Is this verse applicable to todays women?

[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

1. God preferred/bestowed on you (and this likely refers to capacity to work - we both agree on this)
   and
2. 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.

[savage_carrot]

And how these breadwinners are apparently taking care of the house and children and working.
Imagine yourself as a woman...no wait, I'll give a better example There was this VP we had, her husband had polio or something and couldn't work...she was doing everything and had hired help/family at times to fill in the gaps. Everyone hated her but that was because of the bitterness she spewed especially at girls, as if we could never be good enough (probably had valid reason). I used to think of her as a twisted She-Ra. And I've known at least 3 women like this, the bitterness was a common factor, who knows why.

I think we* are arguing at cross purposes however, I haven't really collated all the data yet for this viewpoint which still has to be done...but I don't think our* views are necessarily contradictory at all.

*everyone

It may be helpful if we define what we mean by "reciprocal"
Venture to suggest it's the obligation bearing on both parties equally but with differences as to what is bearing on whom depending on situation etc etc.

peace

[huruf]

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 BeD 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).

See my long message which comes after this one of yours, and in which the ayas where it is said that that Gof faDDala bani Israil what is said is not ba3D... 3ala ba3Din, but faDDalahum 3ala el 3alamin, so it is not the same case at all.

I already explained that since it speaks about riyal and nisaa, the whole thing refers to their specificity as such, and therefore, other considerations, will be considered when were are not dealing with that specificity, Just as when one is a teacher and considered as such, no consideration is taken of where you live, or what is in your bank account or whether you have a car or not.
The sentence speakes about relative faDDala, conditioned by the bima and the bima attaches to riyal as such not to some of them, because if it was so then it would have said "ba3Du el riyal" or something that indicated so. But you do not deal with this bima which explains the relative faDDala and seem to make the thing appear as impossibility y because of the preconception that if somebody is favoured, he is absolutely favoured and not relatively, and therefore cannot admit that some can be favoured in respect of others which in turn can be favoured with something else over the first. It is no the sentence that makes that impossible, but the preconceived idea that it is an absolute superiority of gifts, and that if there is superiority, only one side can be superior.

When it speaks about prophets comparing between them, as I say in the long message, it does say ba3DD.. ba3DDin but it doesn't seem to say that it is absolute, but rather that each had his particular gift, and mentions some of them with their gifts. And yes those are from the same group. Also, other than with faDDala, the clause ba3DD... ba3Din is mutual or reciprocal, as there are many cases in the Qur'an, and the reason why in this case is not allowed to be so it is because it is considered impossible, not gramatically, but ideologically, that two different things be gifted over each other, even if it is with different gifts.

But it is not so, as we see with the prophets, and to further clarified it is said "bima". Which sex or which human beings are favoured absolutely over some other group? iOther than through their behaviour, it is always in some aspect never absolutely. And when the Qur'an speaks about absolute superiority of some over other human beings it does so according to their behaviour.

And the hafidhat lilghaib, it is good yes, to do good without boasting. But between boasting and hiding or silencing all together, to make it ghaib there is a difference. Those menial jobs are not ghaib, they may be valued or not valued, but normally are well known, and if people do them without being paid, they are disregarded in that sense, but not hidden or unknown, in fact, those are gifts if they are not paid for. Rather it would be the qawwamun who would be indeed salihin if they did their qawwama deeds without anybody noticing.

Hafidhat lil ghaib, keepers for or to the ocult.... they keep for the hidden or unknown. But they, the hafidhat, do know of the ghaib, it is not occult for them. I still think that it is the human to be (may be amongst other things that could be, but certainly that as most universal and obvious) and if it is not so, why cannot it be so?

The whole of this part of the aya is a parallel formulation. Gifts on one side and the making good of those gifts through the behaviour, riyal as qawwamun, nisaa' as hafidhaat lilghaib.

And Samia is right when saying that if it is about men and women that it is speaking, then the qawwama falls on all riyal as such, because such is the formulation, and what it would amount to would be to say that men are qawwam of the women, because some of them are more gifted than other men ?What is the logic of that formulation? What is it to the women whether some are more gifted than others? so what? What is the news about that? If anybody knows that well, it is women. -what does it do it to the men to be told that all of them are qawwam, but that some of them are more gifted than others. Fresh news! Does it mean that those who are not as gifted get rid of the burden of being qawwamun? May be of the burden yes, but not of the prerrogatives tht they extract out of it. So what is the need of stating that some of the riyal are more gifted than others? What is the use of that statement?

It is if we understand that both terms mentioned, riyal and nisaa' are respectively gifted and respectively burdened, and that the qawwamun is not merely a discriptive statement (because if that, really nobody needed it and still falls on all riyal and not on those who are more gifted), it is clear and known that some men take up burdens and others reject them. It is I think a descriptive, yes, but not of of a particular situation, but of what should be if we are dealing with people who listen to the Message. Riyal, as such riyal, to the extent that they are riyal, should take up their function. So in respect to of their relative gifts, riyal are qawwamun and nisaa' are hafidhat lilghaib.

I find this symptomatic In this aya some people tend to pick the interpretation that what it says is that some riyal are preferred over some other riyal, whereas another interprettion goes outright to say that men are preferred over women.

I think that men who incline for the first interpretation are simply too fair and respectful to admit to something like the second interpretation, but in spite of it, holders of both versions are equally under the spell that the faDDala is exclusive and unqualified and therefore only one side can be favoured over the other and not respectively. But it does say "bima" for more clarity. Or is there some gramatical anathema afixed to that if we say that two groups surpass each other in certain things, or is there an ideological anathema to that, and how would it be said in Arabic so that it is understood, and how is it said in the Qur'an? Is not that the real case betwen men and women in those things they differ, that they are respectively gifted? In those things they differ aren't there its advantages and their disadvantages? Am I saying something that is out of this world, that it cannot be seen as a fact?

Also I asked if that feminine plural used for the salihaat, qanitaat hafidhat, stands also for males, because if Samias understanding is followed it should stand also for males. Would that be right from the point of view of grammar?

Salaam

[savage_carrot]

I find this symptomatic In this aya some people tend to pick the interpretation that what it says is that some riyal are preferred over some other riyal, whereas another interprettion goes outright to say that men are preferred over women. I think that men who incline for the first interpretation are simply too fair and respectful to admit to something like the second interpretation, but in spite of it, holders of both versions are equally under the spell that the faDDala is exclusive and unqualified and therefore only one side can be favoured over the other and not respectively. Is not that the real case betwen men and women in those things they differ, that they are respectively gifted? In those things they differ aren't there its advantages and their disadvantages? Am I saying something that is out of this world, that it cannot be seen as a fact?
It's very hard to argue against this because it is reality, but as you say, the interpretations and cultural connotations incline towards the first confusingly and towards the second ridiculously.

Would second a grammar clarification.

[huruf]

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.

I would say this

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

something that works in both directions <--->

Salaam

[Wakas]

peace huruf, sc,

Thanks for clarifying.

In the definitions from google, one implies "equal" reciprocity. In 434 what is your view on this aspect?

For me, there can be no equal reciprocity (i.e. bestowment/preference) as this would render the statement illogical and redundant.

So, if you two are saying the reciprocity refers to bestowing, and this can be unequal, but there is some bestowing to each side, then I would perhaps agree to that even though I think this is an awkward way of looking at it and wording it.

[huruf]

Salaam

Equal? In value? In degree?

Does not say anthing about that and I do not think it can be about that. Relative worth of people is based on taqwa and deeds, that must necessarily be individual, not class.

As to the thing itself it is clear through the "bima" that some gifts are given to one side and not to the other, and that some gifts are given to the other side and not to the one, so they would not be the same gifts obviously otherwise there would not be any sense to formulate anything at all and to set respective goodmakings, the qawwama on one side, the hafidhaat on the other.

Really the equal conflicting part you bring up throws me off, because I think that what has been said all along is that males and females are different, but never that there was a question of superiority of one sex over the other. That is what this aya is about. Otherwise we are back in the question of whether men are superior to women or the other way around which I thought was already asummed that there is no question of superiority, but of relative superiority in those things they differ. That is why women and men are partners, equal partners and awlia' and all that, otherwise they would be other things.

I don't know whether I am understanding you right.

Salaam

[Wakas]

peace huruf.

There is no question about superiority here. In case that was not clear.

[Samia]

Also I asked if that feminine plural used for the salihaat, qanitaat hafidhat, stands also for males, because if Samias understanding is followed it should stand also for males. Would that be right from the point of view of grammar?

Salaam

A few days ago I wrote a long post that would have explained this, but it was gone! Didn't have more time to rewrite it.

I just have one comment on the other part of your post before I get to this part.
When you say "men are guardians over women" What qualifications do these men have with regard ethics, moral or even dogma? What's the meaning of this guardianship if not linked to spending?

If both men and women can spend on each other, why is the quwama for men only?

Here I am not saying masculine contains feminine, but I am saying that the meaning of rijal as used in the quraan and as the root indicates, means "on foot", i.e active, seeking "bounty", and nisaa as also used in the quraan in some verses and as its root indicates, means "the late, left behind"
(verse 4127)

(And they request from you a ruling concerning nisaa. Say, "Allah gives you a ruling about them and what has been recited to you in the Book concerning
1- others of fatherless children to whom you do not give what is decreed for them - and you desire to marry them
2 - and concerning the oppressed among children
3- and that you maintain for orphans in fairness).
As you see, all these three categories fall within "nisaa'".

Then the verse narrows to take a specific case of couples, where the woman spends and the man is, for any reason, unable to work or get a job or has no money.
It's logical that the verse speaks about the person who is responsible to show them how to be rightly responsible, and what results to expect when they behave badly. In this case it is the wife.
Why only the example of couples? Because any other relation is temporarily, and not obligatory (save the parents who have alone a specific rule not linked to anything or fDDL except to them being parents). Moreover, no other relation needs to be taken to the authorities just because the needy party does not like the behavior of the one putting a roof over their head and food on their table.

The plurals you mention are true feminine. The reason is that we have an analogous verse concerning husbands who are "nashez" and how to deal with them (412).

[Wakas]

peace Samia,

Let me know your thoughts on my reply #89, when you have time.

Thanks.

[Bigmo]

Peace all. Verse 434... Seeing as women can be bread-winners in todays world,what is the new interpretation of this verse,or is it not literally applicable in todays society?

Interesting.

As a side note the verse that says

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.

The bolded part is incorrect. In fact it uses "fadala ba'dahum ala ba'd" the same term it used when it said we should not seperate between the prophets and that God "fadala ba'dahum ala ba'd". This means that he has given them preferences over EACH OTHER. Its not one over the other but each over the other.

So in a general sense yes men are the bread winners and so have preferences that God gave but also in some cases women can have the stronger say in the family.

The verse about the prophets tells us that some prophets were given some preferences over the other but also vice versa. David was given the Psalms but Moses talked to God and Jesus was given the Holy Spirit and Muhammad was given the Koran. Nobody gets it all.

Its preferences over each other and not one over the other as the translation says. It makes a differences.

What does this has to do with the topic of inheritance?

Well I think in general yes that the boys will end up having more responsibilities in their life and often have to also fend for the sister but in cases it could be the other way around.

Remember its one thing many times the Quran can be telling us to do something but iots another issue when it says we should not do something.

It never said that girls or boys should not be given the same but i think this verse has to do with equity as in most societies men have the responsibilities to take care of their sisters and often they are the ones who pay the dowries and have to work etc. In India and Pakistan its the women's families who actually bear the cost of marriage etc.

In the end it does not matter since the women marries the man and the man marries the women and they in any case will end up sharing their wealth in the end. So it always comes back to them. But it could be a question of equity in responsibilities.

[Samia]

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.

But "spending" is a condition for quwama. If there is a spender, then there's someone who receives.
Since "nisaa" means those who are vulnerable (in anyway including not having means to gain money), then they will be the reciever. It's not a peripheral issue. It IS the issue as far as nisaa and rijaal are concerned (in as much as they are not women and men).

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.

Verse 492 speaks of conditions of when to free a prisoner. It deals with covenants between the community of the killer and that of the victim, and whether there's peace covenant or not. In both cases, the freed prisoner should be a "mu'min", which helps understand the meaning of "mu'min" not an aggressor; someone who extends peace to others (494), and this leads to my belief that this prisoner should be one who spreads peace, not aggression. This is mainly for the society.

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.

By secret I mean the reason why the husband is not working and how this has an impact on her...etc
Why should she do the housework and take care of the children and become also the breadwinner? This is not an obligation and is not prescribed by God. The husband should do his share and if he doesn't then no blame on her to complain. If he helps in the house, which is the ideal situation the verse must be talking about, then she should not boast around as the bread winner. If she does, then he should advise her not to...etc through the rest of the steps up divorce or reconciliation

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

1. God preferred/bestowed on you (and this likely refers to capacity to work - we both agree on this)
   and
2. 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.

Very Good. I agree...We agree ;D

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".

What do you mean by the last sentence? It DOES say exactly that.
Why mention pregnancy and childbirth? Women still work while they are pregnant and when they have kids. If they are unable, they fall within the category of the sick, men or women, and abstain. Same rules as for fasting. Why change the same rules here?
Moreover, how many years of the age an average woman spends on pregnancy and childbirth to make it such an issue?
What about unmarried women, sterile 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

The way "some of them over some" as I explained it in an earlier post (post 7 in a reply to huruf, on the issue of FDL, and according to the usage of this expression in the quraan, shows that it's a preference within ONE group, people of both genders in our verse, in opposition to the expression that shows preference between two specific groups.
The need for this interpretation of nisaa and rijaal rsides in he two examples given of two wives, where the second example of a woman whose nushuuz to be feared may lead to divorce.
To what category do these two examples belong? Rijaal or nisaa'?
If someone is quwam over the other, the logic says we should show the criteria of this quwama. The verse did that.
Now the verse is giving examples of two quwamuuns who either behaved well or badly.
These two quwamuuns are rijaal. And it happened that both of them are women.

[Samia]

In summary

1- The verse is about quwama who is quwam over whom.
2. Criteria of choosing this quwam.
3. Examples of the behaviours of two quwams.
4. Remedies when the quwam behaves beyond their obligations "ultra vires".

[Bigmo]

But "spending" is a condition for quwama. If there is a spender, then there's someone who receives.
Since "nisaa" means those who are vulnerable (in anyway including not having means to gain money), then they will be the reciever. It's not a peripheral issue. It IS the issue as far as nisaa and rijaal are concerned (in as much as they are not women and men).
Verse 492 speaks of conditions of when to free a prisoner. It deals with covenants between the community of the killer and that of the victim, and whether there's peace covenant or not. In both cases, the freed prisoner should be a "mu'min", which helps understand the meaning of "mu'min" not an aggressor; someone who extends peace to others (494), and this leads to my belief that this prisoner should be one who spreads peace, not aggression. This is mainly for the society.

By secret I mean the reason why the husband is not working and how this has an impact on her...etc
Why should she do the housework and take care of the children and become also the breadwinner? This is not an obligation and is not prescribed by God. The husband should do his share and if he doesn't then no blame on her to complain. If he helps in the house, which is the ideal situation the verse must be talking about, then she should not boast around as the bread winner. If she does, then he should advise her not to...etc through the rest of the steps up divorce or reconciliation
Very Good. I agree...We agree ;D

What do you mean by the last sentence? It DOES say exactly that.
Why mention pregnancy and childbirth? Women still work while they are pregnant and when they have kids. If they are unable, they fall within the category of the sick, men or women, and abstain. Same rules as for fasting. Why change the same rules here?
Moreover, how many years of the age an average woman spends on pregnancy and childbirth to make it such an issue?
What about unmarried women, sterile women?

The way "some of them over some" as I explained it in an earlier post (post 7 in a reply to huruf, on the issue of FDL, and according to the usage of this expression in the quraan, shows that it's a preference within ONE group, people of both genders in our verse, in opposition to the expression that shows preference between two specific groups.
The need for this interpretation of nisaa and rijaal rsides in he two examples given of two wives, where the second example of a woman whose nushuuz to be feared may lead to divorce.
To what category do these two examples belong? Rijaal or nisaa'?
If someone is quwam over the other, the logic says we should show the criteria of this quwama. The verse did that.
Now the verse is giving examples of two quwamuuns who either behaved well or badly.
These two quwamuuns are rijaal. And it happened that both of them are women.

What made you think verse 492 is talking about prisoners and not slaves.

[Samia]

What made you think verse 492 is talking about prisoners and not slaves.

I believe slavery is prohibited in the quraan. They should be freed by definition of the religion and not as a compensation for a wrong doing.
If you acquire stolen goods, you should return it. No compensation would be offered, and you may even be prosecuted.
Same thing here.
This is not about slaves, because it compensates for a crime.