Is this verse applicable to todays women?

Samia

Peace All

Nisaa' in fact IS the plural of Imra'a. This is plain arabic. Mufrad (singular) is imra'a and the jamaa (plural) is Nisaa'.

I did not say it is not the plural of imra'a; I said it is ALSO the plural of "nas'".

To see if the first meaning is the valid one, let's try to understand this first part of the verse according to your suggestion

" All men are guardians of all women"; i.e irrespective of their faith, mental ability, physical ability, character, relation to women..etc. The only conditions are that they are male adults(i.e. rijaal) who have money and are willing to spend it.

Thern we have (for what Allah has favoured some of them over the others) who are "them"? Are they only men? If so, what about the others who were not favoured? Are they also guardians?

Here we will come to an invalid statement In the beginning we have (all men are qawwamuun); then we have (because some men are favoured). Do you see the lack of logic?

Then we have (over some). Again who are those "some"? Are they men, women or both? Again we will have the invalid arguement.

As I believe that the Qur'aan is the word of Allah, and that it cannot be nonesense; therefore my understanding IS the nonesense, and I should look further to other Arabic meaning for rijaal and nisaa'.

You do not seem to have a problem with the "rijaal" being "men" AND "those on foot".

In the Qur'aan verse 2431 "..and not to show off their adornment except that which is apparent....and except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers, their brothers' sons, their sisters' sons or their "nisaa'"....
Question who are their "nisaa'"? Who is "my woman"?! Notice that all those mentioned are males.
Who is missing in these generations? Grandsons; the "later" generation "nisaa'uhunna".

unknownuser

Peace Samia

This is an obvious problem of not understanding plain Arabic grammar.

I did not say it is not the plural of imra'a; I said it is ALSO the plural of "nas'".

The word NAS is already in the plural form. The singular form of NAS is INSAN. You cannot have a plural of a plural.

NISAA', although may sound similar, is in fact the plural of a totally different word - IMRA'A.

Also, you have made another grammatical error in the understanding of the word "nisa-ahunna"

Who is missing in these generations? Grandsons; the "later" generation "nisaa'uhunna".

The suffix ending (HUNNA) in arabic is used for a plural feminine form of 'they'. It is strictly for a group of females only. That would make this part of your argument also invalid, if not for any other reason than the reason that grandsons are a group of males.

As for your argument that you wouldn't understand what their women means, with all due respect, I find that to be faulty. It is pretty self-explanatory. In fact, we have that expression in many different languages, Spanish and English right off the top of my head. I'm sure there are others who express the same notion for "my man", "my girl". Even if it isn't a phrase used in any other language, it still is very self-explanatory.

There is a problem when we try our hardest to shut our eyes and twist things in order to please our desires in this world. Instead of fighting it because of our pre-conceived notions of what sounds like nonesense and what sounds rational, let's try to evolve our thinking so that we can accept that which is more harmonious and better for us.

By the way, I too fell victim to trying my hardest to block the meaning of this verse out so that I can hold on to my feminist notions. In fact, this verse does not attack any woman. Whether we like it or not, we cannot be men. Let the men be the men. We have our own unique role that we should rejoice and appreciate instead of trying to compete with our brothers for the same role. We have the uique capability to give birth and new life to this world. Do you think God made the woman with a unique capability without making the man uniquely capable of other things? Let us celebrate each other's capacities as well as limitations and recognize how much the two need each other to be complete, like the ying and the yang.

I mean no ill-will towards you, Sis

Peace all

Samia

Salam s2s

You wrote

The word NAS is already in the plural form. The singular form of NAS is INSAN. You cannot have a plural of a plural.

NISAA', although may sound similar, is in fact the plural of a totally different word - IMRA'A.

Also, you have made another grammatical error in the understanding of the word "nisa-ahunna"

If you looked well into what I wrote, it was nas' (noun seen hamza) not naas (which I would have written with double a for the alif mamdouda), and of course I would have known that naas is a plural!! I am a native speaker of Arabic, in case you do not know.

The suffix ending (HUNNA) in arabic is used for a plural feminine form of 'they'. It is strictly for a group of females only. That would make this part of your argument also invalid, if not for any other reason than the reason that grandsons are a group of males.

When (HUNNA) is a SUFFIX, it does not mean they, but their. What does the possessive pronoun (HUNNA) have to do with the possessed (males or females, humans or non-humans)? This suffixed pronoun is only valid for women, as you said as the POSSESSOR. Still if we say their husbands, we will see this s.p. unchanged, as is already clear in the verse. So, how do you suggest this pronoun would change if we want to say (their grandsons)?

As for your argument that you wouldn't understand what their women means, with all due respect, I find that to be faulty. It is pretty self-explanatory. In fact, we have that expression in many different languages, Spanish and English right off the top of my head. I'm sure there are others who express the same notion for "my man", "my girl". Even if it isn't a phrase used in any other language, it still is very self-explanatory.

This depends on who does the saying. So please tell me what it means when a woman says "this is my woman", or "I introduce to you my woman"!! Moreover, doe the Qur'aan tell women about their women? He told men about their women, but not women about their women.

There is a problem when we try our hardest to shut our eyes and twist things in order to please our desires in this world. Instead of fighting it because of our pre-conceived notions of what sounds like nonesense and what sounds rational, let's try to evolve our thinking so that we can accept that which is more harmonious and better for us.

I am not twisting anything, nor am I trying to give credit to any gender. I explained the problem with understanding the verse when we go with your understanding and how the arguments in it becomes very invalid (ALL men are guardians of all women because Allah favoured some of them over some); and I asked how Allah makes ALL men guardians over ALL women because He favoured SOME? That was my approach, not any femimist theory, although I do not get offended if I am called feminist, but in principle I do not approve of labeling anybody, nor do I like to be labled.

unknownuser

Peace Samia

I am a native speaker of Arabic, in case you do not know.

Why do you state that you're a NATIVE Arabic speaker, as if that makes any difference what so ever. Do native Arabic speakers know grammar perfectly? Do native speakers of any language necessarily know the grammar of their language perfectly? Does you being a native Arabic speaker somehow give you more authority in the Classical Arabic? I think you're jumping to erroneous conclusions and have fallen into the trap of thinking being a native Arabic speaker means you would know how to translate a simple word such as Nisaa'. By the way, I am also a native Arabic speaker. However, I find no need to spread my ethnicity around on posts while in the same breath making obvious mistakes in Arabic just so that others would believe my nonesense. There are people on this forum, that are not "native Arabic speakers" that would blow you and I out of the water so please don't throw your "Arab supremist" thinking in anyone's face.

That was my approach, not any femimist theory, although I do not get offended if I am called feminist, but in principle I do not approve of labeling anybody, nor do I like to be labled.

I think you need to re-examine the last portion of my post, where I clearly labelled myself and not you or anyone else, so there is no need to get offended - unless you don't like that you have labelled yourself a feminist.

This discussion is over in my book because I will not be entertained by the thoughts of those who don't even recognize that Classical Arabic is not an easy language and takes alot more than ethnicity to understand.

Peace All

Samia

Salam (and I mean it)

It is good that you decided to close this discussion for you, because in fact you do not discuss. You did not answer any of my questions regarding the core subject. I did not mention my native tongue out of silly pride, but it was in a context. Anybody on this board who have read some of my postings would know that I am a native speaker, but when you ignorantly wanted to explain to me that nas (aka naas) meant people, I thought maybe you didn't

As for the labeling, that's what you wrote

There is a problem when we try our hardest to shut our eyes and twist things .

Who are we? Whose eyes?

By the way, I too fell victim to trying my hardest to block the meaning of this verse out so that I can hold on to my feminist notions.

Too? Who else?!

I do not want to make this board a fighting ground , so please if you ever change your mind and decide to reply, just stick to answering my questions

What would you understand when a woman says to you "I would like you to meet my "woman"?
How would you overcome the invalidity of the argument "All men (believers or non believers, wise or stupid as long as they have money and are ready to spend it) are the guardians over all women because Allah favoured some of them over some"?

unknownuser

Peace samia

It is good that you decided to close this discussion for you, because in fact you do not discuss. You did not answer any of my questions regarding the core subject.

And I will not because one really needs to understand Arabic and if one of us doesn't then it will just be you continuing to repeat that Nisaa' means people and me continuing to repeat that Nisaa' means women.

I did not mention my native tongue out of silly pride, but it was in a context. Anybody on this board who have read some of my postings would know that I am a native speaker, but when you ignorantly wanted to explain to me that nas (aka naas) meant people, I thought maybe you didn't

Context of what exactly? Trying to make your point that Nisaa' means people? Is that the context? Again you have fallen into the trap that being a native Arabic speaker makes you knowledgable in grammatical structures of Arabic. There is no context to explain where you are from when dealing with a word in quran. Once again, this is "Arab Supremist" mentality that creates friction within Muslim communities. Ethnicity has no context in anything you were trying to explain.

Who are we? Whose eyes?

You assumed that I meant you. Had I wanted to say you, I have no problem using the word. I chose the word we meaning a collective unity - something that I too have fallen victim to as well as others like me which may or may not include you.

I do not want to make this board a fighting ground , so please if you ever change your mind and decide to reply, just stick to answering my questions

I'm above fighting so this is why I will refrain from continuing this debate. I will however defend myself.

Peace All

unknownuser

Peace Samia

Upon reflection of my last two posts, I'd like to apologize to you because after reading them to myself again now, I found them to be too aggressive. I don't like to show aggression towards others, but since we are all humans, I am prone to making mistakes. I hope that you accept my apology.

We can agree to disagree on this issue... I still believe nisaa' means women though D

My decision still remains not to debate further on this particular thread but it would be great to see a flow of more ideas come forth, and I'm afraid my harsh words may have stopped that from happening. So God-Willing we can all continue the thought process about this topic freely.

Apologies to all for any disruption I may have caused

Peace All

Samia

Salaam S2S

No offense taken. I applaud your courage to own to your mistakes. I hope we can all be blessed with this quality.

I also agree that nisaa' means women, BUT I think that it means something else, too, (not people (NAAS), though). ;D

Roshan

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.

Peace

Are you so sure?

2231

When ye divorce women, and they fulfil the term of their ('Iddat), either take them back on equitable terms or set them free on equitable terms; but do not take them back to injure them, (or) to take undue advantage; if any one does that; He wrongs his own soul. Do not treat Allah's Signs as a jest, but solemnly rehearse Allah's favours on you, and the fact that He sent down to you the Book and Wisdom, for your instruction. And fear Allah, and know that Allah is well acquainted with all things.

431

If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.

651

O Prophet! When ye do divorce women, divorce them at their prescribed periods, and count (accurately), their prescribed periods And fear Allah your Lord and turn them not out of their houses, nor shall they (themselves) leave, except in case they are guilty of some open lewdness, those are limits set by Allah and any who transgresses the limits of Allah, does verily wrong his (own) soul thou knowest not if perchance Allah will bring about thereafter some new situation.

I do not understand the Quranic justification for what mquran has said. Every verse where 'nisa' is mentioned seems to pertain to a translation of 'women' and not non-breadwinners.

Roshan

Samia

Salaam Roshan

No one says that "nisaa'" does not mean women. What we say is that "nisaa'" is the plural of woman AND the real plural of another word, which means "the late".

When we look into verse 434, we find an illogical or invalid statement if we use the meaning (men and women) "All men are guardians of all women because God favoured some of them over some, and because they spend".
The questions that may arise from such understanding are

What is the relation between "all men" and "the favoured some"?
Who are the "some " who are favoured over which "some"?
What about the some who are not favoured? What about the "some" over whom the favoured are not favoured?

Such invalid statement cannot come from God.
We then look into the language and search for "rijaal" and "niisaa'".

The root for Rijaal is (re - jeem - lam) which is also the root for "rijl leg
Then wee find that "rajil" (the name of the doer) means on foot; (rajul) means man, but both words have rijaal as plural.

The root for nisaa' is (nuun; seen; hamza). Nas' means the late, and its plural is nisaa'.

Now we look into the Qur'aan, and find that it used rijaal meaning someone (irrespective of gender) on foot.

We also find at least two verses where the word nisaa' would be meaningless if translated into women, and would better fit with (latest things; later generation), and we conclude that if we apply these meanings to this verse, it will be more meaningful and logical.

As for the verses you cited, there is no reason why nisaa' in them does not mean women. The meaning fits well and they do not present any invalidity.

And Allah is more knowing.

I hope I have explained well

Salaam

Elke

peace samia

i appreciate your analysis very much.

Others would have a much easier interpretation like a man has to spent for the woman, if not he's no good, and if she's the one that earns the money, she's no good, and her husband is not a "man"...

.. which is still a degree better than what i often see around me here women working being the doers and having most of the responsabilities and still their men commanding them just because they are "rajl"... voodoo a new kind of slavery !

lk

Samia

Thanks Elke for your kind words.

Women who are bread winners, and who are not arrogant because of that, are commended by Allah in the same verse as " (who are doing what they are supposed to do) , are

But those who do it with arrogance and gruntingly ( ), ......
This might lead to another heated discussion!!

unknownuser

Peace sister samia

please sister if you are not strong yet in Arabic, i urge you not to provide wrong information to those who lack Arabic

Rajul which means "a man", its plural is "Rijal" as you know

now Rijl which means "a foot" its plural is "Argul"

did the verse say "Al Argul Qawamoon Ala Al Nissa", no it didn't, it said "Al Rigal Qawamoon Ala Al Nisa", now please look again at the plural eand you will know that the verse was talking about men

and please sister as you said Allah does not like the arrogant women

take care

Samia

please sister if you are not strong yet in Arabic, i urge you not to provide wrong information to those who lack Arabic

Thanks for the kind words!

The root for Rijaal is (re - jeem - lam) which is also the root for "rijl leg
Then we find that "rajil" (the name of the doer) means on foot; (rajul) means man, but both words have rijaal as plural.

Does the above has anything to do with this

Rajul which means "a man", its plural is "Rijal" as you know

now Rijl which means "a foot" its plural is "Argul"

Do you understand English?

Did you hear of the name of the doer ( )?
I am not going to go through the whole explanation, so if you really want to learn here and not just distribute your co-descending comments, read the thread from the beginning to know more about (another meaning for rijal is on foot). OR at least scan the word (rijaal) in the Qur'aan to see that it is also used in this sense.

and please sister as you said Allah does not like the arrogant women

But surely He likes the arrogant men, according to you!!

unknownuser

Fine Sister Samia, I actually proved my point with your emotional commnet

now I dontl get emotional, what I do I expose the deception by the ignornat using the Quran

Rijal means men, it has nothing to do with "on foot", but thanks for the laugh, only those who knows nothing about Arabic will believe your non sense claims about the language

now for your english question, as I said many times, I don't really care of being good in it, what ic are about is being good in Arabic and I'm so lucky that it was my native language, therefore I have no problem with the Quran unlike those who manipulate, decieve other with absolutely non sense

now let me prove to everyone that Rijl, is totally something else than Rajul, it just happen that both words have similar letters, like "Peace" "Salam", and "Ladder", "Sillim"

Hello All

Here we go everyone, we will see that ?Feet? means ?Arjul?, this proves what I?m saying for almost a year now that to use the flawed root method is the weakest link to understand the Quran, and is a very wide open door for manipulations

I will certainly cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides, then will I crucify you all together.

(124)

See, ?Argul? ?Feet? is the plural of ?Rijl? ?Foot?, and it has nothing to do with the word ?Rajul? which means ?Man?

I rest my case again

Samia

Rijal means men, it has nothing to do with "on foot",

Verse 2239
fa in khiftum farijaalan aw rukbaanan "and if you fear, (then perform salaat) on foot or riding"

Verse 2227
wa athina fin-naasi bil- hajji ya'tuunaka rijaalan

"and proclaim to people the debate; they will come to you on foot.."

I rest my case.

unknownuser

Ok public

of course the context in the above two verse means on foot, but that is an adjective based on another word "Rijl" which just uses the same letter as "Ragul", it is totally different tashkil

now in the above two verses we can see it was about a group of believers, i.e. a plural therefore the adjective describing them must be in a plural form as well, and this is the plural form of an adjective that means "on foot", IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH the word Man/Men, again this is rediculous

in the first verse for example, it clearly says that if we fear then we do the salat on foot, or some don't prey and stay on foot to protect those who prey, a clear cut adjective, in the other verse again a clear cut adjective, when the Hajj is called people will come on foot to do it

on the other hand you will see the Quran using the word Rigal as a name for men over 40 times

so to mix it with another word that has the same letters is a clear cut case of ignornace

salam

Wakas

This issue came up elsewhere, and sister Samia referred me to this thread, hence bringing it up again.

peace Samia,

Note AQ = al quran

You said
"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."

Are you implying that whenever a law is mentioned, AQ always addresses mumin?

You said
"Some of whom? If it was men, what about the remaining men who were not favoured? Are they Qawwamoun?"

The criteria for being qawwamoun in 434 is

God preferred/bestowed on you
and
spending of their money

So if you are a man bestowed in a position to provide and have spent of your money (for such a purpose) then you are qawwamoun.

I discussed this at quran434.com

""...bima (with what) faddalaAllahu (God preferred) baAAdahum (some of them) AAala (over/above/on) baAAdin* (others)..." *masculine
This likely refers to al rijal (the men) as indicated by keeping the same suffix reference later in the sentence, i.e. its logical and contextual flow.
See "baAAdahum AAala baAAdin" / "some of them above others" in 2253 and 1721, and also 653 "baAAdahum bi baAAdin" / "some of them with others", for a comparison.
However, there are three theoretically possible interpretations of this phrase
with what God preferred on some (men/women) over others (men/women)
OR
with what God preferred on some (men) over others (men)
OR
with what God preferred on some (men) over others (men/women)

The keyword being "some". Thus, whichever way it is translated it proves the obvious, that not all men are preferred/bestowed equally, and/or not all men are preferred/bestowed more than women. Also, the term "preferred" is general, unless made specific in context, and in this case may refer to distribution of wealth, e.g. inheritance, as mentioned by similar phrasing in 432. Since spending of wealth is mentioned separately, the preference likely refers to the fact that men do not have the physical burden of pregnancy, birth and suckling, hence are in a more favourable position to work/provide, by default.
It should be noted that some traditional commentators interpret this phrasing to suggest men are preferred to women with respect to various things but this is completely disproven by the Arabic itself, as the masculine plural is used in the phrase. The masculine plural in Arabic either refers to an all male group or male+female group, NEVER all female group. To add to this point, the same phrasing is used for preferring some messengers to others and some prophets to others and yet The Quran repeatedly tells us not to make distinction among them. The best person according to The Quran is whoever is the most righteous/pious/God-conscious . It should also be kept in mind that each person will be judged according to how they conducted themselves with what they have been given . In other words, with privilege comes responsibility.
As we can see, The Quran is not stating a fixed rule, i.e. that all men are the maintainers/supporters of women, they are only so if they fulfill the criteria and it is referring to the wider duty of care/responsibility men have as mentioned above. It is conditional."

Interestingly, the reasoning you give is very similar, if not identical to my own, but you choose different terms for nisa/rijal.

You then go on to seemingly contradict yourself, because you first said
"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."

Then said "Then the verse narrows now to include only mu'menaat because it is now going to discuss law."

But the actual verse of 434 does not mention muminat, this is your assumption. You will have to clarify or retract your point.

Thanks.

Samia

This issue came up elsewhere, and sister Samia referred me to this thread, hence bringing it up again.

peace Samia,

Note AQ = al quran

You said
"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."

Are you implying that whenever a law is mentioned, AQ always addresses mumin?

Salaam Wakas.
Thank you for bringing this up!

I think I did not make myself clearer and I agree with you it looks wrong. I should have explained myself better than that!
I was referring to the laws in the verse, where it referred to good "women" as mu'minaat (actually qantaat). But did not refer to "rijaal" who are the ones who should be modified as "mu'minuun", hence making any "man" guardian over "mu'minaat"! Which is more important to describe the giver or the receiver? Nowhere in the quraan do we see a reference to the belief of the poor and needy/receiver, or how they would react, or if this reaction requires any further steps from the giver. This is an important point in believing that these "mu'minaat" are of the "rijaal" who spend their money, not of the "nisaa'" who receive the money.

You said
"Some of whom? If it was men, what about the remaining men who were not favoured? Are they Qawwamoun?"

The criteria for being qawwamoun in 434 is

God preferred/bestowed on you
and
spending of their money

So if you are a man bestowed in a position to provide and have spent of your money (for such a purpose) then you are qawwamoun.

I discussed this at quran434.com

""...bima (with what) faddalaAllahu (God preferred) baAAdahum (some of them) AAala (over/above/on) baAAdin* (others)..." *masculine
This likely refers to al rijal (the men) as indicated by keeping the same suffix reference later in the sentence, i.e. its logical and contextual flow.
See "baAAdahum AAala baAAdin" / "some of them above others" in 2253 and 1721, and also 653 "baAAdahum bi baAAdin" / "some of them with others", for a comparison.
However, there are three theoretically possible interpretations of this phrase
with what God preferred on some (men/women) over others (men/women)
OR
with what God preferred on some (men) over others (men)
OR
with what God preferred on some (men) over others (men/women)

The keyword being "some". Thus, whichever way it is translated it proves the obvious, that not all men are preferred/bestowed equally, and/or not all men are preferred/bestowed more than women. Also, the term "preferred" is general, unless made specific in context, and in this case may refer to distribution of wealth, e.g. inheritance, as mentioned by similar phrasing in 432. Since spending of wealth is mentioned separately, the preference likely refers to the fact that men do not have the physical burden of pregnancy, birth and suckling, hence are in a more favourable position to work/provide, by default.
It should be noted that some traditional commentators interpret this phrasing to suggest men are preferred to women with respect to various things but this is completely disproven by the Arabic itself, as the masculine plural is used in the phrase. The masculine plural in Arabic either refers to an all male group or male+female group, NEVER all female group. To add to this point, the same phrasing is used for preferring some messengers to others and some prophets to others and yet The Quran repeatedly tells us not to make distinction among them. The best person according to The Quran is whoever is the most righteous/pious/God-conscious . It should also be kept in mind that each person will be judged according to how they conducted themselves with what they have been given . In other words, with privilege comes responsibility.
As we can see, The Quran is not stating a fixed rule, i.e. that all men are the maintainers/supporters of women, they are only so if they fulfill the criteria and it is referring to the wider duty of care/responsibility men have as mentioned above. It is conditional."

You speak of the criteria of beeing qawwamuun, which is correct, only if "rijaal" is not men and that we are talking of a pool of people of both sexes, then we take out of it the criteria. Otherwise we will have the contradiction you are not seeing All men are guardians over all women. It should stop here, because the "criteria" for qiwama is already set being a man.Then we do not need any further criteria. Unfortunately this is what is understood in the Muslim world, and even in the Shari3a law. Spending became a second degree, and if a man is unable to spend and his wife is the bread winner, his qualification as "man" is superior to her spending, which you see as the criteria.
But when we look at the whole statement as taking "people" as a pool, then it becomes clearer and the contradiction disappears
"Breadwinners are guardians over the needy/vulnerable, unemployed for what God bestowed on them (maybe the ability to work) and for their spending".
Here spending becomes really the criteria among breadwinners to be guardians. It's part of them and they are able to do it. Men, in general, are not necessarily able to spend if they are unable to work.
Then "some" comes perfectly right. This pool of people, men or women, God bestowed the ability to work on some of them (those who got the job and so become breadwinners) over some (those who are unable/ cannot work). And so the verse goes on into narrowing and no more "people" but behaviour of those "breadwinners - spenders", not merely gendered men and women.
God then gives examples of these good and bad breadwinners-spenders as two women, just as He gave us examples of two women for mu'mineen and two women for kafireen.

Interestingly, the reasoning you give is very similar, if not identical to my own, but you choose different terms for nisa/rijal.

You then go on to seemingly contradict yourself, because you first said
"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."

Then said "Then the verse narrows now to include only mu'menaat because it is now going to discuss law."

But the actual verse of 434 does not mention muminat, this is your assumption. You will have to clarify or retract your point.
Thanks

I stand corrected as far as the usage of "mu'minaat" is concerned. It describes them as "quaanitaat devout", an even higher degree of "mu'minaat". (description of Ibrahim 16120; Mariam 6612; women better than the wives of the prophet 665). They are therefore "mu'minaat" by default.

huruf

b3D...b3D is a reciprocal construction, therefore 4.34 means God faddala the first element mentioned over the second and the second element over the first. That is the riyal, over the nisa' and the nisa', over the riyal, and on that count some are called to be qawwamuna and some are to keep what God kept.

I do not understand why this whole line of "favoured some of them over the others" when this reciprocal construction is very common in the Quran and is as far as I have verified, it is unfailingly reciprocal.

We have the same thing in 3.195, 4.21, 4.25 4.32, etc.

In 4.21 both elements are clearly male on the one side, and female on the other.

Is there a mistery somewhere that escapes me?

Salaam