Is this verse applicable to todays women?
-
Peace mquran. Your post makes a lot of sense...You should post your overall methodology on a thread,along with some of your interpretations/ideas,and your vision of a quranic society/how this society would govern in the real world ....
Funny you should mention that.
These interpretations are much more in line with practicality/reality/the modern world...
That's incidental, I'm afraid. My concern is to be in line with God.
-
An-nisaa doesn't refer to the entire womankind. The word 'nisaa' is related to 'nisyan' (to forget) as opposed to a 'rijaal' (coming from 'rijl' or feet- implying to one who stands on his own feet). Remember that Arabic is a gendered language so the word 'muminaat' would have sufficed here but instead the word 'an-nisaa' was used. The verse specifically says that ar-rijaal are those who 'qawwam' (establish) over an-nisaa due to the spending they give. This is not a universal statement.
In terms of 'female breadwinners' , that condition clearly doesnt apply anymore and in lieu of absence of legislation, we are to seek a way based on Quranic values.
Inheritance laws aren't cast in stone. THere's always an option to write a will (5/106).
Peace mquran. I'm trying to understand your post. Are you saying the verse doesn't refer to men and women per se but rather different roles (rijaal - breadwinners, and nisaa - non-breadwinner)? Am I understanding correctly?
If that is the case, are you implying the verse should be translated like something as follows "The who stand on their own feet are made responsible for those who do not, and God has given them certain qualities, and because they spend of their property..."
Peace.
-
Inheritance laws aren't cast in stone. THere's always an option to write a will (5/106).
Writing a Will as per (5/106) must conform to inheritance laws as per (411-12). Slight deviation or misrepresentation would defeat the alleged Allah's words, don't you think?
-
Writing a Will as per (5/106) must conform to inheritance laws as per (411-12). Slight deviation or misrepresentation would defeat the alleged Allah's words, don't you think?
No I dont think and if you spent time reading al-quraan and not translations or 'what muslim and western scholars say' , maybe you wouldn't venture to think. Why do you think 'tilka hududullah' is mentionedin 4/13.
-
Peace,
Really interresting mquran, thank you...
-
Peace mquran. If god is truth/Al-Haqq,then its not incidental that your interpretations should be in line with reality....otherwise how does one know ones interpretations are correct?...
Im asking for your methodology/research/system of government etc...Because the traditional islamic scholarship is in much need of reform,and you and a few others may be capable of this reform... -
Peace mquran. If god is truth/Al-Haqq,then its not incidental that your interpretations should be in line with reality....otherwise how does one know ones interpretations are correct?...
Enquirer, for a beneficial study of al-quraan, translating a word like 'haqq' without contextually acquiring its processual meaning doesn't work.
Allah is al-haqq but He has allowed baathil/falsehood to exist in the world. 17/81 tells that al-haqq COMES and falsehood perishes. Therefore, there's a time when al-haqq isn't showing itself. 13/17 also shows the same with al-haqq hidden by the 'froth' of baathil.
At the moment, the reality I see around me is shrouded in much baathil. I try to interpret al-quraan independently of that reality.
Im asking for your methodology/research/system of government etc...Because the traditional islamic scholarship is in much need of reform,and you and a few others may be capable of this reform...
To my discredit, I havent committed much of my thinking to writing if at all it might prove useful. I agree that 'islamic scholarship' is in need of reform but in my view, the basis of their existence (the veneration of the Mohamedan pan-arab civilisation) prevents them from engaging honestly with al-quraan. This view is based on my experience with them and might be wrong.
-
Peace all,
when i see this discussion my hopes go up again ! sun
Mquran
why don't you share your wisdom more often. When one talks about potatoes and the other of carrots without mentionning what exactely one means - there must be some unnecessary disagreement.And i agree with enquirer - your concern is to be in line with god, and no surprise that to be in line with god one has to be in line with reality...
But my point remains - a point mentioned by enquirer before for the time being and i guess for the absolute majority of times since the advent of quran has not been applied - interpreted in the right spirit.
elke
-
No I dont think
I agree with you on this one 100%. Most of your posts are obvious in which you just ramble.
if you spent time reading al-quraan and not translations or 'what muslim and western scholars say' , maybe you wouldn't venture to think.
Make no mistake, I always ?think?, as per the Quran.
Why do you think 'tilka hududullah' is mentionedin 4/13.
The Quran is not a book of laws. While certain laws mentioned here and there addressed 1400 years ago are applicable today, others aren?t. Certain laws were well defined and suited for smaller backward communities in those times and were easily recognizable, such as inheritance, waiting periods, witnessing, etc. Many laws have changed from time to time since man inherited this earth. GOD knows what inheritance laws will be a 1000 years from now. Besides, these laws have never been confined solely in Quran.
-
DanishI agree with you on this one 100%. Most of your posts are obvious in which you just ramble.
How's your class in basic literacy going? Have they taught you how to read full sentences yet?
Make no mistake, I always ?think?, as per the Quran.
Really? Is that why your method of authentication is 'islamic and western scholars' ?
The Quran is not a book of laws.
Assertion made after characterstically poor research. Al-Quraan is all about laws.
While certain laws mentioned here and there addressed 1400 years ago are applicable today, others aren?t.
Please name a standard by which you measure 'applicability'.
Certain laws were well defined and suited for smaller backward communities in those times and were easily recognizable, such as inheritance, waiting periods, witnessing, etc.
Backward? Who's more backward? They or a guy who relies on 'both islamic and western scholars' when studying a subject which speaks for itself.
Many laws have changed from time to time since man inherited this earth.
So that's your argument? People change laws and the Quran is wrong. In Nazi Germany, it was illegal for a Jew to live. Should we follow that law too, since your criteria is 'from time to time'?
GOD knows what inheritance laws will be a 1000 years from now. Besides, these laws have never been confined solely in Quran.
The hills are alive with the sounds of scraping...
-
salaam
The hills are alive with the sounds of scraping...
And I thought you were humourless.
regards
-
How's your class in basic literacy going? Have they taught you how to read full sentences yet?
The truth is that the literacy class is disgusting because the teacher is mquran.
Make no mistake, I always ?think?, as per the Quran.
Really? Is that why your method of authentication is 'islamic and western scholars' ?
Really!!!
The Quran is not a book of laws.
Assertion made after characterstically poor research. Al-Quraan is all about laws.Prove it from verse one onwards.
While certain laws mentioned here and there addressed 1400 years ago are applicable today, others aren?t.
Please name a standard by which you measure 'applicability'.
Post all the laws and I shall measure their 'applicability'.
Backward? Who's more backward?
You.
People change laws and the Quran is wrong.
and ?people who tell OUTRIGHT LIES about al-quraan yet claim to believe in Al-quraan's divine origin.?
In Nazi Germany, it was illegal for a Jew to live. Should we follow that law too, since your criteria is 'from time to time'?
Does your Quran mention that? And if you are a Jew, then go ahead, who's stopping you.
The hills are alive with the sounds of scraping...
and ?people who tell OUTRIGHT LIES about al-quraan yet claim to believe in Al-quraan's divine origin? and the snakes rattle along......
-
Danish, lets have a moderated debate. I tire of these childish games. If you're not up for it, fine. Peace.
Once you discipline yourself and learn some valuable techniques and lessons on how to discuss and dispute matters of pertinence, I shall take up any discussion with you. Giving much thoughts, as seen from some of yours and Ahmed's recent ramblings, from this point on until deemed reasonable, I shall not engage in any deliberations with such calibres around. With that said, I'll continue discussions with others, if they so wish. You can take this as a piece of advice or choose to arm yourself.
-
Peace Elke and all. I agree very much with your last post...I have opened a new thread in the general section on 'subjectivity','objectivity' and 'reality',as i think many times we are not defining the terms we use,or not taking account of different,and acceptable 'subjective'/contextual views,etc...
And this can lead to endless/unnecessary debating and arguing... elektro -
mquran started well in his explanation but did not succeed as far as the meaning of nisaa' is concerned. In fact, nisaa' is NOT the plural of imra'a (woman) but rather of nas' (the latest, something coming behind or late, remaining) as in riba alnasee'a usuary where the initial agreement is changed later.
It is use to mean women is just sociolinguistic, not real; just as the usage of rajul for "emri'un".And yes, Allah could have said almu'menaat, but it is not about men and women; it is about those who go out seeing work and are winning bread (rijaal on foot "literally" as in 2239 and 22 27).
But why would we choose one meaning over the other when both meaning were used in the Qur'an?
Because this verse contains a law, and laws are for mu'men, so Allah should have addressed mu'men, as mquran mentioned, not the whole human kind.
Secondly, the following phrase (because of what Allah favoured some over the others) Some of whom? If it was men, what about the remaining men who were not favoured? Are they Qawwamoun?
So the first part of this verse goes like that
Breadwinners (irrespective of gender) are responsible/guardian of those who stay (not work) because Allah favoured some of the people (with work, ability to gain) and with what they spend.
So, if one works but does not spend on others , they do not have the guardianship. This sounds very logical even now. Someone who pays your rent will have a prominent position in the family.
Then the verse narrows now to include only mu'menaat because it is now going to discuss law. It discusses the case of a two female breadwinners where the first is a mu'mena, humble, and the other is not very humble (nagging).
-
Peace samia. Very interesting interpretation...I look forward to others comments...
-
***** just moving this thread up ******