Is this verse applicable to todays women?
-
Also I asked if that feminine plural used for the salihaat, qanitaat hafidhat, stands also for males, because if Samias understanding is followed it should stand also for males. Would that be right from the point of view of grammar?
Salaam
A few days ago I wrote a long post that would have explained this, but it was gone! Didn't have more time to rewrite it.
I just have one comment on the other part of your post before I get to this part.
When you say "men are guardians over women" What qualifications do these men have with regard ethics, moral or even dogma? What's the meaning of this guardianship if not linked to spending?If both men and women can spend on each other, why is the quwama for men only?
Here I am not saying masculine contains feminine, but I am saying that the meaning of rijal as used in the quraan and as the root indicates, means "on foot", i.e active, seeking "bounty", and nisaa as also used in the quraan in some verses and as its root indicates, means "the late, left behind"
(verse 4127)(And they request from you a ruling concerning nisaa. Say, "Allah gives you a ruling about them and what has been recited to you in the Book concerning
1- others of fatherless children to whom you do not give what is decreed for them - and you desire to marry them
2 - and concerning the oppressed among children
3- and that you maintain for orphans in fairness).
As you see, all these three categories fall within "nisaa'".Then the verse narrows to take a specific case of couples, where the woman spends and the man is, for any reason, unable to work or get a job or has no money.
It's logical that the verse speaks about the person who is responsible to show them how to be rightly responsible, and what results to expect when they behave badly. In this case it is the wife.
Why only the example of couples? Because any other relation is temporarily, and not obligatory (save the parents who have alone a specific rule not linked to anything or fDDL except to them being parents). Moreover, no other relation needs to be taken to the authorities just because the needy party does not like the behavior of the one putting a roof over their head and food on their table.The plurals you mention are true feminine. The reason is that we have an analogous verse concerning husbands who are "nashez" and how to deal with them (412).
-
Peace all. Verse 434... Seeing as women can be bread-winners in todays world,what is the new interpretation of this verse,or is it not literally applicable in todays society?
Interesting.
As a side note the verse that says
4.34. 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.
The bolded part is incorrect. In fact it uses "fadala ba'dahum ala ba'd" the same term it used when it said we should not seperate between the prophets and that God "fadala ba'dahum ala ba'd". This means that he has given them preferences over EACH OTHER. Its not one over the other but each over the other.
So in a general sense yes men are the bread winners and so have preferences that God gave but also in some cases women can have the stronger say in the family.
The verse about the prophets tells us that some prophets were given some preferences over the other but also vice versa. David was given the Psalms but Moses talked to God and Jesus was given the Holy Spirit and Muhammad was given the Koran. Nobody gets it all.
Its preferences over each other and not one over the other as the translation says. It makes a differences.
What does this has to do with the topic of inheritance?
Well I think in general yes that the boys will end up having more responsibilities in their life and often have to also fend for the sister but in cases it could be the other way around.
Remember its one thing many times the Quran can be telling us to do something but iots another issue when it says we should not do something.
It never said that girls or boys should not be given the same but i think this verse has to do with equity as in most societies men have the responsibilities to take care of their sisters and often they are the ones who pay the dowries and have to work etc. In India and Pakistan its the women's families who actually bear the cost of marriage etc.
In the end it does not matter since the women marries the man and the man marries the women and they in any case will end up sharing their wealth in the end. So it always comes back to them. But it could be a question of equity in responsibilities.
-
peace Samia, all,
I meant that nisa are not necessarily the receiver directly, i.e. it is not like person A giving money to person B. It may be, but not necessarily so, as I explained. That was my point, albeit this seems a peripheral issue.
But "spending" is a condition for quwama. If there is a spender, then there's someone who receives.
Since "nisaa" means those who are vulnerable (in anyway including not having means to gain money), then they will be the reciever. It's not a peripheral issue. It IS the issue as far as nisaa and rijaal are concerned (in as much as they are not women and men).You said
"Setting free a mu'min is not necessarily for the sake of this person, but for the society."Why cant it be both? I think setting such a person free will benefit that individual greatly. Note, initially you did not include the "societal" impact clause.
Verse 492 speaks of conditions of when to free a prisoner. It deals with covenants between the community of the killer and that of the victim, and whether there's peace covenant or not. In both cases, the freed prisoner should be a "mu'min", which helps understand the meaning of "mu'min" not an aggressor; someone who extends peace to others (494), and this leads to my belief that this prisoner should be one who spreads peace, not aggression. This is mainly for the society.
You then imply 434 is about keeping secrets. And how these breadwinners are apparently taking care of the house and children and working.
I prefer not to discuss even more of the verse and get more complicated and prefer to stick to the crux of the issue, i.e. is there a contradiciton or not.
By secret I mean the reason why the husband is not working and how this has an impact on her...etc
Why should she do the housework and take care of the children and become also the breadwinner? This is not an obligation and is not prescribed by God. The husband should do his share and if he doesn't then no blame on her to complain. If he helps in the house, which is the ideal situation the verse must be talking about, then she should not boast around as the bread winner. If she does, then he should advise her not to...etc through the rest of the steps up divorce or reconciliationYou said
"You mentioned that I had to use the whole statement, now let's see(Men are guardians over women for what God favoured some of them over others).
If God favoured some men over other men, then we cannot say "all" men are guardians over "all" women. There are some men who are not favoured. What's their position vis-a-vis guardianship? What about men who are non-believers/ but criminals/ violent? What's their favour?
If the favour is over women again, what about women who spend? A mother who works and keeps her sick or unemployed son/ husband/ father, is she his guardian or he her guardian? These examples by the way are very, very common, and almost every woman finds herself in such a situation at least for sometime in her life."I already answered these questions in reply 47 on this thread (i.e. my first reply to you on this thread).
The only one I have not covered explicitly, although alluded to on Quran434.com is that of a women who fulfills the criteria of "qawwamoun" - what is her situation?
Well, as we can clearly see in 434 the CRITERIA of being "qawwamoun" is given as
- God preferred/bestowed on you (and this likely refers to capacity to work - we both agree on this)
and - spending of their money
So, as we can see, if a woman fulfills the above two criteria, she can be regarded as "qawwamoun" (assuming the husband or males are not providing also), there could be multiple "qawwamoun" per household.
Very Good. I agree...We agree ;D
What The Quran is saying, quite ingeniously, is that it is the default duty/responsibility of the men to support/maintain due to the innate differences between men and women (i.e. pregnancy, child birth, suckling, generally physically weaker thus less job opportunities) - that is the default preference (further elaborated in 2228, 2233, 656), however note very carefully that the way it is phrased is done in such a manner as NOT to impose an absolute rule that "men are qawaamanoun over women".
What do you mean by the last sentence? It DOES say exactly that.
Why mention pregnancy and childbirth? Women still work while they are pregnant and when they have kids. If they are unable, they fall within the category of the sick, men or women, and abstain. Same rules as for fasting. Why change the same rules here?
Moreover, how many years of the age an average woman spends on pregnancy and childbirth to make it such an issue?
What about unmarried women, sterile women?The way it is said bases it on CRITERIA. And with the usage of "SOME of THEM over OTHERS/SOME (masculine plural) - further reinforces this and compliments this idea perfectly. In fact, in hindsight, it is ingenius.
So, as we can see, with regard to our viewpoints, we have the same outcome AND the Quran itself allows for it, and there is no need whatsoever for interpreting the terms rijal/nisa as anything other than men/women for this to work.
I'd be interested to know your thoughts on this
The way "some of them over some" as I explained it in an earlier post (post 7 in a reply to huruf, on the issue of FDL, and according to the usage of this expression in the quraan, shows that it's a preference within ONE group, people of both genders in our verse, in opposition to the expression that shows preference between two specific groups.
The need for this interpretation of nisaa and rijaal rsides in he two examples given of two wives, where the second example of a woman whose nushuuz to be feared may lead to divorce.
To what category do these two examples belong? Rijaal or nisaa'?
If someone is quwam over the other, the logic says we should show the criteria of this quwama. The verse did that.
Now the verse is giving examples of two quwamuuns who either behaved well or badly.
These two quwamuuns are rijaal. And it happened that both of them are women. - God preferred/bestowed on you (and this likely refers to capacity to work - we both agree on this)
-
But "spending" is a condition for quwama. If there is a spender, then there's someone who receives.
Since "nisaa" means those who are vulnerable (in anyway including not having means to gain money), then they will be the reciever. It's not a peripheral issue. It IS the issue as far as nisaa and rijaal are concerned (in as much as they are not women and men).
Verse 492 speaks of conditions of when to free a prisoner. It deals with covenants between the community of the killer and that of the victim, and whether there's peace covenant or not. In both cases, the freed prisoner should be a "mu'min", which helps understand the meaning of "mu'min" not an aggressor; someone who extends peace to others (494), and this leads to my belief that this prisoner should be one who spreads peace, not aggression. This is mainly for the society.By secret I mean the reason why the husband is not working and how this has an impact on her...etc
Why should she do the housework and take care of the children and become also the breadwinner? This is not an obligation and is not prescribed by God. The husband should do his share and if he doesn't then no blame on her to complain. If he helps in the house, which is the ideal situation the verse must be talking about, then she should not boast around as the bread winner. If she does, then he should advise her not to...etc through the rest of the steps up divorce or reconciliation
Very Good. I agree...We agree ;DWhat do you mean by the last sentence? It DOES say exactly that.
Why mention pregnancy and childbirth? Women still work while they are pregnant and when they have kids. If they are unable, they fall within the category of the sick, men or women, and abstain. Same rules as for fasting. Why change the same rules here?
Moreover, how many years of the age an average woman spends on pregnancy and childbirth to make it such an issue?
What about unmarried women, sterile women?The way "some of them over some" as I explained it in an earlier post (post 7 in a reply to huruf, on the issue of FDL, and according to the usage of this expression in the quraan, shows that it's a preference within ONE group, people of both genders in our verse, in opposition to the expression that shows preference between two specific groups.
The need for this interpretation of nisaa and rijaal rsides in he two examples given of two wives, where the second example of a woman whose nushuuz to be feared may lead to divorce.
To what category do these two examples belong? Rijaal or nisaa'?
If someone is quwam over the other, the logic says we should show the criteria of this quwama. The verse did that.
Now the verse is giving examples of two quwamuuns who either behaved well or badly.
These two quwamuuns are rijaal. And it happened that both of them are women.What made you think verse 492 is talking about prisoners and not slaves.
-
What made you think verse 492 is talking about prisoners and not slaves.
I believe slavery is prohibited in the quraan. They should be freed by definition of the religion and not as a compensation for a wrong doing.
If you acquire stolen goods, you should return it. No compensation would be offered, and you may even be prosecuted.
Same thing here.
This is not about slaves, because it compensates for a crime. -
I believe slavery is prohibited in the quraan. They should be freed by definition of the religion and not as a compensation for a wrong doing.
If you acquire stolen goods, you should return it. No compensation would be offered, and you may even be prosecuted.
Same thing here.
This is not about slaves, because it compensates for a crime.I understand but most people do not follow the Koran and so even if the Koran forbade slavery this does not mean that slavery would cease to exist or did not exist around the believers. But prisoners is hard for individuals to approach since they are usually governed by the state. The Koran told the prophet about prisoners and not individuals other than feeding the prisoners as charity.
Slaves are owned by individuals and therefore their owners can be approached but usually freeing prisoners is a state function.
-
peace Samia,
I am saying that the nisa are not necessarily the receiver of money directly. This is an indisputable fact of life. For example, it would be quite common for it to be indirect, e.g. spending on utilities, house maintenance etc. Besides, giving money to "vulnerable" person doesn't seem very prudent. And lastly, the word is "spend" not "give", so for your interpretation to better fit, the word should be "give".
There is nothing conclusive about this point.
Re slave/prisoner
You said "This is mainly for the society."
You say mainly for society, I say it could be mainly for the slave/prisoner. In either case, there is nothing conclusive, and it would be subjective.What do you mean by the last sentence? It DOES say exactly that.
If you are implying Quran does say an absolute statement then this is 100% wrong.
If you are implying that then you contradict yourself when you later say "If someone is quwam over the other, the logic says we should show the criteria of this quwama. The verse did that."
So please clarify what you meant, thanks.
Why mention pregnancy and childbirth? Women still work while they are pregnant and when they have kids. If they are unable, they fall within the category of the sick, men or women, and abstain. Same rules as for fasting. Why change the same rules here?
Being pregnant does not equal being sick!
Moreover, how many years of the age an average woman spends on pregnancy and childbirth to make it such an issue?
It doesn't matter if it is only 5% of one's time, it is an issue that should be dealt with, and it is.
What about unmarried women, sterile women?
If they wish to work, provide etc that is fine, they can do as they wish. This is about default duty, i.e. there is no obligation upon women that they should work/provide etc if there are men of the household.
The way "some of them over some" as I explained it in an earlier post (post 7 in a reply to huruf, on the issue of FDL, and according to the usage of this expression in the quraan, shows that it's a preference within ONE group, people of both genders in our verse, in opposition to the expression that shows preference between two specific groups.
You missed out 432, see below
Also, I just noticed that 432 says "some of YOU over others" whilst 434 says "some of THEM over others" - and the implication of this is obvious. In 432 it is referring to one pool of people (i.e. humankind, i.e. men and women), whilst 434 is referring to two groups of people, hence "THEM". This usage is a perfect fit.
To imply otherwise, would require explanation.
