Is this verse applicable to todays women?

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

Maha

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

Thank you Huruf for your explanation you are great! I always had some trouble with understanding 'nisa' and 'rijal' but after reading your post I realized that the reason for all that trouble is that 'nisa' and 'rijal' doesnt mean 'women' and 'men' at all! That was very enlightning to know. Please keep contributing your knowledge with us.

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.

very wise words...

Peace/shanti

Thanks again.

nobuddy

Peace --

Thank you Huruf for your explanation you are great! I always had some trouble with understanding 'nisa' and 'rijal' but after reading your post I realized that the reason for all that trouble is that 'nisa' and 'rijal' doesnt mean 'women' and 'men' at all! That was very enlightning to know. Please keep contributing your knowledge with us.

very wise words...

Peace/shanti

Thanks again.

Rijal can mean walking or refer to a group (males and females) with at least one male present -- any age.

2239 so if you fear farijlan so men/walking (use context) or riding so when secure so remember The God as what He taught you what not you were knowing

1643 and not We sent from before you only rijlan men/walking (use context) we reveal to them so ask people the reminder/male (use context) if you are not knowing

2227 and proclaim in the mankind in the Hajj they will come to you rijlan men/walking (use context) and on each lean they will come from each thoroughfare distant

However, nisa always refers to three or more women/females any age (use context) never men/males.

If you disagree, produce a verse in context where nisa means something else and not women/females?

Maha

Peace --

Rijal can mean walking or refer to a group (males and females) with at least one male present -- any age.

2239 so if you fear farijlan so men/walking (use context) or riding so when secure so remember The God as what He taught you what not you were knowing

1643 and not We sent from before you only rijlan men/walking (use context) we reveal to them so ask people the reminder/male (use context) if you are not knowing

2227 and proclaim in the mankind in the Hajj they will come to you rijlan men/walking (use context) and on each lean they will come from each thoroughfare distant

However, nisa always refers to three or more women/females any age (use context) never men/males.

If you disagree, produce a verse in context where nisa means something else and not women/females?

Hello sister. Why do you think nisa means women in the first place?
I never thought that nisa ment women but I was confused on whether it ment general weak people or people who have been forgotten(from nisyan). But both samia and huruf have clearified it for me.

Sister huruf and samia have come with very logical explanations and quranic references which you can check.

Bender

I never thought that nisa ment women but I was confused on whether it ment general weak people or people who have been forgotten(from nisyan).

Salaam,

From my understanding in almost all verses it's referring to women. There are only very few verses where it could potentially refer to something else, but even there I am still not sure.
An example is 314 which long time ago brother SeekingYou (if I remembered his name correctly) showed me.
314

The only reason why I think that "nisaa" could have some bigger concept then "women" is when we assume that "nisaa" is the opposite of "ri-jaal", as there are some verses where "ri-jaal" could mean something else then "men".
But then, we first have to proof that "ri-jaal" doesn't mean "men" and get the correct definition for ?ri-jaal?.
AND that "nisa" and "ri-jaal" are opposites and what kind of opposite it is.

actually 434 gives already an important (maybe the most important) difference between them.

The definition "weak people" or "people who have been forgotton" doesn't sound logical to me, unless I am missing something.

Salaam,
Bender

Samia

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.

Salaam Wakas, everybody
I apologize for not visiting the thread again after posting on it.
The reason for thinking of "receiving" because there is no other reason set for this "quwama", unless you accept that the reason is being a man, which is the very point we are discussing and you cannot use it as proof of non-spending. Otherwise, what does "quwama" have to do with God's favouring one group over another?

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.

.

It's not enough to say "even if it stood, I do not see it as strong or significant"!! It is significant because those who spend are the mu'mins, an ethical description, those who receive are the poor.
Verse 492 Setting free a mu'min is not necessarily for the sake of this person, but for the society. You cannot set free a criminal, or just a passive person unless your understanding of the meaning of "mu'min" is someone who believes in the existance of God. This person has to return to the pool of society, so he/ she better be a good doer.
Verse 2273 Explains a further category of people who need help and may pass unnoticed. It's not the main category and it is not mentioned as often as the poor in general. These are like "voluntary workers" who do not get paid or not paid enough. Again it's for the interest of the society and not because they are poor or unable to work.
When we look at "nisaa'" in verse 434, they can not fall in the same category as people who are, or expected, to do something to the society. They are just good or bad people and it is explained why the good ones keep the secret, the bad ones go bragging. If they were men, do they need to brag about taking care of their wives? Would spending on their wives need to be a secret?

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?

As I mentioned above, their "iman" is explained They keep the secret of what they do. In spite of taking care of the house and the children they work and spend money on this house, but they do not complain. That needs real devoutness. There's no lower degree.

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

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.

Samia

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 huruf
Nice to discuss again with you!

It is reciprocal, but why should it be men versus women and not bread winners versus needy?
I think the problem is not whether it is reciprocal or not, but who are the first B3D and who are the second B3D? B3D of whom (in both cases)? The only way to understand it is if we imagine a pool of people where some are favoured over the others, not two separate groups, otherwise B3D is meaningless.

Examples of B3D with separate groups
Verse 247 to bani Israel and I favoured you above all other people (not some of you over some).
Verse 4 95 favoured those who strive hard (mujahideen) over those who remain passive (qa3ideen) (not some of ujahideen over some).

Then we have when B3D is within a pool
Verse 2 253 Those apostles we favoured some of them over some (a pool of apostles not two distinct groups)
Verse 134 Kinds of fruit, favoured some above others in by way of the food/ taste (pool of fruit no distinction)

Verse 4 34 falls within the second category where we have a pool of people where some of them were favoured over some and for what they spend. One who spends is some one who has money in the first place. This can be male or female.

I come to the second part of your argument
Not all women are married, and not all married women have children and not all women who have children keep their children in care all the time. Just like not all men are breadwinners.
Secondly, this is a statement and not an obligation, so we do not need to state "reasons" for this quwama. As it is a statement, it has to be correct. Is it a valid argument to say " all men spend on all women"?
(I use "all" because this is the logical meaning).

Samia

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

Salaam nobuddy

If niss' covers "all" women, why mention them in the first place where the verse is discussing "exceptions"? If it is not about "all women", then the verse should mention who are the women that are an exception. However, I even wonder if women are concerned about other women's "zeena".
And is it an Arabic or even quraanic expression to speak about "women's women"?

nobuddy

Hello sister. Why do you think nisa means women in the first place?

Hello sister, actually I'm a guy D and it's nisa who menstruate (2222) and give birth (654).

From my understanding in almost all verses it's referring to women. There are only very few verses where it could potentially refer to something else, but even there I am still not sure.
An example is 314 which long time ago brother SeekingYou (if I remembered his name correctly) showed me.
314

Peace Bender, if someone says ?people like to hoard gold? ? is that statement true?

Why would the women/females have to mean something else in the below verse?
There are people who like all those mentioned while others don?t care for horses, etc.

314 adornment to the mankind love the desires from/of the women/females and the sons and the heaps the stored up from the gold and the silver and the horses the branded and the cattle and the tilled land ? those provision the life the world and The God with Him best the final return

315 say shall I inform you with better from those...

Salaam nobuddy

If niss' covers "all" women, why mention them in the first place where the verse is discussing "exceptions"? If it is not about "all women", then the verse should mention who are the women that are an exception. However, I even wonder if women are concerned about other women's "zeena".
And is it an Arabic or even quraanic expression to speak about "women's women"?

Salaam Samia,

Exceptions are women/females those in the inner circle one simple exception and the expression is obviously Arabic as example below which the address is to the general public speaking to both sexes....

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

Samia

Salaam Samia,

Exceptions are women/females those in the inner circle one simple exception and the expression is obviously Arabic as example below which the address is to the general public speaking to both sexes....

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

The whole verse

And if anyone should argue with thee about this after all the knowledge that has come unto thee, say "Come! Let us summon our sons and your sons, and our / nisaa' and your / nisaa', and ourselves and yourselves; and then let us pray humbly and ardently, and let us invoke God's curse upon those who are telling a lie."
Questions to ponder

Who are "we" and "you"? Are they just men or men and women?
If you say just men, does it mean that only men argue with the prophet about the truth after all the knowledge that has come unto him? And that the prophet discusses only with men but not with women? (I am OK with this if you see so...at least acknowledging that only men argue about the truth, even with the prophet ! and they will go to hell, not women yay).
If you say it is a mixed group
Where is "our men and your men"?
Aren't "our women" included in us, or are they also ladies of the extended family/ tribal/ inner circle? Then who are the "women" included in "us"?

Maha

Salaam,

From my understanding in almost all verses it's referring to women. There are only very few verses where it could potentially refer to something else, but even there I am still not sure.
An example is 314 which long time ago brother SeekingYou (if I remembered his name correctly) showed me.
314 y

The only reason why I think that "nisaa" could have some bigger concept then "women" is when we assume that "nisaa" is the opposite of "ri-jaal", as there are some verses where "ri-jaal" could mean something else then "men".
But then, we first have to proof that "ri-jaal" doesn't mean "men" and get the correct definition for ?ri-jaal?.
AND that "nisa" and "ri-jaal" are opposites and what kind of opposite it is.

actually 434 gives already an important (maybe the most important) difference between them.

The definition "weak people" or "people who have been forgotton" doesn't sound logical to me, unless I am missing something.

Salaam,
Bender

Salam brother

I cannot see any reason for why nisa are 'women' except that sunnies and shiites say so.

I cannot see any reason for why rijaal are men either except that sunnies and shiites say so.
And they say it in order to fit it with their hadith.

Rijaal as 'leaders' and 'providers' in contrast to nisa as 'needy people' make more sense to me. Quran Seems to be concerned with needy people .

Peace

savage_carrot

It is reciprocal, but why should it be men versus women and not bread winners versus needy?
Agreed, this is how I see it currently. Thank you for posting; lots of interesting points to ponder on.

peace

huruf

Here, is as announced for the day before yesterday, a collection of ayas related to what we have been discussing. More typically, may be I should have said "ma?ana".

I have collected all those ayas where the verb faDDala
appears, and highlighted it within the sentence and transliterated the highlighted parts. It appears some times with the expression ba3D only
and many times with the expression ba3D... ba3Din.

This ba3D... ba3Din, appears in Qur'an many more times with other prepositions and other verbs and it would be worthwhile making also a gathering of them, but since there was particular concern because of the faDDala value, for the sake of thoroughness, I have proceeded with that.

Here are the ayas

2.47
Children of Israel! call to mind the (special) favour which I bestowed upon you, and that I preferred you to all other (for My Message). faDDaltukum 3ala al3alamin

2.122
O Children of Israel! call to mind the special favour which I bestowed upon you, and that I preferred you to all others (for My Message) faDDaltukum 3ala al3alamin

2.253
Those messengers We endowed with gifts, some above others To one of them Allah spoke; others He raised to degrees (of honour); to Jesus the son of Mary We gave clear (Signs), and strengthened him with the holy spirit. Tilka alrusul faDDalna ba3dahum 3ala ba3Din minhum man kallama Allahu wa rafa3a ba3Dahum darajaat...

4.32
And in no wise covet those things in which Allah Hath bestowed His gifts More freely on some of you than on others To men is allotted what they earn, and to women what they earn But ask Allah of His bounty. For Allah hath full knowledge of all things. ma faDDala Allahu bihi ba3Dakum 3ala ba3Din

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. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. bima faDDala Allahu ba3Dahum 3ala ba3Din

4.95
Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward... faDDala Allahu al mujahidin bi amwalihim wa anfusihim 3ala alqa3idin darajatun...wa faDDala Allahu ....

6.86
And Isma'il and Elisha, and Jonas, and Lot and to all We gave favour above the nations faDDalna 3ala al 3alamin

7.140
He said "Shall I seek for you a god other than the (true) Allah, when it is Allah Who hath endowed you with gifts above the nations?" wa huwa faDDalacum 3ala al 3alamin

13.4
And in the earth are tracts (diverse though) neighbouring, and gardens of vines and fields sown with corn, and palm trees - growing out of single roots or otherwise watered with the same water, yet some of them We make more excellent than others to eat. Behold, verily in these things there are signs for those who understand! we nufaDDilu ba3Daha 3ala ba3Dinn fil akli

16.71
Allah has bestowed His gifts of sustenance more freely on some of you than on others those more favoured are not going to throw back their gifts to those whom their right hands possess, so as to be equal in that respect. Will they then deny the favours of Allah? Wa Allahu faDDala ba3Dacum 3ala ba3Din firrizq mamalakaat aymanuhum

17.21
See how We have bestowed more on some than on others; but verily the Hereafter is more in rank and gradation and more in excellence. faDDalna ba3Dahum 3ala ba3Dinn

17.55
And it is your Lord that knoweth best all beings that are in the heavens and on earth We did bestow on some prophets more (and other) gifts than on others and We gave to David (the gift of) the Psalms. Wa laqad faDDalna ba3Da annibiyyina 3ala ba3Din

17.70
We have honoured the sons of Adam; provided them with transport on land and sea; given them for sustenance things good and pure; and conferred on them special favours, above a great part of our creation. wa faDDalnahum 3ala katheer mimman khalaqna tafDeela

27.15
We gave (in the past) knowledge to David and Solomon And they both said "Praise be to Allah, Who has favoured us above many of his servants who believe!"alladhi faDDalna 3ala katheeri mmin 3ibaadihi al muminin.

45.16
We did aforetime grant to the Children of Israel the Book the Power of Command, and Prophethood; We gave them, for Sustenance, things good and pure; and We favoured them above the nations. wa faDDalnahum 3ala al 3alamin

The ayas in which the clause ba3D... ba3Din does not come up
are 2.47, 2.122, 4.95, 6.86, 7.140, 17.70, 27.15 and 4.16.All of them except one talk about the prophes or the people who followed them with the import that their are distinguished above the 3alamin, or over many other creatures, but does not say ay particulsr collective or persons over which they are distinguished.

The exception is 4.95, where a group clearly defined is distinguished over a group equally clearly defined that is the mujahiden over the qa3idin. These two groups are distinguished not by any inherent quality but by what they do or do not do. Which would also be the case with the prophets and their followers, but it is not so clearly given.

If we go to the ayas where the clause ba3D... ba3D appears, there are two types,

a) 2.253, 13.4, 17.21 17.55, 4.32, 16.71, the faDDala operates within a single group or set, one over the other. No indication is given of any particular individual or several of them. Rather in the ones dealing about the prophets (2.253, 17.55) it signals different gifts given to individual ones, no attempt and totality or detailed enumeration or attribution is made, and no names or description is given, except those few explicited, to allow anybody to distinguish between the Prophetsso as to arrive to conclude that in total summ any one in particular is less or more giftedor giving any indication in fact that there would be anybody not gifted in some aspect over others who might be gifted in some other aspects but not in the same, whereas the indication given in the explicit mention of some shows that they were gifted differenty, some with something some with something other.

17.21 makes also clear that the gifts are always related to what you do with what you have. Again no natural preference by birth or clsassification for any over anybody else, but what ech does, gives his or her preference. Which may further enlighten as to those "bima" en 4.32.

In 4.32. no mark or indication is given that anybody in particular should always be the more gifted and others would never be gifted nor that anybody would have no gifts at all, and real life shows that all people in general have something or other which others might covet, and that anybody, if giving in to coevetousness, would find something to covet in anyone.

The case in 16.71 is interesting because it would seem that within a group some would indeed be wealthier than others, and that amongst those other, there would be the MMA, which might be a hint also as to one of the traits that would qualify anybody as MMA.

What is interesting in this group is that even if we said ok let us say that it is not mutual, that some covet and some different ones, are coveted, that some prophets are aboslutely more gifted and other absolutely less gifted, the point is we have no way to know which ones, it would always be left to anybody's particular feeling or opinion, so that the end result would be that we have no way of pointing unequivocally to anybody, except for the case of 16.71 where, apparently, the unmistakable trait would be to have enough wealth, enough at least to be able to git it to some MMA. This in itself might be an indication in itself. Faddala seems to be mentioned always in connection with spiritual values or gits. So may be what the faddala indicated here is that if you give of your gifts, then you have been really the objet of the faDDala, if not...

b) two groups or sets are considered.
It would be interesting to explore the whole Qur'an for the clause in any other case where faDDala is not involved to see the usage where the "preference" preconception does not cloud the vision. Here I will stick to the faddala. In this case we have only one aya, our famous

4.34.

It would be worthwhile comparing this to 4.95, where also there are two elements, the mujahidin and the qa3idin, and also is there the verb faddala, the difference is that there is not the clause ba3D... ba3Din. So there is a way to say that somebody is favoured over somebody else without resourcing to the ba3D... ba3Din clause.

However that is not what wakas said, what wakas was saying is that it is comparing not riyal to nisaa' but some of the riyal, to some of the same riyal or some also of the nisaa'. But that sounds arbitrary, what has to do with women than some men are preferred to others? If they owe something to the nisaa', surely these have something to do with it, or? And why some othe riyal owe it and some others not? Adn what has that to do with the salihaat qanitaat...?

What the Qur'an would be saying is that those who support the nisaa' are those who support the nisaa'. No quarrel with that fact, but why write this aya to state the obvious?

The fact is that the qawwamun is tied to two conditions that they do have that with which they were gifted relatively to the nisaa', and that they put their wealth in for that. But to say that some of the riyal are qawwamun is not the same as to say that the rijal should be qawwamun, that ist, the it is something that is required of them in order to make their gifts into real spiritual values and earn the akhira. Just as the Hafidhaat lilghaib are el salihaat, qanitaat.

We have the second previous aya to this, which we have also considered in this message that says
"And in no wise covet those things in which Allah Hath bestowed His gifts More freely on some of you than on others To men is allotted what they earn, and to women what they earn But ask Allah of His bounty. For Allah hath full knowledge of all things."

Here in 4.34 what is hinted at in 4.32, respective gifts, is made explicit concerning riyal and nisaa'. By the way, in 4.33, there is mention of of "alladhina 3aqadat aymanukum, reminiscent of those MMA. Worthwhile pointing out that neither in 4.32 nor in 4.34 is spoken about wives and husbands, but about riyal and nisaa'.

Much has been said about wife and husband being partners and all that, but may be we are missing some conscience that in a larger scale, in total social scale women and men are partners, the basic partnership.

Salaam

huruf

I have posted my last message because it took me a long time to finish and I see that a lot has been said since.

I recall to have said previously that if the aya fits a certain situacion or set of conditions, then why limit it?

It may well be that it is good if it is taken to mean men and women , and also if it is taken to mean able versus unable or material contributors versus non conributors. Because it fits some premises, it doesn't follow that it would nit fit other permises.

I particularly like the men-women, because I consider it important. It is not useless or meaningless, quite the opposite. For me it is fundamental, basic.
Which does not stand in opposition to other fruits that may had.

quote from an exchange with Savage Carrot

Quote from savage_carrot on February 28, 2012, 062624 PM

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?
Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Salaam

savage_carrot

I recall to have said previously that if the aya fits a certain situacion or set of conditions, then why limit it?

It may well be that it is good if it is taken to mean men and women , and also if it is taken to mean able versus unable or material contributors versus non conributors. Because it fits some premises, it doesn't follow that it would nit fit other permises.
I think the 'two ways' can be married (/pun) by a certain perception in which the classes of dependent/maintainer (or whatever suitable defining words fit these categories) include the fundamental/basic (in my opinion as well) man-woman relationship. I think your explanations are mutually inclusive in a way )

Lots of reading material however, will go through it. This is a great discussion by the way, reminds me of the days of yore.

huruf

There is one question I already put regarding the salihaat, qanitaat hafidhat bilghaib, but will put it again now that sammia is back

If by the nisaa' in 4.34 are meant men or women o the category of nisaa', that is, non?contributors or whatever we call them, would the female plural, that salihaat, qanitaat hafidhat still aply to them even if they are not women? Is there any other instance in the qur'an where they come up and the feminine plural is used for them?

Salaam

nobuddy

Salaam Samia,

Questions to ponder

Who are "we" and "you"? Are they just men or men and women?
If you say just men, does it mean that only men argue with the prophet about the truth after all the knowledge that has come unto him? And that the prophet discusses only with men but not with women? (I am OK with this if you see so...at least acknowledging that only men argue about the truth, even with the prophet ! and they will go to hell, not women yay).

The address is to the leadership of a group in 6th century patriarchal society in Arabic which is male dominant language even if women were in authority would not matter; still same protocol is followed.

If you say it is a mixed group

Where is "our men and your men"?

and ourselves and yourselves (i.e. those in authority, see above)

Aren't "our women" included in us, or are they also ladies of the extended family/ tribal/ inner circle? Then who are the "women" included in "us"?

In context; this part includes all sons i.e. boys and women/females/girls other than in authority.

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

A woman messenger or person in authority can make the same exact address, then and now?

361 so who argues you in it from after what comes to you from the knowledge say come let our sons and your sons and our women/females and your women/females and ourselves and yourselves furthermore let us pray humbly so to make curse The God on the liars

Wakas

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.

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.

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.

You 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.

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".
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.

Wakas

peace huruf, sc, all,

It may be helpful if we define what we mean by "reciprocal". Here is from google

re?cip?ro?cal
adjective/risiprkl/

Given, felt, or done in return

she was hoping for some reciprocal comment or gesture

(of an agreement or obligation) Bearing on or binding each of two parties equally

the treaty is a bilateral commitment with reciprocal rights and duties

(of a pronoun or verb) Expressing mutual action or relationship

(of a course or bearing) Differing from a given course or bearing by 180 degrees

(of a quantity or function) Related to another so that their product is one

Please clarify what you mean. Thanks.