Is Male a Degree above Female in Status? Part 6

Witnessing (2:282)

In verse 24:6-9, it is clear that the testimony of a woman is equated exactly with that of a man in case of adultery: where one spouse accuses the other of infidelity, the accusation by one spouse is held to be just as valid as the denial by the other. In other six verses on witnessing also the Quran does not specify whether witness should be men, women, or a combination of them.[i]

Witnessing is mentioned seven times in the Quran, and on matters related to financial dealings is there a requirement that is two men are not present, a man and two will suffice (2:282). The interference of the second women as a partner in testimony is conditional to the first one getting perplexed. If the first women is able to express her self eloquently then the second women will not be required, as is evident from the following portion of the verse under discussion: “if one of them gets confused or perplexed then the other can remind her.” If the first one gets confused, it is only then the other one is required to remind her. If the first one does not get perplexed then the other will not be required to interfere. Thus, Fazlur Rahman argues that ‘when women become conversant with such matters…their evidence can equal that of men.’[ii] The whole idea of not accepting women’s evidence to be equal to that of men’s, is a patriarchal interpretation of the Quran.

In 1979, Zia-ul-Haq, the Pakistan military ruler (R 1977-1988), introduced ‘Islamic’ laws that discriminated against women. The most notorious of these laws were the ‘Zina’ and ‘Hudood’ Ordinances the called for the punishments of the amputation of hands for stealing and stoning to death of married people found guilty of illicit sex. In practice, these laws protect rapists, for a woman who has been raped often finds herself charged with adultery or fornication. To prove ‘zina’ (adultery), four Muslim adult males of good repute must be present to testify that sexual penetration has taken place. The combined effect of these laws is that it is impossible for a woman to bring a successful charge of rape against a man; instead, she herself, the victim finds herself charged with illicit sexual relationship, while the rapist goes free. If the rape results in a pregnancy, this is automatically taken as an admission that adultery or fornication has taken place with the woman’s consent.

Quranic ‘zina’ verse setting forth the original four witness requirement is not exclusive to men: “Those who defame chaste women and do not bring four witnesses (‘shuhada’) should be punished” (24:4). This verse refers to these four witnesses with the Arabic masculine plural, “shuhada” (witnesses) , which grammatically includes both men and women, unless otherwise indicated. In applying the exclusively male evidence rule of traditional ‘zina’ law to the crime of ‘zina-bil-jabr’, Pakistan has transformed what was merely an unfair obsolete male biased into a direct violation of the human rights of women. It is direct contradiction to the Quranic injunctions to stand up firmly for justice is obvious.[iii] Moreover, depriving women as an entire gender of the right to testify in a ‘zina’ case- where a woman’s honour is generally at issue- has serious societal ramifications. The Law doesn’t even differentiate between adultery and rape.

In case of rape, just like any criminal offence, circumstantial or medical evidence are permitted (12:70-76). The inclusion of the word ‘male’ in the ‘Zina Ordinance” is a dangerous play of misogyny. What is articulated in the ‘Hudood Law’ of Pakistan had deeper roots. Despite the Quranic use of the plural noun inclusive to both men and women, many Muslim jurists and scholars have traditionally limited the four witnesses in a ‘zina’ case to men.[iv] In fact, all major schools of thought have adopted restrictive interpretations of women’s ability to testify as witness in general, although some {significantly including the famous jurists, al-Tabari, Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328 CE), and Ibn al-Qayyim (1291-1351)} have disagreed.[v]

---

[i] Quran 4:6, 4:15, 5:106-107, 24:4, 24:13, 65:2

[ii] Fazlur Rahman, Major Themes of the Quran, Biblitheca Islamica: Chicago, 1980, p.48-49

[iii] Quran 4:135, 57:25, 5:8

[iv] Mohamed S. El-Awa, Punishment in Islamic Law, American Trust Publications: Indianapolis, 1982 p.34

[v] Ma’amoun M. Salama, “General Principles of Criminal Evidence in Islamic Jurisprudence,” In ‘The Islamic Criminal Justice System’, {edited by M. Cherif Bassiouni}, Oceana Publications: London, 1982, p.118