Qur'an Verse 4:34 - 'Beat the Wife'? quranverse434
-
Didn't Allah say men are weak in Quran? This is the reality when it comes to courting.Statuary warning I myself is a female and I believe in being human first and then male or female.
Anyways, what I see is that females tend to be far more stubborn because they can attract men easily. They don't need to buy a gift or dinner to woo anyone. They don't need to boast about what they have. They don't need to chase. One smile is enough to gather 100 men. They are naturally psychic and far more clever than men when it comes to relationships and marriages. Majority of the married ones know they are "needed" and not "wanted" by their husbands. Some take advantage of it. I am quite used to seeing "slave" husbands. And do remember when you keep giving and giving to someone without a question it turns into "entitlement" for them. In other words, they can treat you like whatever they want and still demand you to treat them well. Its a fact that men are more giving than women and looks like Allah is very much aware of it .
-
I do not really agree, reel, and this is an opposite case of belittling a gender. It can be mutual feeling about the sense of being needed or wanted. If the man is not needed then this is a bad relationship and the same if the situation is the opposite. The situation can be the clear opposite when a man is needed by the woman and not only wanted. There are many "slave women" in marriages too, but they stay because they have a sense of needing the man.
The rule against oppression works within a marriage too and the woman or man should be condemned for this act as well.
Its a fact that men are more giving than women and looks like Allah is very much aware of it .
It is a problem if you spoil the woman and the woman has not learned modesty. Besides it is just stereotypical gender roles. And the strong man can expose the woman to various sanctions if he knows what he is doing and not weak-minded. That is a big hit on a woman. We should be meek, but one should also stand up against oppression even if it is against your own spouse. It is a societal problem.
And if you go looking for a woman (and thus happiness) through your wealth and fame then you obviously get the bad women too. It is better to hide your financial status and shine with your wholeness with God and you will attract the "real women".
And do remember when you keep giving and giving to someone without a question it turns into "entitlement" for them.
Yes, for the unrighteous person who does not reflect upon it. But I wonder why this kind of victim would stick around with a person like this.
This was kind of the worst examples you put forth that I have ever seen, and I have not seen it except in the past decades in the faithless generations where people have lost their morals. But I do not really give much credit to the men who just accept that garbage year in and year out, to live with such faithless women without reprisals. It is like it is easy to love the devil. Your chain is never stronger than the weakest link. And your spouse is your second half. It will be hard for these men to develop living with a monster to wife being their second half. They must divorce or impose sanctions/pressure on the wife to force her to change somehow in a relatively peaceful way. Ultimatums can work, they did on my wife who was very rebellious and quite the devil. And never give your love to someone who is not ready to be your second half.
Majority of the married ones know they are "needed" and not "wanted" by their husbands.
That is a quite weird and unnatural marriage because in a marriage both parts are needed, or else they should divorce after prolonged testing for a change. Those women who feel they can get any man and use it to "melt" the man is kind of the worst women you could find and not worth keeping. If she does not show she needs you then leave her. Why should you keep someone as your second half if she is not your second half? Then you can perhaps be friends instead and two individuals.
They don't need to chase.
An upright man does not need to chase either. I did not chase after my present wife and I did not really chase after my previous one either. Being desperate is often disastrous. If she plays hard to get then leave her in her arrogance. Also men need to show they are men and not be weaklings.
Anyways, what I see is that females tend to be far more stubborn because they can attract men easily.
Hrrmm... if a man wants he can also attract women quite easily. Some work, a little different than women's make-up and stuff but through hard training with muscles and work on the "right" attitude, perhaps engage in sports or other "macho" activities, and a man can quite easily lure a lot of women and can play around with them quite a lot. And they play around with the women in relationships too where the women are very hurt emotionally when they act like pigs. And then the women turn lesbian because they draw the conclusion that all men are swine based on their first-hand approach (sorry a stereotypical analogy). I think I could quite easily realign and become like above if I liked, but I left that life behind.
A conclusion of this is that I would say there are pigs of both genders in equal measures, only that they are like that in different ways.
Be whole
-
Salaam, reel,
I disagree with that. It may be so for some women and it may be so for some men. And when it is widespread is like when people used to say that slaves are people who do not act straight that they are devious and so and so. Always the persons who do not have the power on their side try to get it some other ways or merely to defend themsleves some other way, comprising devious ways. But not all people are able to do that, so we have had many slave victims, and many oppressed victims.
I have never been like what you say, I have never liked to act that way, I have detested it. And I know I am not the oly one, and I also know that many women who do that, for some time, because that is the way to get ahead in a world where power is king, get sick of it, because that is not like themselves. I do not believe that psychologically men and women are two kinds apart. There are males for all tastes and there are women for all tastes and this "rolling" (putting into roles) men and women which has caused a ot of mischief, undescribable suffering gender identity problems and psychological problems and disfunctions.
I cannot for honesty sake agree with that, nor can I condone that women and men are put into that kind of boxes.
The Qur'an does not asign gender roles. The Qur'an, which is pure justice, on the other hand gives spiritual strength to the physiological functions of women and gives general sense of duties based on the different phyisiological dotation of the sexes but does not prescribe roles nor diffrentiates phycholgically the sexes.
This distinction that you make, between women and men may suit well you and other women, no matter how many whether few or a lot, and I do not have anything against it. It is their right to be as they are. But it harms many women enormously and also many men when that statistical fact is erected as universal law, so that we came back to the "that is not feminine" or "that is not very masculine".
I have never liked playing that kind of games you depict, I have found it alsways humilliating for thos involved. If it comes spontaneously to some people to do that, because of their character, I have nothing against it. It is their way and it is their right to be the way they are, but to make of it the rule for everybody is cruel, enormously cruel, I don't think you realise how cruel it is.
I despise that kind of games. Whether I would have been able to play them under need, I do notknow, but simply I cannot stomach it. I can understand playfulness, ok, and I am playful myself, but when it goes beyond play, innocent playful play, it makes me vomit. I woul never want a man that way. I would never want a mant that wanted me that way. I would rather die and I am not kidding.
And I am sure, 4.34 is not about that, is not about that play. It says it clearly It speaks about women in certain circumstances and about what believers, men and women, not their lovers or husbands, should do FOR them.
Salaam
-
I do not really agree, reel, and this is an opposite case of belittling a gender. It can be mutual feeling about the sense of being needed or wanted.
You have full right to disagree with me. But I wasn't looking from that point of view. Here is the thing, women don't fully need men in the sense that they know how to cook, how to take care of kids and even if they are in distress, they can ask for help from others.Majority of the countries in the world have some form of government assistance for women.But its even better when they have education and work. They are also more skilled with time management and taking care of themselves plus the kids. Ever heard of the research that said women outlive men in both developed and developing countries? And honestly speaking, a time does come in a woman's life when she frees herself from the need of men including husband. I am talking out menopause. You won't be able to understand it because men don't go through the same hormonal and psychological change.
I know Quran doesn't assign gender roles. But in every society, it is far more difficult for men to bring up a kid all by themselves. Perhaps, that is why, when they become windowed they choose to remarry. Its also a fact that after divorce, men remarry quicker than women. I must still say that its harder for divorced women to find husbands especially if the kids are living with them. But this does not fail them in bringing up the kids.
Yes, for the unrighteous person who does not reflect upon it. But I wonder why this kind of victim would stick around with a person like this.
For kids of course. Research shows that its mostly women who initiate divorce. Again, it is correlated with menopause. Most divorces take place in the 40's or 50's.
I have never liked playing that kind of games you depict
We all vary by nature. Even I dislike men who chase after women with tongues open. But majority of the societies say that men must initiate and not women. Men must show off his income and job for marriage. For men, the income of women don't matter. Some may prefer the educated ones, but they don't require the wives to work.
I love our Islam (free of hadith) because it doesn't make up such stupid rules. But yeah, Allah does say that men must gift women something before the marriage takes place.
-
Sure, 4.34says that men mus contribute with wealth to women, obviously they do not conceive, they do not get pregnant, they don't undergo prennancies, nor deliveries. Reproduction is one of the big task or the biger task of any species. In mammals all fall on the females. If human society is as God wants it, that is a society of compannions, not just as pairs in individualo pairs but as friends as in aya... can't remember the number, then obviously men must contribute in another way to the common welfare because if not they are pimps... There is some so called "feminism", I am femnist since ever and I disagree completely with that, that says that women should not be maintained. Well to those I would say that if the can make the males conceive, have pregnancies and deliver, I am ok with that, but not before.
Of course many of us women thanks to the opening up of the work market for us, can work and earn by ourselves. That is our lot, but that does not exempts able males from thir contribution to society, particularly their families. It is not so much for the sake of women but for the sake of them themselves and their self-respect and honour and also of course and foremost the love and the sense of duty for their counterparts and the offspring. No decent man has any problem with that, nor demands that because of it a woman owes him service and waiting on.
I am afraid that patriarchy or its excesses, has resulted in good honourable men having to patch up the abuses of other non honourable men who found protection for their abuses in the law.
The service to humanity with the reproductive fucntion provided by women is not replaceable. But instead of being honoured and paid for that, she has been abused and exploited for that. Not by all, because we all know and even have in our families plenty of good honest men, but the thing is that those who did the wrong had the law all for themselves to cover for that. Honourable men loose and women loose.
The outliving of women over males, I think is owed to the excesses each allowes themselves. You are right about divorces after menopause. The children are grown up, they do not need maintenance, nor parents so the women can fend for themselves and do not need to put up with a male they don't care about any more. So finally with age women's life results improve and for men it is the opposite. When women are young all the risks are for them. As they grow old they are used to hardship and can put up with anything. Men have been spoiled and find it harder to fend for themselves.
That is the state of affairs, and that should be improved, the sharing and the comradeship between the sexes should start from the beginning so that everybody could live lives more safely and more enjoyably and reach old age in good and pelasant company.
I really feel so happy when I see couples where they get old and are like friends with so much friendship and comradeship between them. Mostly amongst lower class people who have never been involved int he "success" rat race. So it is possible and it does happen, but that is not usually served as model.
Salaam
-
There is some so called "feminism", I am femnist since ever and I disagree completely with that, that says that women should not be maintained.
What does Allah truly mean by maintainer in this verse? I feel it has to do with women who choose to become housewives because nobody's life is set in stone. Allah is speaking about the duty that a husband has towards the wife who doesn't work. I have sister, cousins and even aunts who chose to not marry. For the aunts, the situation was extreme. Their father was ill and they didn't have a mother. To take care of him, they didn't want to marry. The verse certainly doesn't apply to them. They don't have a man in their house. They are maintaining themselves. Their brothers are happily living somewhere else with their wives and they don't pay a dime to their sisters. Financial assistance was never asked for anyways because they work and they have their own house.
The service to humanity with the reproductive fucntion provided by women is not replaceable. But instead of being honoured and paid for that, she has been abused and exploited for that.
lol, hadith says women must be baby producing machine. in fact, mr bukhari forbids men from marrying those who can't give birth. what do you expect from those who think hadith books are never wrong? that said, housewives are frowned on by even feminists here in US. they think choosing to be housewife means becoming a doormat. but working in the house is not a small task. its far more difficult than sitting behind a desk to crunch numbers for 8 hours.
I actually don't get feminism. True that we needed it once. But just as I said, I believe we are humans first and then males and females. Therefore, society must recognize the efforts of both men and women without looking into their gender. But this never seems to happen and feminism doesn't promote it.
In a society where men have the most power, women are seen as second class citizens. Meanwhile, the society where women are given freedom, men are born criminals. To make things worse, our American feminists promote the idea of increasing male bed partners so that females can be equal to them. Not sure when this stupidity will be over. Unfortunately, wickedness does not see gender. We are the top rapist country in the world. But reports have shown that not all rape cases are legitimate in the sense that men were trapped falsely in them. http//www.falserape.net/false-rape.htm
-
I disagree with your take on the qawamun. It says men, not husbands it says women not wives. It is general, it ia unviersal rule not for husbands or wives, for men and women. Work, housework, or mine work or whatever continues to be work and must be paid, unless somebody wants to give it voluntarily, work must always be paid.
Reproduction is a heavy investment on the part of women, it is work, how hard or how dangerous or how onstricting depends on the woman and depends on the case, but it is work, so the qawwam thing is not because any woman is going to do the housework for anybody. That should be part of any contractual arrangement if a particular couple wants it that way.
But the reproductive work men are never going to do it nor they put any investment on it. FDor women may be and many, many times and has been a full mortgage on their whole lives. Do you think God is anti woman? I do not think so. I thijnk God chooses his words right. Men and women. So , I do not see why this insistence in makin thsi aya also husbands and wives.
As to feminism, are you kidding that now it is not necessary? And you seem to dispise it because you take as femenists those you dislike. Feminism as many other ideals have been corrupted, but they are legitimate. There is no sexual justice, and woman may be the most obvious and material victim , but males are victims in the sense that they are corrupted by a system that distorts their importance and their real worth and meaning as human beings.
And not, we are not first this and then that. We are always first and last what we are alltogether. At no time in anyone's life one is just human being an then woman or man, one is always a human being of a sex, without firsts or seconds. To make that ordering is schizofrenia.
You may be happy in your life, I think you ar,e or I get that impression and you seem to see everthing from the colouring of your immediate environment and you satisfaaction with it. But I think you are completely concerning many human situations which are indeed in very bad need of redress and help particularly for women as obvious cruel and immediate victims, and of course males as seocndary victims because of their lack of atunement with reality. which makes some of them lacking selftrust but not admitting it. and basing all their expectations on wrong assumptions. Women are awaken to reality far sooner and far harsher, most of the time, so they can react and do something, men are not compelled to it. But obviously this is true for those males that have not adopted the proper moral teachings of subservience to God and have made little gods out of themselves. The problem is that it is those who set the pace, and even set the pace for some "feminsits" who in fact are coopted into the male world of rat races.
In the Qur'an if you read the proper ayas, you see thst on marriage must pay the women an amount, then during married life they have to pay them ujur (retribution) all the time. But it does not say a word that women must do some kind of work for that. I does say, however, that if a couple wants to wean a child before the two years, the husband must pay the woman who feeds the child. That is the "problem" as from the point of view of the father. The same if they are divorced, he must pay the mother for nourishing the child. Not for anything else, just for that.
You speak ill of feminists, but you yourselkf do not seem to podner or take account of women's reproductive contribution and the burden, immediate and life spanning that it represents. Women are since birth burdened by the mere expectation of their reproductive function. Some would be feminists and many non feminists at all despise that function and want to minimize their improtance, but all of them and all human beings benefit from it. Can there be greater abuse and hypocrisy? And you say that we do not need feminism?
Do we not need anything, we do not have to struggle for justice.
It seems that God in the Qur'an loves women much, much, more than many women love or approve of themselves.
Subhanallah
Salaam
-
Here is the verse in question
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance) For Allah is Most High, great (above you all). (434)How do I apply it to my situation? I don't have a brother, but sisters. Sure I have a fiance and father. But since I am not married yet I cannot demand him to maintain me. As for father, I don't want him to do it either because I can make money on my own and I am an adult. If I get arrogant how on earth they are going to forsake me in bed? I neither share bed with fiance nor with father. The right of that place belongs to only a wife.
How do we apply it to a girl who has a mother and father is dead? To me, the verse seems to be talking about husband and wife because once again, they are the only who can share bed with each other.
Allah is not anti woman. In one verse, he said men and women are cover of each other. That explains Allah wants both men and women to be protector of each other.
When I say we don't need feminism, I mean the idea of dividing men and women. We are humans first. In my view, if a man is being abusive towards a woman he needs rehab. If he still doesn't behave he must be kicked out. My biggest issue with feminism is that it blames all men for a crime of one man while completely staying away from investigating whether the female victim gave them the correct tale. They promote the generalization that men are wicked and women are damsels in distress.
And I wasn't exactly talking about you. I was talking about the influential feminists. Sorry, I didn't point that out. They are the ones who write books on feminism. They are the ones who get to be interviewed and they don't promote what is healthy for women.
you yourselkf do not seem to podner or take account of women's reproductive contribution and the burden, Women are since birth burdened by the mere expectation of their reproductive function. Some would be feminists and many non feminists at all despise that function and want to minimize their improtance
This is the thing that makes speak me ill of feminism. Today's feminism tells that the importance of the reproduction function can be eliminated only if women go around hooking up with random men apparently because those random men are doing it. In copying the bad there is might! They never tell women to practice caution even after knowing that anyone less educated among them may end up having a baby out of wedlock. Also women are more at risk of contacting STD's than men. This is the situation of western countries though. Reproduction function must be held sacred by both men and women. It should not be treated as something to play with.
But in general, we need humanism and not feminism. Just as I said, if a man is abusive he needs rehab. This rehab should make sure that he becomes human and treats his wife like another human. The idea that there exists a separate weak group must be dissolved. But again, some couples marry for the sake of society. They ignore the compatibility rate. As long as they are alive, feminism will keep blaming the men for everything.
-
Humanism yes. Feminism is just an extremist movement and they often just proclaim for women to do the same kind of idiocy as men.
Be of God
-
Well Mof thank you but, if you are not feminist at least do not attempt to portrait feminists, you certainly are no authority and you are very much prejudiced. I am feminist and certainly the last thing I and most self proclaimed feminists want is to reproduce the rat race created by the brute force mentality.
You certainly can insult femn ists that way but you are not gaining, but you show a lack of respect for other people. Not that that is going to deter any one, it such a vulgar and common thing thst it can hardly impress any body at this time and it is not now certainlymuch worse when they started to claim just a few little rights and because of that they were called the most horrible things and agressed by the "gentlemen". Very chivalrous the whole thing.
Thank God there are men who have better feelings and manners to make the world more livable and pleasant.
And this kind of speech makes it still clearer that feminism is indeed needed. When men or women have to justify themselves and prove that they are "kosher" and renegate their principles of struggling for the ideal of fairness between the sexes of humanity something is not quite right.
But if it is just the word that you hate, then you have a problem with something, but that is indeed your problem.
You pick whatever you deem that it must be feminism and you invent your own ideal femenism which of ocurse is not the one you can admire, that would no inconenient, it must be the one that gives you the pleasure of putting it down and therefore concluding that women do not need any particular defence because they are just a mere dactor in a bunch of factors.
You are like those who put the christians in Rome and muslims in Spain to the circus and to the fire because you have determined that to be feminist or to be crhristan or muslim is what yous ay it is and not what the people aho are say it is. I know the procedure and indeed it has always been the easiest way to salnder and after slandering you can ekliminate it. But you won't eliminate it because in fact the cau are still there and in fact getting worse. And saying there is no reason for it won't make it better but will make it worse. Some men are determined to say that problems for women are what they say and not what the women find to be problems, what in fact you are telling them is to shut up if they are nto going to say the same as you want them to say. Women are nto a bunch amongst many other bunches. They are half or more of Humanity and they are your mothers the mothers of all of us, if that does not mean a thing to you I do not wonder that world is such a mess. You slight the person who makes you alive, where you have had your origin and who has procured your earliest and develop ent and the basis of your existence and then you are overbearing putting women, be they feminists, in their place. Where do you think you are going?
And you have the cheek of accusing feminists of denying reproduction and you yourself is what you do. You do not want reproduction and wombs and womens personality to be acknowledge as such, you want to dump them on a mound with any other kind of unforntunate people... How dare they, women, to pretend that they are something different froim any other disgrace?
Oh, yes, most dfinitively feminism is necessary and the need is inversely proportionate to the intensity of statements to the contrary.
?My God!
Salaam
-
Here is the verse in question
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance) For Allah is Most High, great (above you all). (434)How do I apply it to my situation? I don't have a brother, but sisters. Sure I have a fiance and father. But since I am not married yet I cannot demand him to maintain me. As for father, I don't want him to do it either because I can make money on my own and I am an adult. If I get arrogant how on earth they are going to forsake me in bed? I neither share bed with fiance nor with father. The right of that place belongs to only a wife.
How do we apply it to a girl who has a mother and father is dead? To me, the verse seems to be talking about husband and wife because once again, they are the only who can share bed with each other.
Allah is not anti woman. In one verse, he said men and women are cover of each other. That explains Allah wants both men and women to be protector of each other.
When I say we don't need feminism, I mean the idea of dividing men and women. We are humans first. In my view, if a man is being abusive towards a woman he needs rehab. If he still doesn't behave he must be kicked out. My biggest issue with feminism is that it blames all men for a crime of one man while completely staying away from investigating whether the female victim gave them the correct tale. They promote the generalization that men are wicked and women are damsels in distress.
And I wasn't exactly talking about you. I was talking about the influential feminists. Sorry, I didn't point that out. They are the ones who write books on feminism. They are the ones who get to be interviewed and they don't promote what is healthy for women.
This is the thing that makes speak me ill of feminism. Today's feminism tells that the importance of the reproduction function can be eliminated only if women go around hooking up with random men apparently because those random men are doing it. In copying the bad there is might! They never tell women to practice caution even after knowing that anyone less educated among them may end up having a baby out of wedlock. Also women are more at risk of contacting STD's than men. This is the situation of western countries though. Reproduction function must be held sacred by both men and women. It should not be treated as something to play with.
But in general, we need humanism and not feminism. Just as I said, if a man is abusive he needs rehab. This rehab should make sure that he becomes human and treats his wife like another human. The idea that there exists a separate weak group must be dissolved. But again, some couples marry for the sake of society. They ignore the compatibility rate. As long as they are alive, feminism will keep blaming the men for everything.
Never mind the the translation of 4.34, like most of them, continues to be a real aberration, and in spite that I do like Yusuf Ali, because never mind his default errors, I think he is a good soul and a real respecter of women, but default settings are very hard to circumvent. They are taken fro one translation to the next if the aim are nto precisely those ayas.
At any rate what the aya says is that men are meant to be qawwmun for the women, it does not say that your brother your father or whoever, it incudes all men and all women as such. In fact in welfare systems that is to certain extent what is done. So no need to be related. Remember, it is all the believers, the community that is addressed. the fact thar a woman may be alone is no reason to leave unattended. It falls on all able men of the community to attend to all the women in the community. The same as the orphans, the same as the destitute, the same as the wayfarers. A destitute does not need to be your father or your brother, does he? No. It falls on all the community. There are no husbands, no fathers, no brothers singled out, are there? The formulation, even through such translation is clear. Not mahram, not relatives, not the priest, not the milkaman... It is men as such and women as such.
When a woman has a child, that child is not her property, nor it is the property of the father or the chief, or whoever, it is a member for the community. The whole community benefits of that member, benefits of all its members, born of women, so it is the whole community who must do its DUTY to the women... It is so fair and so clear...
Why do you think God says in aya 4.1 to reverence God and reverence the wombs? To put them some candles in the church? As clearly stated in aya 4.34 -women are the depositories for God of all new lifes. We, all of us, women too, of course, will have to answer for how we reverence God and revence the wombs. And that is ordered by God for our own good. The good of men and women, because if we do not reverence the source we come from, that is, God in the first place, and the Womb, His shelter for new life entrusted to the women, in second place, if we do not reverence that , we cannot pretend that we love and respect ourselves, if we come for something neglectable, then we are neglectable, if we come from something that we make shut up because it is a nuisance, then we will shut up because we are a nuisance. Reverencing wombs for a society is the way to self respect for all its members. And taking care of those depositaries appointed by God is the way back to God of self respecting men. That is what chivalry is about, that is what prophets did. That is what self respecting women should think of themselves and should show for other women, be related or not.
Salaam
-
I think that you could not comprehend what I wrote. Feminism is often aggressive and I suggested a better approach instead of gender-centered on females. Humanism is pro-humanity and not centered on one gender. I am among the men who proclaims a very equal situation between both men and women, but centering the focus on women instead of teaching the right knowledge does only create adversities. Men and women are pretty much so equal so a married couple is more or less counted as the same unit rather than two separate beings, at least on soul level. I am pro-equality when it comes to the situation between men and women, but focusing on one gender at the exclusion of the other does not solve anything, particularly when sarcasm and improper language is used to have a rundown on men. That is oppression from the part of women. -ism's generally cause that, when people separate into different categories.
Women are marginally different than men but through this they complement men, but they are in no wise better overall. Some physical functions work better while other physical functions work better in men.
Besides I suggest that you tone down on unfriendly approaches whenever countered by someone thinking otherwise but yet in an upright manner. That is a friendly suggestion by the name of God.
You can directly reflect upon the term "femin - ISM" and see whether you really find that the kind of ideology is something to hang in the tree. The label is bad right from the word and -ism word.
Bad treatment of women is of humanly concern and not a problem solved by some kind of exclusive separation of women. I dislike the term feminism while I appreciate work to improve the living standard of women around the globe and particularly educate people about what God says about men and women and that women are not lesser beings. In fact I appreciate the work to improve the living standard for all people and not just women.
And if men have trouble dealing with women without rowdy behavior then this is a societal problem where education and moral uplifting is required and not terms like "feminism". These men often have a macho style outwards too which at least I do not like, but not working for the improvement of whole of humanity instead of staring oneself blind on women is not solving things in the long run.
Overall it is a problem of humanity and its morals and gliding away from goodness that is the major problem. It is a cold world.
Besides, if going back to the topic of 434, the passage does not speak of the men vs. women differences whatsoever, nor ways to admonish women for bad behavior like a misogynist interpretation of something from God.
Be of God
-
You invent from the start what you think one is meaning and saying. Just this, your definition of feminism, if you have given one, which you have not, is yours, it does not boind anybody else.
And do not patronize me under the guise of goodness. In fact you are slandering preople, when you say that feminism excludes males. You exclude males and you prohibit that problems encountered by women because of their being owmen should not be taken account of because problems of women should be taken mixed up with other problems. Mathamtically you would get plenty of laughs. I am not going to laugh because funny it is not certainly.
But I am not going to discuss this with you, because it is useless. You do prohibit that certain problems that are scpecific to some people, a lot of people, but never mind, whether it were a few it would still be people, that that cannot be done.
Ok don't do it hourself, but you are not kidding me hiding behind a would be "humanist" position to deny justice to those wrong in a very definite way.
Just to make the point. It is not me who singles out the wombs as to be reverenced, it does nto say reverence the sexual organs of both sexes, no, it does not say that. It says reverence the wombs.
You have ignored a whole lot my message and have concentrated on downbashing feminism. So you are proving that feminism is necessary particularly for men. I sthe deep down lack of self-assurance of some males soi ingrained they just cannot stomach reality?
Because you are playing dirty when you make this a case of females against males nobody is doing that, you are doing it. I am very, very conscious of the value of men who do not grudge women acknowledgement neither of their godgiven abilities nor of their real life experience. You seem to think that women and men concerned with womens and humanity's welfare, -which depends on the kind of conception it has about women- should be restricted to considering only and all dumped together, any suffering or complain as human complain. And you say that there are also women who abuse. Man please, some respect. I am not an idiot. Moral qualities and life experiences are different concepts. You are never going to have the life experience of a woman, nor I the life experience of man. That is right, but you are prohibiting other men that they should attempt to learn and know from them the life experiences of women and considering them as such life experiences of human and not of an abstract humanity. Humanity is not abstract, it is men and women, and it is persons.
And you reveal yourself when you continue making women igual to men, as if men was the title holder of the real humanity and women should aspire to be like men.
No. You are certainly no feminist. I will never give you that compliment. The kind of speach you are putting forward lookds to me like male chauvinism light or soft. The same as wahabis with their sweet speech about women as revered princes or whatever of the home which the same thing they had in Europe a century ago, is machismo soft.
But I insist on the fact that there are men, and not few, who are feminists, so please stop the act of pretending that anybody is attacking males, you are attacking males, exactly those that do not agree with your ideas.
I will ask you a question to show you that problems of females are not the problems of males. How many abortions have you had?
Now, I suppose I will get another sermon with mention of God and all that that I should be a good girl and nor make such a noise. But the problem you created when you attacked feminism right after I spoke about and I did not condemned it which it seems I am supposed to do. If I am going to be a good girl. So you want to condemn whatever in whatever terms but you do not one someone to contradict you, right? We all want that many times, but we are not supposed to get most of the time.
Salaam
-
Feminism is often aggressive and I suggested a better approach instead of gender-centered on females.
I have examples of this....See below
http//www.tampabay.com/resources/images/dti/rendered/2011/09/tbw_slutwalk091611b_191364a_8col.jpg
Slut walk took place around the world after a Candadian cop said "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized". Unfortunate truth
http//media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/99/34/87/993487c2ae95b8c7e4322cc806f0146b.jpgAt any rate what the aya says is that men are meant to be qawwmun for the women, it does not say that your brother your father or whoever, it incudes all men and all women as such.
I don't think neither of us will like extra attention from community males we don't know. The kind of community you are talking about is a village where people know one another. In city like places, a male stranger even the one who lives next door should not be showing extra interest in helping out his neighbor females unless they ask for it. But once again, the bed concept is null here. We don't share bed with community males.
When a woman has a child, that child is not her property, nor it is the property of the father or the chief, or whoever, it is a member for the community. The whole community benefits of that member, benefits of all its members, born of women, so it is the whole community who must do its DUTY to the women... It is so fair and so clear...
True and it is easily seen in action here in US. We pay tax. Government gives a portion of it to single moms. The payment is $1000 per month. They are also allowed to deliver their kids for free in public hospitals. If the father of the baby is caught he is forced to pay child support. When he fails to do it he is taken to jail which to all of us looks like an excellent justice. But unfortunately, it has given birth to business. Women here now give birth because it brings free income. They don't want the fathers to stay because that means killing the free monthly child support income of $3,000. And if two more men can be trapped to become fathers of two more babies, the income will soar. Result We are the number single mom/teen pregnancy country in the world.
Women are not damsels in distress after all! We had a single mom tenant. Despite the fact that she told us that she was poor, we saw her drive Acura, the car that requires premium gas and its maintenance is heavily expensive. She has 4 kids from different fathers and now her daughters are following her footsteps. So cycle will continue.
There is no benefit in thinking that all men are wicked. Honestly speaking, they tend to be dumber. Our law gives priority to women over men because in the past US was very unfair towards them. The government is trying to be apologetic by not questioning the women at present. Result of this is right before our eyes.
As for countries where women are considered second class citizens, men cannot be fully blamed unless they are living separate from parents and have way too much ego. Think about a place like India where they have joint family. If you interview some tortured wives who come from that kind of household you will hear that it was the sister or mother of their husband who was responsible for the atrocity.
-
So, reel, you disagree with that the Qur'an says, that is your right.
But, turn it as you may and like it or not like it, that is how men are to be qawwmun Spending from their wealth. It does not say pestering women, it does not say ordergin them around, it does not say living with them, it does not say putting conditions on them it does nto say that. They are to be qawwamun spending from their welth. That is it. We are talking about 4.34 and it says what it says.
Men, not relatives, men in general, are qawwamun for women -all women, women in general, not wives, not slaves, not bosses- by spending of their wealth. You don't want any money or wealth from them or you do not need it, it does not matter, the Qur'an still says so. And many women, virtuous women, and men, virtuous men, when they have money they can spare, they use it for good purposes, like promoting learning, protecting the unprotected, helping those in distress, etc.
Obviously the Qur'an is really hard to stomach for many people. That is nothing new and explains very well, even now, even in this forum, why it has been twisted to unrecognition through interpretations, mistranslation and hiding (kufr) of its clear meanings where those meanings are really perfectly plain.
Nothing new.
Salaam
-
Peace,
Men, not relatives, men in general, are qawwamun for women -all women, women in general, not wives, not slaves, not bosses- by spending of their wealth.
Well if you are a "qawwamun" you are mindful of them, like giving them the right attention. Of course now that women have so much to say they abuse the same kind of misconception of the book called Qur'an to pressure men instead, just taking the same kind of unjust stance as the men traditionally has when they have a chance due to greed. I have seen that kind of oppression from women towards men in countries like Iran as I have been a first-hand witness, and many men live with that because they think that is the way God speaks, which would be good if it really was the way God spoke. Like everything else in Qur'an it is dragged with the problem of materializing everything it says and so it the interpretation of wealth in material terms here.
However, I already said men and women are equal but only with different qualities optimized for different activities and both should be appreciated for what they do and one activity not regarded as less because it is that gender doing it. I have seen many jobs dominated by women being regarded as less.
It is the sectarian dogma, globally, also from the remnants of the Christian sects and their bad side of the values of what the Bible and the ancestors taught about women also in the Western cultures which has shaped the image of women as helpless bimbos needing to be provided for and caused women often to be regarded as objects to be beheld rather than put into use. Still God created the wo-man to be a companion to the man and not a slave or second-hand citizen but of the same worth and responsibility.
But in truth women cannot just be lazy people sitting on their buttocks expecting the stash without any kind of equality and thinking that God gave them this right. I would not be a man putting up with that nonsense. Any person, man or woman, who could not provide for themselves even while trying should be helped and it is not for one to the other to expect provision out of the blue. Verily there is a different scenario if the woman becomes with child and that is also a service which is worth something and the care-taking of the children is like any other service and could allegorically be counted as an employment and the husband in the case must be seeing his responsibility.
I am not for gender apartheid and I am not for feminism, and if I have to use the -ism suffix on a word I would say I am for humanism. Most kind of pride is bad and women should instead of looking for excessive pride make sure that the education for their sons and daughters taught morals and the right approach to life so that extremist movements such as feminism would not have to be out there.
It does not say pestering women
Yes. Verily it does say not. Pestering them would be against the decree and is pretty much equal to oppression and injustice. The rule applies to everything in existence and also your companion in life.
it does not say ordergin them around
Yes. It does say not. But the definition of "ordering them around" is circumstantial as some women may wish to see the husband as a kind of leader for them, or the couple may wish to work together in unity being as one and thus being the leader for each other. Also I have seen men being slaves to oppressive women and, while I do think that they should do something about it, I pity them.
Obviously the Qur'an is really hard to stomach for many people. That is nothing new and explains very well, even now, even in this forum, why it has been twisted to unrecognition through interpretations, mistranslation and hiding (kufr) of its clear meanings where those meanings are really perfectly plain.
Indeed it is hard for people. They cannot swallow that it does not teach all that religious mumbo-jumbo and gender apartheid but teaches equitable love and goodness where the only difference is the physical qualities and features.
You don't want any money or wealth from them or you do not need it, it does not matter, the Qur'an still says so.
Yes, and I would not want to pay for a disrespectful and evil woman either, and I would not do so because some people say Qur'an says so because it does not.
And many women, virtuous women, and men, virtuous men, when they have money they can spare, they use it for good purposes, like promoting learning, protecting the unprotected, helping those in distress, etc.
Yes. And Qur'an rarely makes any difference in the usage of word for neither man or woman and there should be as little separation between the two in responsibility as possible. And even if it makes any difference it highlights both men and women in conjunction with each other, probably to make clear that it includes absolutely everyone. And a man and a woman being bonded may as well be regarded as one and Qur'an often speaks of family rather than individual. It teaches the approach as a collective rather than individualism. Only the people who are not upright make a separation between them and the collective. This is also why I dislike the modernist movement of feminism because focusing on one function usually leads to something not good and a group of feminists could be regarded as a sect, if you mind me saying it, but I suppose it only angers you further. You can see their religious rituals in the street like in the previous picture from another user, giving disrespect to God through arrogance just to show provocation when a police officer expressed some phrase which may be understandable even if "slut" is not the prettiest term out there.
The women, who are feminists, want to get or take themselves the right to expose their bodies to the public, which they should be allowed to, but it does not say it is upright and when confronted they only have fuel shoveled into their fire and exaggerate their provocation completely oblivious of the fact why they do it or why they have any need to do it except they do it in a kind of perceived protest towards men or the group which does not call themselves "feminist". It is all about nationalism and the human fallacy of dividing into sects just in a different flavor, and the group uses various means to differentiate themselves from others particularly showing signs of arrogance and pride, and the need to enhance their integrity as a group by taking their perceived goals to extremist levels, which is why the creation of the "sect" in the first place is delusive to the portrayed aim to solve the issue in society.
Other people, random men usually, express their thoughts on modesty and that these women scream with their bodies and may comment and those comments are met by mockery and sarcasm and portraying them as criminals for having those thoughts despite that they would actually not be bad. There is also a major rift between the sect of feminism where many work against sexism in society and then some part of them do things like in the picture below, and the part of feminism that works against the sexualization of women I can actually agree with to some extent even if I still reject the label. But a big part of the feminist movement is just showing a big ego and such divisions just lead to an exaggeration of the cause and they usually have tunnel-vision, narrowing their perspective rather than working for the wide improvement of society. The oppression of women is a matter of education rather than making women feeling special in any way and that a better societal picture needs to be drawn up with renewed morals and standards, and where men and women know their ways and use them for good things rather than the bad.
On a bottom line I would say I do not disagree with feminism's ulterior goal as per http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism, but I dislike the categorization and in some cases it goes too far and causes aggression and the opposite scenario when people fall to the trap as mentioned above. I still see that education and harmonization and the improvement of the society's morals and standards is the first choice of actions in this work. And if people got the right version of what God said then the women really would escape the second-class citizenship stamp. But we can say that it is the same scenario as in "religion" if "Islam" turns into a label... or if it remains an abstract definition. This is the same reason I would rather work to improve the condition for females without expressing the labelization as feminist and rather that by expressing that we are all equal, or otherwise feminism turns into a sect which we already see the consequences of with opposite gender apartheid and stuff. Feminism already have a negative image in many people who would otherwise agree with the equivalence between genders. It is also why as a labeled category you build up the extremism. Too much of something in either direction except balanced is never good.
They are to be qawwamun spending from their welth. That is it. We are talking about 4.34 and it says what it says.
Yes. It says what it says, but it depends on how you perceive it to say. I have an early experimental translation based on what I know of the misconceptions of the Arabic language.
Individuals mindful on the family because preferred Allah some of them on others and because spend of ones be (to) their "wealth", (make) the upright (women) dutiful (women) follow (women) to the unknown because follow Allah and who you think excel instruct them and have them join in the allegiance and put them forth then if they are obedient have not (be) against them a reason. 434 MoF edition.
My understanding is still a work in progress, but I still trust this early perception of the passage more than the traditional nonsense. I still work on the affixes of the Arabic language to confirm that it really speaks of women when it traditionally claims to speak of women, but I have kept women in meaning where I still am uncertain, although I have doubts regarding that.
The traditional interpretation teaches gender apartheid right from the very interpretation of it. Who could even put up with the idiocy of the traditional interpretation except deluded sectarian people who just follow an interpretation blindly through thousands of years. I have no more obligation to provide for a woman than a woman has for me. It is a strange expression from a proclaimed feminist. Perhaps I should become a maleist now protesting?
A man provides for the sake of humanity and not for the egotistical woman in a family expecting provisions out of an old tradition even if the upright man provides for her too being his companion in life as well as any potential offspring because they are a production of the couple in unity. God created the male and female and together they are as one body and feeding the woman is like feeding himself and such should the love be expressed and not loving the woman is like not loving himself and beating her is like beating himself. And the same thing goes for the woman too if she does good like the man.
Be of God
-
I cannot take the words of Quran in subjective manner. So far what I have seen is that every rule Allah has come up with contains logic.
If we take your interpretation of the verse into account then it looks like this
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means.
Meaning All men are expected to spend money on all women regardless of whether they know them or not.
Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard.
Meaning If we ignore what is in the bracket we learn that righteous women are those who are obedient to those men who give them financial assistance and even guard their property when they are absent.
As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly);
Meaning So when the finance giving task starts these men automatically get the right to sleep with these women. In case of arrogance, these women must be punished by men by making sure that they no more sleeping around takes place. And when this does not work, men should leave them.
This does not sound very feminist and equal power of distribution to me. It looks more like money in exchange for bed. I thought Allah was very much against the idea of sleeping outside marriage.
-
peace MofF,
I have an early experimental translation based on what I know of the misconceptions of the Arabic language.
Individuals mindful on the family because preferred Allah some of them on others and because spend of ones be (to) their "wealth", (make) the upright (women) dutiful (women) follow (women) to the unknown because follow Allah and who you think excel instruct them and have them join in the allegiance and put them forth then if they are obedient have not (be) against them a reason. 434 MoF edition.
My understanding is still a work in progress...
In my view, any translation that does not take into account Quranic cross-reference of word usage is a waste of time. Can you clarify if you have taken such cross-reference into account?
-
reel, no obedience to men is inthe aya at all.
The translation about men being qawwamun is right, further the whole translaiton is a mess, women really are women, but if you translate canitaat as obediente, of course it is obedient to Good, not to husbuands, again there are no husbands in the aya and no absent person. What there is is the ghaib which God guards and entrust women to guard, it is something exclusive of women, and if we live in this world it is not difficult to see what it is, that only women can guard and not men and God guards and which explain there particularly that women are indeed qanitaat, devout to God or as some translate obedient to God.
As to spending on somebody youd don't know, we do it all the time when we pay taxes. And something in that sense I already mentionned.
this you say
Meaning If we ignore what is in the bracket we learn that righteous women are those who are obedient to those men who give them financial assistance and even guard their property when they are absent.Is not a translation, but an invention. There is no husband, there is no absent, there is no property and there is no obedience, but devotion to God.
The last part, I have pain the keys of writing that not hubsbands are being addressed bu the community of believers is being address. Certainly the community of believers is not going to sleep with a anybody.
This last part is a mess again because arbitrarily you make men into those addressed, but they are not addressed, it is the community of believers that is addressed and that is supposed to look into the question of women of whom nushuz is feared or suspected. They cannot be punished, least of all by any particular man, because nobody is punished on acount of somebody else fear they may do something, so there is no punishment there. This last part of the aya, I think and it seems very logical may refer to what is pointed at in aya 4.15 which again it is being translated as punishment but obviously it cannot be punishment. And the sleeping with you must have dreamed it, it is so preposterous, dirty and isgusting. I just can fathom how anybody can come to such filthy ideas.
Again, in case it has been forgotten, women, because they are the only ones able to do so because God gave us the necessary physiology, take on the heavy task of reproduction, save for may by a few minutes that are shared, and which in themselves are the pleasant part of the whole thing. Men to not have that burden on them, but nonetheless the benefit fully of the reproductive work of women, because of that, which are the reciprocal advantages which are spoken of in the aya whhen it says that God has favoured the ones in respect of the others, So for that reason, God says that men are qawwamun by spending from their wealth. The whole human race profits from the reproduction, but only a part of it works physiollogically on it. It is a mater of justice and regtribution of work, nor for sleeping, if it was for sleeping women should also pay.
But reproduction is the prime task of any species. We are a species. So if what is being statuted by those who reject this aya is that some people should take advantage of others, God does not agree with it.
But of course any reason or good thought can always be twisted and turned into sewer.
Salaam
Salaam
