4:34
-
Salam everyone...
This is Wakas's explanation of the word "qawwamuna" in 434"supporters/maintainers" (Arabic qawwamoon, root Qaf-Waw-Miim) occurs in the same form in
4135 (stand / stand up / support / maintain with justice as witnesses to God)
58 (stand / stand up / support / maintain for/to God as witnesses with justice).M. Asad The expression qawwam is an intensive form of qa'im ("one who is responsible for" or "takes care of" a thing or a person). Thus, qama ala l-mar'ah signifies "he undertook the maintenance of the woman" or "he maintained her" (see Lane's Lexicon, Volume 8, p2995). The form qa'im can be found in 45 and 597.
It should be noted that the occurrences of 4135, 58 and 45, 597 cancel out some male-centric translations, such as "charge of" (M. Pickthal), "managers of" (Arberry, Hilali/Khan/Saheeh), "superior to" (Rodwell) which simply do not fit once cross referenced. It refers to a wider duty of care/responsibility, such as providing for the family/household which is discussed in several verses , and is the default role/duty for men, but not the only role as it can depend on situation. Contrast this to The Quran never mentioning managing one's wife or being in charge of her and the correct meaning becomes obvious. In fact, there is not one example of God addressing the husband/wife relationship in this manner, e.g. all examples involving decisions between marriage partners are in the reciprocal Arabic word form, e.g. "taraadaa" , "tashaawar" , which means they are mutual. If society is to be governed by mutual consultation , then naturally this principle should apply to the most basic social unit, the family, and done with what is maruf (honourable, known/recognised as good, befitting, fairness, kindness), see 2231, 419.
If one wishes to refer to Traditional Ahadith/narrations, the meaning of maintenance/support for this word is also present, e.g. the use of "taqumu AAalayhinna" (look after them) in Bukhari volume 3, book 34, number 310.
Lastly, the actual verse of 434 clarifies/limits the scope of meaning of "qawwamoon" to maintenance, i.e. because of God bestowing more on some of them than on others and with what they spent (perfect tense, i.e. an action done/completed) of their money. To state the obvious, without spending on someone, a person cannot be regarded as a supporter/maintainer of them, whether male or female.However, it is notable that in Lane's Lexicon, the primary meaning of the word is to "manage," or "govern," not to support. The word has several possible meanings, some of which appear to be mildly contradictory. For instance, it can mean to be "in charge of," and I've heard that it can also mean to be a "custodian" or even to be "in service of" someone.
I have heard that the preposition after the word "qawwamuna" can affect its meaning, and that the primary meaning of "qawwamuna ala" is to take care of/provide for someone or something. Does anyone know how accurate this is?
I'm a bit confused in this area, as no other verse of the Quran says men are in any way in charge of/the managers of women. Marital decisions are always made through "mutual consultation." Also, verse 971 says BOTH men and women are supposed to guide one another.
434 seems very sudden to me, and in appears in slight contradiction with other Quranic verses. And then there is the last clause "If they obey/comply with you..." This is very one-sided and I have never understood why the Quran appears to subjugate women here but is pretty much totally egalitarian everywhere else.
So which is the right meaning of "qawwamuna"? It can mean "in charge of" OR "support of." It can mean to stand up for someone or something, or to stand over/above them. It's all so...contradictory. As Wakas alludes to, men are financially responsible for their wives, and it seems that the word would denote this in the context of the verse. However, it CAN still mean "in charge of."
Any ideas?
-
mari12 may I ask you if you know some Arabic?
It is a worthy effort you have put up and you go into questions beyond the usual fare. It is a sound approach.
The preposition 3alaa in this case, as reflected in Asad's translation is one of completeness, as he says "shall take full care, and it includes, as is explicitly stated in Qur'an, economic care.
I am sending you a private message on this.
Salaam
-
Salam,
As Huruf says, the preposition seems not to change anything but the level of the caring / protection. I think the root is found with ?ala only here and in 1333 (but participle in that case). So 1333 is saying, in final analysis, that only God is the qaimun over every soul. Thus, qawwamuna understood as "guardians over" or something similar in 434 would be clearly a contradiction of 1333 and gender equiality expressed in other verses
3195 (...) I do not waste the work of any worker from among you, whether male or female, you are all as each other.
So 434 is clearly using qawwamuna refering to 2228, and only and exclusively to its limitations. Any other meaning would contradict basic quranic principles.
2228 And those divorced shall wait for three menstruation periods; and it is not permissible for them to conceal what God has created in their wombs, if they believe in God and the Last Day. And their husbands have a greater right to return them in this, if they wish to reconcile. And for them are rights similar to those owed by them. And the men will have a degree over them. And God is Noble, Wise.
That's imo peace
-
The root q-w-m does not lend itself to something over something like somethign hyrrvhical, rather the opposite. q-w-m is something thst stands and support, like a pillar. The function of a pillar is to sustain and support something which supports the weight of something else. Only the "male is god" mentality could ome up with such subversion of languge, of which by the way, this is nto the only example. 3ala is not over or atop something. 3la has many usages some of them gan go even over Allah. What is atop of Allah. It is fraudulent to take one aspect of somethin and appy i interestedly on something regrdless of everyting ele an them use it as a dogma.
The main mening is qawwamun as an intensive of somethign that supportsand sustains. Only sick minds deluded by ower thirst can bring up such nonsense out of this root s having authority.
If we think that aya 4.1 orders us to reerence the wombs, whe whole thing is absolutely preposterous.
Thank God, almost nobody takes seriously anymre this "have authoriity". Most muslim males, thnkfully, are not in such peitifyl state of mind. Also not to forget tht many of the traslations hare handed down from a era in which in the West the marital authority was something uncontested and as true as breathing, so the European mentlity is reflected in the translations and also in the colonial mind which was imposed on many coloniews of the west in the last centuries.
Salaam
-
peace mari12,
Classical Arabic dictionaries (CAD) are useful but the criterion is Quran, e.g. in CAD you may find various meanings of a word, X, Y, Z etc. However, its usage in Quran will help the reader narrow down the choices.
In this case we can simply look at the occurrences and slot in the various options and see which works best. Please slot in the options and show us your results here.
-
Salam everyone, thank you for your responses I don't speak Arabic but have studied the Quran a great deal.
I didn't realize 1333 also uses a word based on qawwamuna. I thought there were only 4 occurrences of words with root q-m. I'll have to check that again.
I agree with all of you, with the idea that translating qawwamuna as signifying authority basically violates every other verse in the Quran. All of its verses are egalitarian and indicate gender equality. It's notable that in Lane's Lexicon, he translates the word as protector/maintainer but when it comes to 434, he translates it as "men are the governors of women." This seems like he's inserting his own biases into the text.
I will write more on this later. Thank you everyone
-
OH MY GOD. GUYS. WAKAS. EVERYONE.
Read verse 429. It is addressed to all believers--"Oh ye who believe."
Read down to 434. Does the address change? No! 434 is STILL addressed to believers. All believers. It speaks of men and women, not just husbands and wives. It speaks, in general, of women, and it says that if women are not doing their duty, then "you" are supposed to speak to them, leave them in their sleeping-places, and cite them.
It follows that "you" in 434 refers to ALL BELIEVERS, men and women.
This is further supported by 435, which continues "and if YOU fear a breach between two of them (husband and wife), then appoint arbitrators..."
YOU refers to the believers at large.
I have always wondered why 434 speaks of men and women in general, and not husbands and wives, or men and women who are related. This would explain it.
What do you think?
This changes the meaning of the verse COMPLETELY. Sorry for the caps, I'm sooo excited...XDDD
-
Salaaaam peace
OH MY GOD. GUYS. WAKAS. EVERYONE.
Read verse 429. It is addressed to all believers--"Oh ye who believe."
Read down to 434. Does the address change? No! 434 is STILL addressed to believers. All believers. It speaks of men and women, not just husbands and wives. It speaks, in general, of women, and it says that if women are not doing their duty, then "you" are supposed to speak to them, leave them in their sleeping-places, and cite them.
But in the case these men/ women are something else than relatives or your husband, I am afraid of a women's police all around police Isnt it like everybody has the right to make reprimands to a woman.
This is further supported by 435, which continues "and if YOU fear a breach between two of them (husband and wife), then appoint arbitrators..."
YOU refers to the believers at large.I don't see that clear this "both of them" being a change of subject. It would be more precise. I mean something like "between two from those among/of you" or something, or it would use the word for spouses... Also, imo, it would not only speak about women, but the same could be applied for men, don't you think?
- If 434 is talking about men in general and women in general and not only relatives/husband, I don't see clearly how to interpret it in relation with
432 And do not envy that which God has graced some of you over others with. For the men is a portion of what they earned, and for the women is a portion of what they earned.
and the inheritance rules explained a bit later, because 434 says "the men are to support the women with what God has bestowed upon them over one another and for what they spend of their money"
So women only earn but never expend in all spheres of life?It would be partial and unjust towards men, and they have their rights too I must admit rotfl
- Also even the " and if (wa- in) you fear a permanent rift" in 435 makes me think it is talking about another level of something expounded before.
I shall keep re reading... abd drink more coffee because today i don't seem to understand not even how much is 2+2 waiting for an expanding on from you peace
-
OH MY GOD. GUYS. WAKAS. EVERYONE.
Read verse 429. It is addressed to all believers--"Oh ye who believe."
Read down to 434. Does the address change? No! 434 is STILL addressed to believers. All believers. It speaks of men and women, not just husbands and wives. It speaks, in general, of women, and it says that if women are not doing their duty, then "you" are supposed to speak to them, leave them in their sleeping-places, and cite them.
It follows that "you" in 434 refers to ALL BELIEVERS, men and women.
This is further supported by 435, which continues "and if YOU fear a breach between two of them (husband and wife), then appoint arbitrators..."
YOU refers to the believers at large.
I have always wondered why 434 speaks of men and women in general, and not husbands and wives, or men and women who are related. This would explain it.
What do you think?
This changes the meaning of the verse COMPLETELY. Sorry for the caps, I'm sooo excited...XDDD
That is right, mari12,
We shoud not forget tht all these yas in 4 address social questions, social solidarity and decency. No believer can go through life quietely while around him people are mistreated or hungry or humilliated... All believers are responsible for arbitrating the necessary for a society that gives a good deal to its members.
This aya also should not be taken in isolation from other ayas. Obviously nobody, certainly not the qur'an, forbids anybody, not certainly any woman, to spend her money as she sees fit. She is part of the believers. As to policing her, of course not. Just read the nearly thirty first ayas of An-Nur. The Qur'an does not contemplate or countenance that anybody is policed and particularly that any woman is policed. We have the example of Maryam, what is she told in front of those who would question her about the origin of her son? Do'nt say a word, she is instructed by God. No, no policing whatsoever for women in the qur'an, social solidrity is not policing but a duty and if we bear in mind tht women usually have children with them, even more so.
And Why shuld men be told to spend on women? Because obviously they cannot be told to become pregnant, deliver or suckle, that is why. They do not bear any burden in reproduction which is the first task of any speciies, women on the other hand have their whole lives mortgaged on account of reproduction, it is only just and equitative that men should balance that with their honest efforts. I am surprised that that surprises anybody. We are quick to jump when we think that there are male chauvinist attitudes, and then we get upset that God does not countenance it and provides for it no to be part of a believer's behaviour like in this aya? Real men do not question this, In fact they tke it up as something that gives them dignity and self-respect, and what they think of thse who do not act by this is that they are worthless people, pimps.
The last part of 4.34 should be matched, amongst other that match, with 4.15, where we are told collect women who do the street in the homes. That is the way to redress a wrong. In 4.34 we are given the way to prevent a wrong. Again a social service for needy persons, in this case women, who may feel forced to betray their sacred trust as stated in
"And the righteous women are the truly devout ones who guard what God has guarded."
Social solidarity is not there to punish ut to remedy and to prevent. 4.15, remedy, 4.34 prevent. and all believers are entrusted with that job.
Salaam
Salaam
-
Call me "tonta", Huruf, but i still don't see it beyond family issues (not only marriagr issues) taking into account the ayas before and after....
It is not a familiy question. It is a eneral question. For instance a woman may be helpless econocmically, she can tke to do the street or similar. If we know of it, should we just ignore it? Think of another woman without any means and burdened with child or children. The only issue open to her immiately may be doing the street. Should we ignore it?
No, I am not calling you tonta, just subjected to the same narrow gap for understanding Qur'an that we have been fed for as long as we can remember. We are mishapped to certin understaning routines and it is not from one day to the next that we are going to get out of them. Read again my previous message, I corrected it a little.
Prostitution is over the place in all societies, more in sme than in others, bur there it is. Do you really think that the Qur'an does not spend a word on it? But it presents it the way it should not as a police matter but as a social, solidarity matter, because it is the needy women women who provide the "manpower", but it is the whole society that rottens itself with such social disease of having women sold as meat.
You may not see it, but the fact is that even if you do not see you do not hve an argument to oppose
All the believers are addressed and all the believers are told to do something about those women for whom they fear, and it is not punishment because no punishment is mentionned and because this whole series of ayas is not about punishments but about social action. Couples get instructions in so many other ayas.
Salaam
-
I got your point perfectly, I just can not fit it in 434.
It is not a familiy question. It is a eneral question. For instance a woman may be helpless econocmically, she can tke to do the street or similar. If we know of it, should we just ignore it? Think of another woman without any means and burdened with child or children. The only issue open to her immiately may be doing the street. Should we ignore it?
Prostitution is only one of the ways, there are a lot, and a righteous woman would not see it as a solution. in this cases Quran has say a lot, like helping financially other family members and orphans. and in those cases women are called to help too, it is a duty for believing men and women. Only men are to help the women without resources?
Prostitution is over the place in all societies, more in sme than in others, bur there it is. Do you really think that the Qur'an does not spend a word on it? But it presents it the way it should not as a police matter but as a social, solidarity matter, because it is the needy women women who provide the "manpower", but it is the whole society that rottens itself with such social disease of having women sold as meat.
Be sold as meat is not only found in prostitution as per se...
You may not see it, but the fact is that even if you do not see you do not hve an argument to oppose
All the believers are addressed and all the believers are told to do something about those women for whom they fear, and it is not punishment because no punishment is mentionned and because this whole series of ayas is not about punishments but about social action. Couples get instructions in so many other ayas.
All believers are addressed, of course, but the subject is not all believers. Not it 434, sister
The men (rijalu) (arent women too if it is about social care?) are to support the women with what God has bestowed upon them over one another and for what they spend of their money (so where does women earnings explained in the ayat before go? We keep it under the pillow? ).
So, only men take care of women without resources while a woman can earn her own money but she is not "obligued" to help other sisters in need just as another equal (also in duties) member os society?
That is the only reason why I don't see prostitution here. 415 does talk about prostitution, but 415 and 434, imo, are not talking about the same. Look at the next ayat 435.
As I told you, not that I do not get your point, and you know me well to know that I believe Quran is protecting women all the time, but i don't see prostitution and social care in 434.
Imo 415 talks about social care of needed women, then it comes on why prostitution or women in need should not be a solution (because they have their inheritance right and it has to be respected). There is where the subject turns to family issues and prostitution is left behind in 415. Then in 434 it starts to do with family issues. also the word used there is nushuzan while in 415 it is fashihat. And it makes sense with the next ayat 435.
Otherwise only men are responsible for social care (in all senses psicological, financial, etc.) ?
-
I got your point perfectly, I just can not fit it in 434.
Prostitution is only one of the ways, there are a lot, and a righteous woman would not see it as a solution. in this cases Quran has say a lot, like helping financially other family members and orphans. and in those cases women are called to help too, it is a duty for believing men and women. Only men are to help the women without resources?
Be sold as meat is not only found in prostitution as per se...
All believers are addressed, of course, but the subject is not all believers. Not it 434, sister
The men (rijalu) (arent women too if it is about social care?) are to support the women with what God has bestowed upon them over one another and for what they spend of their money (so where does women earnings explained in the ayat before go? We keep it under the pillow? ).
So, only men take care of women without resources while a woman can earn her own money but she is not "obligued" to help other sisters in need just as another equal (also in duties) member os society?
That is the only reason why I don't see prostitution here. 415 does talk about prostitution, but 415 and 434, imo, are not talking about the same. Look at the next ayat 435.
As I told you, not that I do not get your point, and you know me well to know that I believe Quran is protecting women all the time, but i don't see prostitution and social care in 434.
Imo 415 talks about social care of needed women, then it comes on why prostitution or women in need should not be a solution (because they have their inheritance right and it has to be respected). There is where the subject turns to family issues and prostitution is left behind in 415. Then in 434 it starts to do with family issues. also the word used there is nushuzan while in 415 it is fashihat. And it makes sense with the next ayat 435.
Otherwise only men are responsible for social care (in all senses psicological, financial, etc.) ?
Your say
So, only men take care of women without resources while a woman can earn her own money but she is not "obligued" to help other sisters in need just as another equal (also in duties) member os society?
How on earth do you come up with that? The believers are all, men, women, children? they all must attend to all social needs.
I think you have not read what I wrote, but what you thought I should have written. Nothing in your answer responds to anything I have said.
But on the other hand you seem to want to negate that God indeed, and it is clearly stated, makes the duty of men AS SUCH to look after women. I am not inventing something. It is there black on white. And the reason is obvious. They should do that, and women, AS SUCH, when they are virtuous, guard what God guarded. The only thing women AS SUCH guard and that men AS SUCH do not guard, is the new life.
And this I have already stated clearly, so I do not see why you harp on things that you conjecture as if I had said them and I have not said or hinted. I think it is quite clear from all the Qur?an that all believers are bound to contribute to everybody?s welfare. Why do you turn anything that may be provided for the good or women or for the help of some women into something that is taken away from others? It is preoposterous.
Nushuz precisely, as can be deduced from this aya 4.34 and the other ocassion where it occurs, is the change in behaviour from decency to indecency, that is, fahisa. Somebody fears that somebody else may turn to it. Therefore, again, in 4.15, it is something that is occuring and in 4.34 it is something that it is feared that it might occur. If in 4.34 it explains what virtuous women do and then, after that, the thing about the nushuz is stated, what is it then?
No matter what 4.35 says you cannot use it to undo what 4.34 says. No reason why. 4.34, says what it has to say and 4.35 says what it has to say. No need to confuse it all nor apply the one to change the other. If we did that with every aya and the following one, we would not be able to read the Qur?an.
An as has been repeatedly said, the adressee en 4.35, are also the believers. Not husbands, not a couple, not a husband, not a wife, but the believers. The problem may be of a couple but the ones addressed to redress it are the believers. Of course -I state this just in case it is objected that I say that neither the couple or anybdy else should do nthing-, the fact that the believers are also required to intervene for couples if needed, does not preclude that the couple itself or other interested persons do something if it is need and they can. Just in case I state it, although I would have taken it for granted, but such as things are, I might be misunderstood. So 4.35 deals with that.
In 4.34 we are not dealing with a problem of anybody in particular but we are dealing with a general injunction for all believers regarding the particular functions of men AS SUCH and women AS SUCH, and then, with the pitfall for those women who might have problems with their lifes to be virtuous AS SUCH women.
So, yes, 3.34 is 4.34 and 4.35 is 4.35. No need of 4.35 being 4.34, nor of 4.34, being 4.35.
You say
?Prostitution is only one of the ways, there are a lot, and a righteous woman would not see it as a solution. ?Really? Prostitution is not a solution? How could it not have occurred to me before? You have just discovered gunpodwer.
Obviously it is not a solution, who has said it is? But on the other hand it may be the only means of sustenance that those women can really access, and I cannot understand the shock since this has been hapnenning all over tthe place all over time. And ?surprise! that is precisely why the believers, to whom the aya is addressed, are called to intervene and prevent that those women out of need might harm themselves.
It all makes sense, and I really do not see what you are hinting at, virginia.
Have I said anywhere that in those ayas it can only mean prostitution? No, I have not said, that. Anything that matches. If it fits wear it. But what is clear is that it does fit prostitution like a glove, whether other things fit or not.
And where do you see there in 4.34 the family? The family as part of the general is comprised but those are general injunctions not limited to any particular sector of society or condition of the person.
Women, like males are individuals. They may or they may not have a family or be considered as individuals or as family members. Men are considered so aren't they? Why is it such a trauma to imagine that women are individuals independently of whether they have or not have a family?
Salaam
-
sun sun
Your say
How on earth do you come up with that? The believers are all, men, women, children? they all must attend to all social needs.
I think you have not read what I wrote, but what you thought I should have written. Nothing in your answer responds to anything I have said.
Or maybe you did not explain yourself well
But on the other hand you seem to want to negate that God indeed, and it is clearly stated, makes the duty of men AS SUCH to look after women. I am not inventing something. It is there black on white. And the reason is obvious. They should do that, and women, AS SUCH, when they are virtuous, guard what God guarded. The only thing women AS SUCH guard and that men AS SUCH do not guard, is the new life.
There is not even a "wa" for a simple yuxtaposition, where is the "as such"? (Note i apologized later for this, there is a "fa"
And this I have already stated clearly, so I do not see why you harp on things that you conjecture as if I had said them and I have not said or hinted.
I really dont get this defensive attack. I was saying i dont get your point because it leads me to that conclusion, I also always suppose first that i might be wrong and i am always opened to a better explanation.
I thin it is quite clear from all the Qur?an that all believers are bound to contribute to everybody?s welfare. Why do you turn anything that may be provided for the good or women or for the help of some women into something that is taken away from others? It is preoposterous.
When did i say that?
I think it is you the one who did not read my post...Nushuz precisely, as can be deduced from this aya 4.34 and the other ocassion where it occurs, is the change in behaviour from decency to indecency, that is, fahisa. Somebody fears that somebody else may turn to it. Therefore, again, in 4.15, it is something that is occuring and in 4.34 it is something that it is feared that it might occur. If in 4.34 it explains what virtuous women do and then, after that, the thing about the nushuz is stated, what is it then?
And hiw do you relate it to the rest of the aya and the next verse and the verses between 415 and 434?
No matter what 4.35 says you cannot use it to undo what 4.34 says.
o
Excuse me but 435 uses pronouns referring to 434 so of course it has something to do.
No reason why. 4.34, says what it has to say and 4.35 says what it has to say. No need to confuse it all nor apply the one to change the other. If we did that with every aya and the following one, we would not be able to read the Qur?an.
Then where do the pronouns in 435 come from? Why to take them from before and not to start a new matter?
An as has been repeatedly said, the adressee en 4.35, are also the believers. Not husbands, not a couple, not a husband, not a wife, but the believers. The problem may be of a couple but the ones addressed to redress it are the believers. Of course -I state this just in case it is objected that I say that neither the couple or anybdy else should do nthing-, the fact that the believers are also required to intervene for couples if needed, does not preclude that the couple itself or other interested persons do something if it is need and they can. Just in case I state it, although I would have taken it for granted, but such as things are, I might be misunderstood. So 4.35 deals with that.
But of course everybody is addresed! That is not the point, the point is the matter it refers to. You say it is social care And i say it is family issues. I tried to explain the problems i find in your understanding, that is all, you could just explain my objections and there is no need to accuse me about hinting something or whatever
In 4.34 we are not dealing with a problem of anybody in particular but we are dealing with a general injunction for all believers regarding the particular functions of men AS SUCH and women AS SUCH, and then, with the pitfall for those women who might have problems with their lifes to be virtuous AS SUCH women.
For me it does not deal with it and it says not that.
So, yes, 3.34 is 4.34 and 4.35 is 4.35. No need of 4.35 being 4.34, nor of 4.34, being 4.35.
How 434 is related to 415 and not to 435?
You say
?Prostitution is only one of the ways, there are a lot, and a righteous woman would not see it as a solution. ?Really? Prostitution is not a solution? How could it not have occurred to me before? You have just discovered Gunpowder
I really dont understand why you get like this. Have you read your own post? Women are alwaysr creatures forced by society? Really? Quran is a book of equality, not Favoritism.
Life is hard and cruel for the boys tooObviously it is not a solution, who has said it is? But on the other hand it may be the only means of sustenance that those women can really access, and I cannot understand the shock since this has been hapnenning all over tthe place all over time. And ?surprise! that is precisely why the believers, to whom the aya is addressed, are called to intervene and prevent that those women out of need might harm themselves.
Yes, BUT NOT in 434! Is just half of the ayat talking about something different from its beginning and continuation?
It all makes sense, and I really do not see what you are hinting at, virginia.
I am not hinting at anything and i really wonder why your answer is that! , i did not even expound my own understanding of the verse. I just asked for further explanatiom because i could not get it and explained you why i did not y it and the problems ot creates in the previous ans later ayats. That did not mean it was my opiniom, i was just expounding the problems to understand it as you say. No need to attack anyone, I think, you know very well how i think but if i dont see it i am not going to say yes just because it benefits me as a woman.
Have I said anywhere that in those ayas it can only mean prostitution? No, I have not said, that. Anything that matches. If it fits wear it. But what is clear is that it does fit prostitution like a glove, whether other things fit or not.
In 434 surely it does not fit.
And where do you see there in 4.34 the family? The family as part of the general is comprised but those are general injunctions not limited to any particular sector of society or condition of the person
Because it starts saying that men shall take care in all senses and financially of women... Where else are ONLY men indicated to that? It foes not say "all believers", it says "men". Your theory says men work "abd such" women keep chastity! Please re read your own words and read that "rijala" opening 434 or explain yourself better as i was just asking!
Women, like males are individuals. They may or they may not have a family or be considered as individuals or as family members. Men are considered so aren't they? Why is it such a trauma to imagine that women are individuals independently of whether they have or not have a family?
Are you reaaaaaally saying that to me? Really?
I just said your point about 434 makes no sense, i did not explain my own understanding and yet you are accusing me of whay exactly? brickwall
That i dont agree with one of your posts does not mean i consider anyone under anyone and i think i have proven it enough. That i dont agree or dont see it and explain my objection does not mean i am against you.
Relax, sister, i am not the enemy
Salam peace
-
Excuse me but 435 uses pronouns referring to 434 so of course it has something to do.
Tht is precisely what it does not do, except for the second person plural who is the addresse in both ayas
pronnouns and antecedents in 4.34 Men (third person plural masculine), women (third person plural feminine), there is no masculine singular or dual third person or second person nor any feminine singular or dual in seconnd person.
In 4.35 There are third person dual como gender, third person masculine singular and third person feminine singular, and like in 4.34 seond erson lural common gender which are the adreeses, tht is the believers.
So no pronouns whatsoever from 34 in 35. Different question and different actors.
Salaam
Men
-
Aw i just saw the "fa" in the aya before starting talking about women so i apologize for what i said about the yuxtaposition and relation between the sentences.
Regardeless, i still see pronouns in 435 related to 434. I will check once more tomorrow
Salam peace
-
Tht is precisely what it does not do, except for the second person plural who is the addresse in both ayas
pronnouns and antecedents in 4.34 Men (third person plural masculine), women (third person plural feminine), there is no masculine singular or dual third person or second person nor any feminine singular or dual in seconnd person.
In 4.35 There are third person dual como gender, third person masculine singular and third person feminine singular, and like in 4.34 seond erson lural common gender which are the adreeses, tht is the believers.
So a dual can only relate by deixis to another dual? o
Imo, you are mixing the addresee with the subject/topic treated.Most of the chapter is talking about women's right in marriage and family issues such as inheritance. The ?oh you who believe? in 429 only reminds us that not only men are admonished to respect women's right, but also women are called to respect other women's right.
Then we come to 434 and I don't why we should just forget previous ayats and suppose it starts a new matter. It still keeps talking about family issues, mostly finantial, as the ayats before. I dont see any switch and i wonder why I should see it. So after expounding all women's right and all the admonishments towards those who would not respect such rights, I find it perfectly logical and right that 434 says so, the man (because it says ?rijala? and the addresee are women too so it is saying ?hey, girls, look, your men are...?) should protect and mantain women (their fathers, brothers, husbands), this is what a righteous male family member does but of course you girl has to be righteous too and if you don't, this will happen.
What is the problem? Is that women oppressive? I don't find it oppressive at all, a father shall have some authority (since he is quranicly righteous) in his family. He has to deal with so many things (and women too, I am not saying the opposite !!! ), so is it wrong he deserves some respect when what he is saying is righteous? Is there any oppresion if a righteous father/brother/ husband admonishes his daughter/sister/wife because she is not being righteous?Anyway, it talks about ?nushuzan?. Project root list to be high, lifted up, rise up, behave ill, be disobedient, ill treat, be rebellious, hate, detest, be indifferent, treat unjustly, be unkind, desert.
This is not talking about women forced to survive in this world but about ungrateful daughters/ sisters / wives, because not all women are righteous and oppressed, you know? There are some ungreatful, sybarite and selfish, what should a righteous family do with those but to admonish them and all that 434 says? Also 415 was talking about lewdness so witness were required. Here we have no witnesses because it is talking about a righteous family having trouble with a non righteous female member. Where is the oppresion? I insist we are talking about righteous male family members.
Then 435 comes. Whatever you say 435 complements 434 and 434 complements 435 because it uses PRONOUNS. Pronouns just do not appear by magic, they are used to spare repetition so the ?both? (baynihima) is related to something previous. Otherwise, if it were to be a new subject introduced it would be a noun (between the spouses) because nouns are sustance of an entity, thus they introduce a new topic, while pronouns are deictic. And so it continues.
My objection with your understanding was and is that, if 434 is talking about the social care of women in need and not about family questions or marriage questions, I see a lot of problems
- Men can be in need to, don't they have the same right?
- Only rijala are to protect and spend to alliviate those women? Yes yes the addresse are women too but IT SAIS "MEN ARE". Topic and adressee are not the same thing!
- You have to ignore everything from 415 to 434 and also 435 to make it fit in the context.
- Pronouns of object do not just appear and object pronouns do not bear a new topic. Nouns do.
And many others, but those are the most important.
And NO, THE POINTS 1 to 4 BEFORE ARE NOT MY OPINION EITHER YOURS, I AM JUST SAYING THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF 434 LEADS TO THE POINTS BEFORE WITHOUT ANY INTENTION OR ANIMOSITY EITHER FROM YOU EITHER FROM ME.
For God's sake dont believe everybody is attacking you when they do not agree with you.
Sooooooooo, all i want to say is I don't agree with you on this, that's all. Do we agree we desagree on this without you accusing me of being a victim of male chauvinism?
Salam peace
-
I have no interest in agreeing or disargeeing with anybody nor to win or loose a contest for being right or wrong.
I have tried my best, without much fortune, it would seem, to explain certain things. For the moment that is what I am able to do and it is there written for anybody who cares to inquire into it.
The Qur'an is there, all the ayas preceeding and following 4.34 are there for all to see, and the whole of Qur'an is there. There are also many threads in the forum and writings elsewhere on this question.
It is true that the translations of 4.34 are almost if not all a mess, but it is up to each person to make their own demands on it.
Disagreement is not a novelty anywhere nor it is a tragedy, the important thing is that whoever is interested should pursue his or her own quest with as much elements to judge as possible.
Salaam
