Critical Examination of Islam > Quranic Divinity
Is this verse applicable to todays women?
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 /riˈsiprəkəl/
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:
--- Quote from: Wakas ---And how these breadwinners are apparently taking care of the house and children and working.
--- End quote ---
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
--- Quote ---It may be helpful if we define what we mean by "reciprocal"
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: Samia on March 02, 2012, 07:47:56 PM ---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 2:47: 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 13:4 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).
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: huruf ---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?
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: Wakas on March 03, 2012, 05:30:18 PM ---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 /riˈsiprəkəl/
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.
--- End quote ---
I would say this
(of a pronoun or verb) Expressing mutual action or relationship
something that works in both directions <--->
Salaam
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version