadays, and many scholars pointed this out from the time of humanity with email and email. They pointed this out. Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah and Czech shell and others of our contemporary times accepted this sort of point is that the first is not setting evidentiary standard, the versus saying, when you are about to have a contract, bring two men. If you don't find two men bring one man and one and two women. It that is not setting the standard for the court. That is for the issue.
That is Whom are you going to bring to witness Someone may say, but the prophets on Sunday I'm Sachi Dhaka, we Amina your two witnesses or his oath. That's an evidentiary standard. Again, at the same time, the prophet accepted as Muslim reports from the Kaaba said, What do you mean, the prophet accepted one witness with the horse. So shahida we amino is not exclusionary. It's not basically the end of it.
Anyway,
this is the ongoing discussion, there is a reason to, there is a reason, empirical reason to say that people have better memory with regard to activities, functions, and fields to which they are more exposed.
And that is the basis of that distinction between the testimony of men and women in our tradition. And as we said before,
women's rewire from the Prophet sallallahu Sallam prewired from the Prophet sallallahu Sallam is accepted just like the man's rewire. In fact, we said that remembers that happy, sad that we've never known how a woman who was accused of fabrication, never, you know, tons of men have been accused of the father or fabrication. We have not known a single woman who has been accused the fabrication
given that we have about 8000 hadiza as Dr. Akram nadwi.
You know, compiled
compiled them in, in a major work of his poetry certainly is a commendable effort
can happen by Dr. Dr. Akram nadwi.
About 1000 women mentioned in that book. So
that's, that's a remarkable feat, that there is not one single woman accused the fabrication.
So their testimony is accepted regarding something that is much more consequential. And that was pointed out some people say that she has more consequential tangibly more consequences than rewire. But that's not true.
Can he Why is
decisively more consequences.
Because when you report one thing from the profits or settlement will apply to millions of people.
It will establish rights
and obligations for millions of people and mean millions of cases of disputation variance. So
anyway, that's what I wanted to say about this issue. And I'm really sorry, but I will come back and take 20 minutes after like a break a five minute break so that we can finish Maulana Shahada or
those whose testimony is to be rejected because it is very related. And then we will shorten our q&a session to half an hour. So I'm gonna call the other stuff. We're actually let's say, let's take three minutes, break and then come back for