Critical Examination of Islam > Quranic Divinity
Is this verse applicable to todays women?
Bigmo:
--- Quote from: enquirer on May 21, 2006, 11:57:37 AM ---Peace all. Verse 4:34... 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?
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: Wakas on March 03, 2012, 05:21:40 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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).
--- Quote --- 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.
--- End quote ---
Verse 4:92 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 (4:94), and this leads to my belief that this prisoner should be one who spreads peace, not aggression. This is mainly for the society.
--- Quote ---You then imply 4:34 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.
--- End quote ---
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
--- Quote ---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 4:34 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.
--- End quote ---
Very Good. I agree...We agree ;D
--- Quote ---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 2:228, 2:233, 65:6), 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".
--- End quote ---
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?
--- Quote ---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
--- End quote ---
The way "some of them over some" as I explained it in an earlier post (post 78) 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:
--- Quote from: Samia on March 26, 2012, 03:34:42 AM ---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 4:92 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 (4:94), 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 78) 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.
--- End quote ---
What made you think verse 4:92 is talking about prisoners and not slaves.
Samia:
--- Quote from: Bigmo on March 26, 2012, 04:54:29 AM ---What made you think verse 4:92 is talking about prisoners and not slaves.
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version