Critical Examination of Islam > Quranic Divinity
Is this verse applicable to todays women?
Bigmo:
--- Quote from: Samia on March 26, 2012, 05:20:41 AM ---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.
--- End quote ---
I understand but most people do not follow the Koran and so even if the Koran forbade slavery this does not mean that slavery would cease to exist or did not exist around the believers. But prisoners is hard for individuals to approach since they are usually governed by the state. The Koran told the prophet about prisoners and not individuals other than feeding the prisoners as charity.
Slaves are owned by individuals and therefore their owners can be approached but usually freeing prisoners is a state function.
Wakas:
peace Samia,
I am saying that the nisa are not necessarily the receiver of money directly. This is an indisputable fact of life. For example, it would be quite common for it to be indirect, e.g. spending on utilities, house maintenance etc. Besides, giving money to "vulnerable" person doesn't seem very prudent. And lastly, the word is "spend" not "give", so for your interpretation to better fit, the word should be "give".
There is nothing conclusive about this point.
Re: slave/prisoner
You said "This is mainly for the society."
You say mainly for society, I say it could be mainly for the slave/prisoner. In either case, there is nothing conclusive, and it would be subjective.
--- Quote ---What do you mean by the last sentence? It DOES say exactly that.
--- End quote ---
If you are implying Quran does say an absolute statement then this is 100% wrong.
If you are implying that then you contradict yourself when you later say "If someone is quwam over the other, the logic says we should show the criteria of this quwama. The verse did that."
So please clarify what you meant, thanks.
--- Quote ---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?
--- End quote ---
Being pregnant does not equal being sick!
--- Quote ---Moreover, how many years of the age an average woman spends on pregnancy and childbirth to make it such an issue?
--- End quote ---
It doesn't matter if it is only 5% of one's time, it is an issue that should be dealt with, and it is.
--- Quote ---What about unmarried women, sterile women?
--- End quote ---
If they wish to work, provide etc that is fine, they can do as they wish. This is about default duty, i.e. there is no obligation upon women that they should work/provide etc if there are men of the household.
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
You missed out 4:32, see below:
--- Quote ---Also, I just noticed that 4:32 says "some of YOU over others" whilst 4:34 says "some of THEM over others" - and the implication of this is obvious. In 4:32 it is referring to one pool of people (i.e. humankind, i.e. men and women), whilst 4:34 is referring to two groups of people, hence "THEM". This usage is a perfect fit.
To imply otherwise, would require explanation.
--- End quote ---
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version