Is this verse applicable to todays women?

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

Wakas

salaam Samia,

Thanks for the reply.

The nisa are not necessarily the receiver in this context. For example if a provider buys food, pays the electricity/gas etc the nisa are not getting any money/etc directly. One could only argue indirectly, they received something, so I do not really see this point of yours as strong or significant.

Secondly, you said
"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."
However, there are verses about freeing believing slaves - this mentions the belief of the receiver of freeing.
Also, there is 2273 that discusses the manner the asker/receiver goes about it.

But to be honest, even if this point of yours stood, I do not see it as strong or significant.

You said
"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."

No, it cannot stop there, because if it did it would be illogical. Simply being a man does not and cannot make one qawwamun, e.g. one could have a physical or mental disability and still be a man, and these cannot be obligated to provide. Or even if a man is ill, they cannot be obligated to provide all the time no matter what.
Besides, the Arabic of Quran does not stop there. You cannot chop the statement, the statement is

"The rijal are supporters/maintainers of the nisa with what God preferred/bestowed on some of them over others and with what they spent of their money"

To find fault, you MUST find fault in the complete statement, not part of it.

Lastly, by saying - "quaanitaat devout", an even higher degree of "mu'minaat" - you are implying whatever law is discussed in 434 it applies to an even higher degree of muminaat. Does that mean it applies to a "lower" muminaat also?

In any case, the crux of the discussion is this you feel that rijal/men and nisa/women in 434 would cause a contradiction, thus it must mean something else. This is a perfectly sound position, but we have to determine if there is a contradiciton or not. So, please use the whole statement, and point out what exactly is the contradiction. You may wish to use the part I quoted from quran434.com as a guide to my view.

huruf

I agree with those who say that Nisaa' as well as riyal have meanings other than men or women. I do. I found the explanation some time ago given I think by Samia, that that is the meaning of the sura AnNisaa' it is not talking about women, but about those need of support by other members of society. That as far as I am concerned I find consistent.

However, in this aya, and unless anybody shows me how this b3D... b3D construction in this aya is not a reciprocal one, which I am sure it is, I think that in this aya de meaning is women and men, and to me it is obvious and plain, men, in general, are free of the cares and travails of pregnancy, childbirth and, if the mother sucles the baby, also of suckling. Women are not free of that burden, that is the males advantage. But bearing children on the other hand is the women's advantage, they are in no need of anybody to have the children, it is their advantage, therefore,(somebody has mentioned that in this thread). As awlia' of one another, men, as a category must shoulder some more work than womenother than the one entailed by motherhood in society, because otherwise it would be exploitation of women. On the other hand, women must share their capability to bear children and not hide or deprive the fathers and societyn of the knowledge of their descendancy and of their closeness to the children. That is what I understand by "hafidhat lil ghaib bi ma hafidha Allah". And that is as specific groups. In this part of the aya it is not talking about husbands and wives, but about riyal and nisaa'. It is obvious that not all women have children and not all men are able to work, but specifically what no man is going to do is get pregnant and bear. And women in general do have a burden, even if it is only, at the minimum, that of the excpectations regarding motherhood. Those are the relative advantages of each sex over the other. Other advantages, like some say strength or as some say Psychological and the rest, are individual or non fundamental if there are, and in a sense overcomable, like strength. Development of humanity has made less and less of physical strength and more and more of ability and resourcefulness, and women are not physically weaker except that strength in males and females is differently distributed.

The real difference and what makes of a person a man or a woman are the reproductive functions, not some hypothetical psychological make up, which by the way, the Qur'an does not sacknowledge.

Salaam

Bender

However, in this aya, and unless anybody shows me how this b3D... b3D construction in this aya is not a reciprocal one, which I am sure it is, I think that in this aya de meaning is women and men, and to me it is obvious and plain, men, in general, are free of the cares and travails of pregnancy, childbirth and, if the mother sucles the baby, also of suckling. Salaam

Salaam huruf,

Can you please explain what you mean with "b3D construction"?

I have also a feeling that "rijaal" and "nisa" may mean something else then men and women. In some verses it looks strange to translate them as men/women. But I still have not found a satisfactory definition.

Salaam,
Bender

huruf

Salaam, Bender,

I do not know if you mange at all in Arabic or not, but have patience with me, I am useless for organizing this kind of thing, as an explanation, but I will do my best. In these ayas I mention, 3.195, 4.21, 4.25 4.32, and in many others inthe Qur'an there comes this expresion which is made of two parts with a preposition in the middle. I have tried to copy it in Arabic, but I cannot, so I put it in latin alphabet and hope it helps you.

baukum (preposition) bain

3195 Their Lord answered them "I do not waste the work of any worker from among you, whether male or female, you are all as each other. For those who emigrated and were driven-out from their homes and were harmed in My cause, and they fought and were killed, I will forgive for them their sins and admit them to estates with rivers flowing beneath them." A recompense from God; and God has the best recompense.

bau(kum) pronoun 2nd masc plural min bain
each of you from (the) other.

4.21 And how can you take it when you have become intimate with each other, and they have taken from you a solemn covenant.

bau(kum) pronoun 2nd masc plural ilaa bain
one of you to another

4.25 And whoever of you cannot afford to marry the independent female believers, then from those maintained by your oaths of the believing young women. And God is more aware of your faith, some of you to each other.

bau(kum) pronoun 2nd masc plural min bain
You (are) from (one) another

4.32 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 ask God from His grace; God is knowledgeable in all things.

baa(kum) pronoun 2nd masc plural 3ala bain
some of you over others

You can look for more instances of this expression, which in grammars is also explained as meaning reciprocity. And ba3du by itself is "some" or "one", but where there is this expression it is about one to another or the ones to the others or whatever the preposition indicates.

Salaam

Bender