Is this verse applicable to todays women?

[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]

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

You can see in 4.21 that

Salaam huruf,

Thank you very much for your explanation. I didn't notice your post earlier where you already kind of explained it. I thought "b3D" was some sort of grammar rule but it's just a transliteration of a arabic word.

I understand what you mean with the b3D construction and I agree with you handshake
Thanks )

Salaam,
Bender

[Wakas]

salaam huruf, bender,

For me, the construction of the phrase has to be identical for a valid comparison with 434 to be made.

In the examples you cited, only 432 was identical and thus a valid comparison can be made in this case. Interestingly, in this case it would be illogical for it to be reciprocal, because if there are two or various groups and one is feeling injustice that they got less in inheritance, it would be illogical to say "God preferred/bestowed with it, some of you over others and others over some" because someone is getting more. If I can simplify, it is a bit like if you said in maths

X > Y

Then said the above also means Y > X. This would be a contradiction.

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.

[huruf]

salaam huruf, bender,

For me, the construction of the phrase has to be identical for a valid comparison with 434 to be made.

In the examples you cited, only 432 was identical and thus a valid comparison can be made in this case. Interestingly, in this case it would be illogical for it to be reciprocal, because if there are two or various groups and one is feeling injustice that they got less in inheritance, it would be illogical to say "God preferred/bestowed with it, some of you over others and others over some" because someone is getting more. If I can simplify, it is a bit like if you said in maths

X > Y

Then said the above also means Y > X. This would be a contradiction.

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.

4.32 How is it speaking about inheritance? Cannot see that. Next aya starts speaking about inheritance but in the succesion of the previous ayas there is no indication to take it that it is speaking about inheritance, and the meaning is clear and sufficient without recurring to that. Do not covet what you do not have, and everybody has something else that others covet. It is the same case as the prophets. Ones are favoured overs others, but others are equally favoured over others in the sense that each has its specific mission and meaning and no distinction should be made.

It says not to covet those things in which God has favored some over others. It doesn't say that a set of them, some, have been favoured abolutely more than others, so there are two classes, it says there are things in which some are favoured over others and other things in which others are favoured. One may be beautiful and deaf and another may hear very well but have a lame leg.

That is what I get from the Arabic.

The traslation may be different

As to in this aya "YOU" and in the other "THEM", that is second person and third person, I do not see that that means anything as to the reciprocity You love each other or they love each other, does not mean two different things. In our case in question we have reciprocity within the elements of a set and in the second reciprocity between two elements, in the first case the reciprocity is between the elements of the same group, and in the second between the two elements, be they individual or groups. That works I think in all languages. It is, for instance, the expression in Qur'an as I say it is very, very common, I just quoted four cases which were in the proximity of the aya we are dealing with, but samples are all over the place.

What I think nags some people because of the default setting we have when approaching this aya or because a mentality ingrained in us, is the faddala part, which I guess for some people means that necessarily somethign must be preferred to something else which is not preferred, as you assume in 4.32, but those are respective advantages, respective favour or preferences, the first have advantages over the secon, and the second have advantages over the first.

Ba3D ... ba3D is always reciprocal. Bring instances where it is clearly and uncontestably not so.

Y greater A is not the case, because it is different gifts within different people. So A may be greater in jumping and Y greater in running.

Now look at 4.21

ba3dukum ila ba3din

These are clearly two elements, perfectly reciprocal, it is not the elements within a group. One elemente might want to take back what it gave. It does not matter whether it is KUM (YOU) or HUM)THEM). One set are husbands and the other set are wives.

Ba3du whatever in its own is some or one from the whole, but ba3d... preposition ba3din is a reciprocal clause.

Like in the sura annur the waves mounting upon each other. There is not one set of waves that stays on top, it is waves thaT come on top and then in their turn are mounted on top by other waves.

Also, if in 4.34 we take this ba3d... prep. ba3din for what it is, a reciprocal clause, the whole aya makes far more sense than any other way

The class men ows support to the class women because of their freedom from the burden of reproduction, and the class women owe truthfulness as to what they keep in themselves because of the capacity to do so which only they have.

Then, further on the aya, it goes to dealings between the partners in a couple, but the first part does not speak about a couple, speaks about two classes.

Nisaa' as females, because, in this respect, where males and females difer physically, women are in fact nisaa', since they cannot shake this burden of pregnancy and childbirth. So they fall, on that count, within the general group of nisaa' like the orphans the impaired men or otherwise burdened people of both sexes. Other than that males can be nisaa' in the wider sense, as was said before, and women riyaal.

Salaam

[savage_carrot]

I'm actually tending towards huruf on this one. Makes sense.

[Bender]

salaam huruf, bender,

For me, the construction of the phrase has to be identical for a valid comparison with 434 to be made.

In the examples you cited, only 432 was identical and thus a valid comparison can be made in this case. Interestingly, in this case it would be illogical for it to be reciprocal, because if there are two or various groups and one is feeling injustice that they got less in inheritance, it would be illogical to say "God preferred/bestowed with it, some of you over others and others over some" because someone is getting more. If I can simplify, it is a bit like if you said in maths

X > Y

Then said the above also means Y > X. This would be a contradiction.
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.

Salaam Wakas,

I don't think this is a correct mathematical reflection.
You take X and Y as the elements, while X and Y are the sets which consists of elements.
note the words "ma" and "bima" in 432 and 434

Huruf explains it very wel in her post.

Salaam,
Bender

[Wakas]

peace Huruf,

As I said, the construction of the phrases should be identical in order to make a valid comparison. I do not consider constructions involving "ila" or "min" as comparable to 434.

You said bring one example to the contrary of your view, yet you did not cite one comparable example to 434.

I did not say the "them" and "you" point I made had to do with reciprocity. That had to do with whom is being addressed, although this may help clarify this issue also later.

I took the context of 432 as inheritance as it seems to delve into this aspect specifically beginning from 432, although I would admit wealth/giving is the theme throughout in this part of the chapter. Thus, I find my deduction reasonable, perhaps not conclusive, but definitely reasonable.

peace bender,
I'm not sure if I get your point, please clarify.

peace sc,
I agree that there is reciprocity in some of the examples huruf cited, but they are not equivalent comparisons, thus they have no validity in terms of a comparison.

[nobuddy]

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".

Salaam Samia,

None are missing; nisa always refers to three or more females never males ?

411 so if are nis women/females above two (feminine)

361 our sons and your sons and our women and your women/females

3355 not blame against them in their fathers and not their sons and not their brothers and not their sons their brothers and not their sons their sisters and not their women/females and not what possess their right hands and be mindful The God indeed The God is on each a thing Witness

Your women/females are those ladies in your extended family/tribal circle.

[savage_carrot]

peace sc,
I agree that there is reciprocity in some of the examples huruf cited, but they are not equivalent comparisons, thus they have no validity in terms of a comparison.

I think the examples she gave to show us the common thread running through them lend some weight to her conclusions. I would disagree that they have no validity in terms of a comparison. Perhaps on a 'comparison scale' not as much as an identical match, but surely not none. Her explanation of where there was an identical match plus the rest has been overlooked. Maybe if we take another reasonable deduction of it not being specifically/only about inheritance, might make it easier to see where she's coming from and what she's trying to explain.

Peace.

[huruf]

If you want something identical to 4.34 it would be 4.34.

Ba3d.... ba3din is according to grammars and usage and in the Qur'an a reciprocity clause. Rather then have to give you proof that it is so, I should have to ask you to bring proof of not being so, instances in the Qur'an where it would be impossible to understand it as reciprocal...

I don't want to enter into a londg draw over who is right, because I do not care. I have been many years lookign at this and I am convinced of the reciprocity aspect, so I am confident that anybody who looks at it will be able to ascertain its validity or not by him or herself.

Try it with every instance that comes up in the Qur'an whether it fits or not. The "some of them" version of this clause turns out, in the instances I remember, and most certainly in 4.34, contorted and confusing as even the discussion in this thread has shown. You have to see for yourself turning around the posibilities of the "some of" without coming up with anything really consistent or clear.

As to 4.32 it dealing with inheritance, I do not think so, it doesn't say so. It doesn't name anything in particular and rather points to anything that is unevenly distributed, whatever. Why anybody would pick inheritance in particular is his business, it is one of the things that it might be, but it can be anything. If not it would have said do not covet inheritance, instead, it doesn't say that, it says "ma" (what). For it to refer to inheritance if at all, that inheritance should have come before, not after.

If you are sure it means something else, that is ok, but to convince me of it you should bring actual proof that there is no way that it can be reciprocal or that unequivocally it is not reciprocal, and some proof also that the "some of them" translation is the most appropriate anywhere it may appear in the shape of this clause ba3D.... ba3Din.

Salaam

[Wakas]

peace Huruf,

You said about 432
"...and rather points to anything that is unevenly distributed..."

Exactly. As soon as you admit it is something to do with uneven distribution it is logical to state "bestowed/preferred some over others". Simple.

And lastly, this is not how discussion works, i.e. you say it means reciprocity then you insist the burden of proof is upon me to disprove your claim. No, the burden of proof is on the claimant, i.e. you.

My claim is rather simple - I take the Arabic words in the phrase as their clear universal meanings

baAAda-hum = some (of) them
AAala = over/above/on
baAAdin = others/some

Not to mention, the universal meaning fits in the context logically.

But dont take my word for it, go and ask anyone "is this phrase reciprocal?" - "bestowed/preferred some over others" - and see what they say.

Let us know how it goes.

[savage_carrot]

Ba3d.... ba3din is according to grammars and usage and in the Qur'an a reciprocity clause.

My simple understanding so far has been e.g. 432 The next part of the same verse is what additionally clarifies the reciprocal nature For men is a share of what they have earned, and for women is a share of what they have earned. Tempering and clarifying the first's reciprocal nature, so that people don't come to an incorrect understanding of taking it to mean it's more or less than someone else on the whole. In 421 it's quite clear. In 434, the first part is clarifying the reciprocal nature as has been discussed. 434 would be a verse where based on your explanation it is clearly dealing with men and women contrasted with each other rather than the general classes of the maintainer or the dependent. Would this be correct? Or only the first part and the last part goes back to dealing with sets rather than subsets? Also, to clarify, women would always fall under the class nisa but in a certain context only, insofar as it deals with childbirth etc?

peace

[huruf]

peace Huruf,

You said about 432
"...and rather points to anything that is unevenly distributed..."

Exactly. As soon as you admit it is something to do with uneven distribution it is logical to state "bestowed/preferred some over others". Simple.

And lastly, this is not how discussion works, i.e. you say it means reciprocity then you insist the burden of proof is upon me to disprove your claim. No, the burden of proof is on the claimant, i.e. you.

My claim is rather simple - I take the Arabic words in the phrase as their clear universal meanings

baAAda-hum = some (of) them
AAala = over/above/on
baAAdin = others/some

Not to mention, the universal meaning fits in the context logically.

But dont take my word for it, go and ask anyone "is this phrase reciprocal?" - "bestowed/preferred some over others" - and see what they say.

Let us know how it goes.

Well the proof, as I have said is in the many times it appears in the Qur'an, and the grammars, if that is not proof enough for you, then that is it, it is proof enough for me. I put four ayas the Qur'an. I cannot put the who9le lot of them where the clause appears, but because I do not have the time nor the strength to undertake that, but anybody can do it for himself, thanks to those Quranic tools that are available. If you do not find that convincing then, that's it for me.

I am not an Arabic expert, but I am sure there is a way, and I will look for examples when I can, whereby you can say that someone or someones are better than others or preferred over anothers without using a reciprocal clause.

In 4.32, what you are saying is that to say do not covet those things in which you are respectively favoured is impossible, that nobody ever could say that because evenness in itself makes it impossible. That is neither logical nor real.

You say

"My claim is rather simple - I take the Arabic words in the phrase as their clear universal meanings

baAAda-hum = some (of) them
AAala = over/above/on
baAAdin = others/some"

Well, it is your claim, I do not agree. I could also claim that when you say "love each other" it does not mean that someone loves sombody else and that that somebody else loves me, I could claim that that means that I have to love each person who is not me, but not that the others should love me as well, that is the obvious evident meaning, right?

Regarding this I must point out what Bender, very rightly said concerning this faddala ba3d.... 3ala ba3din

"You take X and Y as the elements, while X and Y are the sets which consists of elements.
note the words "ma" and "bima" in 432 and 434"

As to fitting the context, well if nothing better is found, worse things have been purportedly fitted to that part of the aya...
But for sure it does not fit better than where it is reciprocal.

Regarding "discussion" I tend to get mixed up with the mieaning of it in English and Spanish of discusi?n and discussi?n and in the process I may fail to give the proper nuance, but I meant talk about it or debate, not quarrel at all. I know we are good people and with the best purpose and intention. I just meant that I could not see any profit in reapeating over an over the same thing as if we were trying to impose anything. If it is helpful, though, of course it is worth repeating.

Salaam

[huruf]

In 434, the first part is clarifying the reciprocal nature as has been discussed. 434 would be a verse where based on your explanation it is clearly dealing with men and women contrasted with each other rather than the general classes of the maintainer or the dependent. Would this be correct? Or only the first part and the last part goes back to dealing with sets rather than subsets?
Also, to clarify, women would always fall under the class nisa but in a certain context only, insofar as it deals with childbirth etc?

peace

I think in this first part of 4.34, the most fitting fit is men and women, but something else should also be considered be considered if it happens to fit, why not.

There is the part of the respective gifts over each other and then there is what is owed because of those respective gifts, the part of the males "bi ma anfaqw min amwalihim" and the part of the females "falsalihat qanitat hafidhat lilghaib bi ma hafadhallah".

the first mentioned class justifies their qawwama paying with their wealth, transmutting their respective advantage into wealth that they transfer, the second mentionned class justifies being considered by God salihaat qanitaat guarding or keeping what God guarded or kept. And that is one reason also why I consider that this part of the aya refers to women in general, because if it was the nisaa' in a general sense, including orphans, or other dependents I do not see that the feminine plural for persons would be used.

This question regarding what the concordance of nisaa' would be when the nisaa' ar male or mixed people, perhaps some brother or sister knowledgeable in Arabic might care to answer.

This "what God guarded or kept" cannot be fidelity, or trust or regards or the house while the husband is absent or many other things in general, because those should be kept regardless whether one is from the rijal or from the nisaa' (in whatever sense), and it doesn't say either that whatever should be kept should be kept for the riyal, the same as it doesn't say that the transfer of wealth is to be made to a particular woman, even if the women ar supposed to be the benficiaries. Which may be taken as indication of a general social duty for each class on that count which is due not to a specific person, but to the collective. Now what is it that only women as such can keep and not men? What is that ghaib? I think that ghaib is the human-to-be for whom the mothers should keep the identity and the relationship with their ascendancy blood relatives.

Also, to clarify, women would always fall under the class nisa but in a certain context only, insofar as it deals with childbirth etc?

I think so. Women should benefit as such of the wealth of the riyal in general on that count. On another count, if they are well off or capable and in a situation or want to contribute, they would be riyal on those counts, just as women can and have been riyal in spiritual matters.

This part

Or only the first part and the last part goes back to dealing with sets rather than subsets?

I don't understand what you are referring to.

Is it where it says "and those from whom you fear "nushuz"?

If it is so, I think that in this case it is now talking about marriage partners, since the term nushuz is again used speaking about fear by the woman of nushuz from her husband.

The way the aya unfolds is quite logical. Goes from general partnership of all men and all women to the particular parnership between one man and one woman and how at that small scale people should proceed with their differences.

Salaam

[savage_carrot]

Is it where it says "and those from whom you fear "nushuz"?

Yes that is what I meant there. Thank you Huruf for your detailed post. Makes a lot of sense to me since I already had a few similar but vague ideas of my own on the subject, and this helps clarify. Will definitely try to follow up on this.

peace

[huruf]

This aya in post Saddam parlance seems to be the mother of all ayas. All of Qur'an suffers from ahderences through centuries that require a lot of grating, but in this one there is a particular contumacious concentration.

I think in this forum a lot of work has gone into clearing it and there is the great and fruitful effort of wakas in the site 434 and the Qur'an strikes back, and I am glad that that effort is still going on.

Salaam

[savage_carrot]

I agree, striving to clear misconceptions and the effort involved by all is worthwhile and necessary. Letting the light shine through and all that, if we were to be poetic. peace

[huruf]

I have been looking into the faddala aspect and also the ba3D... ba3d where they occur and got, hopefully more light in those aspects. Although regarding 4.34 I hold the same view, there are are other interesting aspects, that I have noticed. I don't know whether a should poste them here or in some other thread. May be here, since we have dealt with it. I will do it, in sha' Allah later in the day.

Salaam

[savage_carrot]

That's great and would be very much appreciated!

Yes, here would be fine, or a new one in the 'comments on the quran' sec with a link to this thread...whatever you think is best.

peace

[Bender]

I have been looking into the faddala aspect and also the ba3D... ba3d where they occur and got, hopefully more light in those aspects. Although regarding 4.34 I hold the same view, there are are other interesting aspects, that I have noticed. I don't know whether a should poste them here or in some other thread. May be here, since we have dealt with it. I will do it, in sha' Allah later in the day.

Salaam

Salaam huruf,

Yes please share.

Since last time I did myself a little bit study about it. In most of the cases the reciprocal is obvious but there were some ayaats which where not clear to me. But it was just a fast study, inshaAllah I will soon spend more time on it.

Thanks,
Bender