Critical Examination of Islam > Quranic Divinity

Is this verse applicable to todays women?

<< < (20/22) > >>

Wakas:
peace huruf, sc,

Thanks for clarifying.

In the definitions from google, one implies "equal" reciprocity. In 4:34 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:

--- Quote from: huruf on March 04, 2012, 02:10:08 AM ---

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

--- End quote ---

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: 4:127): وَيَسْتَفْتُونَكَ فِي النِّسَاءِ ۖ قُلِ اللَّـهُ يُفْتِيكُمْ فِيهِنَّ وَمَا يُتْلَىٰ عَلَيْكُمْ فِي الْكِتَابِ فِي يَتَامَى النِّسَاءِ اللَّاتِي لَا تُؤْتُونَهُنَّ مَا كُتِبَ لَهُنَّ وَتَرْغَبُونَ أَن تَنكِحُوهُنَّ وَالْمُسْتَضْعَفِينَ مِنَ الْوِلْدَانِ وَأَن تَقُومُوا لِلْيَتَامَىٰ بِالْقِسْطِ ۚ

(And they request from you a [legal] ruling concerning nisaa. Say, "Allah gives you a ruling about them and [about] 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 [yet] you desire to marry them
2 - and concerning the oppressed among children
3- and that you maintain for orphans [their rights] 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 (4:12).

Wakas:
peace Samia,

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

Thanks.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page