Which interpretation of 2:228 do you prefer?
-
I encountered two readings of the end of 2228. The first one, as Yuksel quoted in Sample Comparison in Quran a Reformist Translation explaining 434, is "Women, in all equity, have rights similar to men. But men have one advantage over them," exemplified by Shabbir Ahmed's translation. The other, is "And for what obligations the women are owed, so similarly must they fulfill their obligations. But the men will have a greater responsibility over them in this," exemplified by the Monotheist Group translation.
I found the latter making more sense, because, firstly, I looked up an Arabic dictionary, the word for "obligation" only has meanings similar to "duty" and "obligation," and I can't find a reason to turn it into "men," and secondly, it sounds more "scientific" if I substitute the latter understanding into other verses in Quran. I'll not elaborate on how I substitute here, for it's too lengthy. The outcome is that women should treat men the way men should treat women in divorce, and women have the right to marry more than one men if the men's wives died and they've got children. I think that would sound more equitable to both men and women. If the former reading is used, it can be easily inferred that though rights for both genders are similar and comparable, men are still a bit superior, but nowhere else in Quran suggest that men are really superior.
Well, I'm not expecting a definite answer right now, and I'd advise you not to be hasty (37; 20114). I'd like to hear you pointing out my fallacies, so we can both move closer to the truth. After choosing an option, please explain why you chose it by replying. prMay God increase our knowledge!
-
Take note; in case of proclamation of husband's firm decision of suspending the Matrimonial Bond in times after menstruation for its eventual revoking the isolated Wives should honestly and sincerely exercise self restraint from deciding their future course for a time period of multiple menstrual discharges at three successive menstruation periods.
Moreover, it is is not permissible for them-the alienated Wives that they might withhold disclosing that which Allah the Exalted has since created in their Wombs .
They will not withhold this information if they have truly been believing in Allah the Exalted and the Last Day .
Take note; their respective husbands have a greater right in reverting of them alienated wives during this first time publicly suspension of Nikkah's peculiar feature for a determined period.
This right is subject to the condition if those husbands have decided to straighten/reconcile matters.
Take note; a similar right like the one which husbands have upon them is also the prerogative for such wives in accordance with the known norms of the society.
However, a priority-precedence in exercise of same right for each of two is to men over them.
Beware of the fact that Allah the Exalted is the Dominant, the Wise, knower of invisible.A husband can promulgate cleavage in matrimonial bond twice in married life. On reconciliation and subject to certain promises after the first cleavage the husband is given a preferentil right to retain that woman as wife. Next time if such situation arises, same right will be the prerogetive of wife to exercise whether to stay back or permenently split.
-
I understand that the wives can exercise the same prerrogatives than can be had with tespect to them. That is, after the divorce, if they are pregnant they can have an option to remarry the ex husband. It doesn't say that he has more right but that that is when it would be more right for him to return with the wife or to have the wife return to him if they want to reconcile. -the "reconcile" is plural, which might look that refers to the husbands only, but obviously the husband must reconcile with somebody, which annot be anybody else than the wife. He cannot reocncile on his own, the person he wants to reocncile with must also want to reconcile, and the same it would be if the wife wants to reconcile. The degree over the wife is that he would have to support the ex-wife and the child, that is it is a degree of responsibility or duty and it is not a compensation or an acknowledgement of an edge for him over the woman, since that would negate precisely what it is stating, that to the women the same as may be invoqued with respect to them. But if they do not remarry, still for the man there would be a responsibility, which goes beyond the responsibility or duty of the ex wife.
Salaam
-
Answered well in http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9605432.
Peace
-
Sorry, I forgot 424, which says that men should not marry women who already have husbands. But still, in other cases, women should have obligations similar to men's obligations towards them. Well, really, we should uphold God's book, not the popular ideology in modern days. Though I'm a girl, I don't support extreme feminism. Some feminist extremists wish that technology will move the obligation of giving birth to children from women to men, as well as menstruation. Beware of tempt
-
Peace,
Feminism can in ways be hazardous. On the other hand, I find this term to be very awkward. Of course we should everyone fight for the liberty of all people be they male or female.
Women give birth and this is an exhausting deed, but this and other things such as nurturing for young children might be what God means by different responsibilities. While women are given this "duty", the men are the ones responsible for the direct survival of the family such as a roof over the heads and food on the table as well as protection from wildlife and malicious men. This is more dire than giving birth because it is a prerequisite to the step of offspring and might be what God means. Apart from this immediate service of a man which means a man needs control over the resources, a woman's work is of more peaceful nature and the man's responsibility is to keep it that way by supplying what the family needs.
I am not saying women are not tough, but the difference in mentality often present in out genders serve different purposes. Men's tendency to be more cold and emotionless is beneficial in a hostile or semi-hostile environment where logical and rational decisions have to be made not tainted by emotional vulnerabilities. For survival and efficient decision-making it is better to be more straightforward.
This is not the only way of a man, but it is instincts deeply rooted in us as long as we do not have our perception and identity of our gender roles biased by modern conjecture done by lots of "educated" people.
A typical man will, for example, go mad if he does not have any steady work over a period of time. It goes against his instincts/will of God to be a provider and active worker for a family. Even with steady activities this is so, because it is genetically programmed by God, particularly if it means a decline in family condition.
A woman is probably worried too, but it does not have such a detrimental effect on her. Various activities is sufficient for her.
Nowadays people are being taught to drift away from their gender roles which is dangerous for the integrity of them. It could be why we have so many cases of depression. Not only due to stress and such. It is a myth due to ignorance. It is not where the problem lies but in the state of being in the modern society. A healthy man with control can work 12 hours per day when keeping his manly attitude intact.
Why we are depressed is because we do not live according to God's system. We are raised in the wrong ways, taught the wrong things and not let ourselves be the humans we were programmed for.
I have more to say, but it is not relevant to the discussion. What I wrote above is a longer elaboration connected to the verses you stated previously.
We have different roles but it makes none of the sexes better than the other. Men may have a more immediate role which is the fundamental one and it this way important, but we are all equal, man or woman. Just observe our anatomical design and you will understand why. Who is designed for what purpose?
Please live as you were designed.
God bless you
-
Sorry, I forgot 424, which says that men should not marry women who already have husbands. But still, in other cases, women should have obligations similar to men's obligations towards them. Well, really, we should uphold God's book, not the popular ideology in modern days. Though I'm a girl, I don't support extreme feminism. Some feminist extremists wish that technology will move the obligation of giving birth to children from women to men, as well as menstruation. Beware of tempt
It does not say women who already have husbands, it says Muhsanaat. Prove that muhsanaat means that. Up till now I have seen no proof but opinions of translators that think that it should mean that. But, there are ways in Arabic to say that the woman already has a husband and muhsana means something else. To apply to women already with a husband would be a stretch.
Salaam
-
But still, in other cases, women should have obligations similar to men's obligations towards them.
I didn't understand what did you mean for this??
-
Lambda, you are imposing obligtions on women, That is not what the aya does. The aya says that what may be exacted from women, the women can exact it also the sme. It is different from what you say. It is talking about womens rights, not women obligations.