Is this verse applicable to todays women?

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

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"?