Is God objectifying women?
-
Peace *
The verse reads 'adorned for people are the worldly pleasures'...this to me means that all this lust for possession etc is a worldy pleasure...and also the 'objects' mentioned are the commonest things that lead most astray from the righteous path, thru ages...if you've seen troy, and godfather/scarface etc etc...God didn't have to mention every single thing that would lead you astray did He? He just mentioned the most common ones and using our perception, we see what He is saying to us...
I hope i helped you somewhat..
Peace
Why didn't God say 'spouses'? Why does this verse seem only to be addressed to men?
Roshan
-
Roshan,
Do you ever read the posts here before you made such an enquiry??
Tay wroteCheck this out
QXP 314 Beautiful for mankind is love of the joys that come from women and children, and heaps of gold and silver, and branded horses, and cattle and well-tilled land. That is comfort of the life of the world. Allah! With Him is a more excellent abode.Yankee wrote
Since the Qxp has done a beautiful job of translating it from materials to comfort I was just curious as to why would this case be gender specific as if it was meant for the men.It could have come down as spouse instead of women because mind you women are as lustful as men in all the other aspects like Gold,children,etc.Why didn't God say 'spouses'? Why does this verse seem only to be addressed to men?
Roshan
cheers.
-
Why didn't God say 'spouses'? Why does this verse seem only to be addressed to men?
Salam All,
The verse is clearly not addressing males only, it is addressing "all people".
It is telling "all people" about inherent nature of mankind, giving a list of "wordly" "things" that humans are attracted to and which they should be carefull about.
The list includes "gold, silver and horses".. fine
The list also includes "Al-nissa'" and "al-baneen".... now if the first is "women" you have a problem. If the second is "children" you have a problem too.Let's first agree that that is indeed what the verse is about.
Peace,
Mohamed~ -
Peace be upon you,
Yankee Doodle and Roshan, my point exactly. Why wasn't the word "spouses" used? I checked out all seven different transaltions of the Koran I can find and they all said "women". It seems as if "women" are driving the righteous away from God! Besides, it feels like the entire Book is addressed to the men.
Elena, I am doing the exact same project, which is finding out the percentage of times the Koran addresses the men. I have only two more chapters of the Koran to go, which God Willing I'll get done by next week. Once compiled, I'll let you know.
Thanks all,
* -
Yankee Doodle and Roshan, my point exactly. Why wasn't the word "spouses" used? I checked out all seven different transaltions of the Koran I can find and they all said "women". It seems as if "women" are driving the righteous away from God! Besides, it feels like the entire Book is addressed to the men.
Since the verse is addressing "people" and not "men", one should conclude that
"women" are driving the righteous men AND the righteous women, away from God!
Mohamed~
-
"women" are driving the righteous men AND the righteous women, away from God!
How so?
-
Peace all,
It's time to be a little objective here and start thinking according to some basic facts of life...along with what the quran says.
Now, i'll be honest as possible and please bear with me as this is my personal opinion based on some facts observed in life and experienced.
Right, what have we seen since the long long time that we have existed on this plane of existence, according to history and what we see all around us today? Men have different roles and women have different roles to live in this existence. That is why a man is a man and a woman is a woman.
The souls are equal to one another but the role we are born into in this plane of existence are not the same. Men have always been responsible for women as they have the role of bringing life into this world and nurturing it. The souls are equal but the roles are not similar. Men and women ARE different in the roles they have to exist in.
This responsibility is inclusive of earning, protecting and taking care of the women. Women are women for a reason. What is that reason? Bringing life into this world, nurturing and protecting it and thinking and doing whatever to support and bring a different perspective to the entire deal.
There are exceptions always and God has not forbidden any deviant course from the norm, like if a man wants to nurture and a woman wants to earn etc, but what is the common general rule since time immorial? Women always have babies and take care of them and men always earn the livelihood and protect (always exceptions but we are talking generally)
These days being a feminist and having manhood envy is common. Being a vegetarian and opposing people who eat animals is common. The reasoning behind it is, why would a merciful and egalitarian (acc to human/preconceived/biased thought of what God should be) God allow this? Now i'm not a feminist but i believe strongly in human and women's rights (animals too). Why am i not a feminist? because i think they have major issues with men, instead of dealing with the issues they tend to go off on an extreme tangent.
The simple fact is, we know of no prophet that was a woman, we hear of no messengers that were women (though it's possible that a woman can be a messenger)...but why is this? Shouldnt there be equality then? Why are some verses seemingly addressed to men? Can't women get some sense out of it?
The answers to the above is, what is common or the general run of events since time started for us? Why is it like that? Because of the roles we have as men and women. Women can definitely get a sense of the quran and know all that they can with God's help, they can be as close to God as men because the souls are equal, it's not as if there aren't passages devoted to women's rights alone...they are, then why the fuss if some are devoted to men and their place in this world? Lack of understanding of what's what perhaps?
So all in all, there should be no sugar coating the facts. Women are women and men are men. This is the way it is and we should best accept this as God's plan and adjust accordingly and submit...it's for the best, as this is God's system, His rules are there to help us achieve the best possible ending in this temporal plane of existence. There is no room for preconceived human conceptions of how God should be and what should be His mercy and His rules. God has laid down the rules, and we better get with it.
IMP NOTE Nowhere am i suggesting that women can't do what men can, or that men can't do what women can, as role reversals...to a certain point they can (obviously no one is saying men can give birth) and there are always exceptions and allowed...maybe these exceptions will even grow...but there is a natural tendency we have acc to what we are born as and to reject that and try to be something else just because of certain reasons like its not fair, i want to be a man, i want to do what a man can, or vice versa is basically rejecting what God put us here as, and will only lead to confusion and more issues. We should love and accept what we are and who we are.
Nadia
-
Peace be upon you,
That's a very sane and intelligent post savage_carrot. I agree.
After reading that verse several times, I've come to the following conclusion
1.) It is addressed to all "people" - men and women included.
2.) Since its addressed to both, God choose things that appeal to both.
3.) Women appeal to men
4.) Children appeal to men and women
5.) Piles and piles of Gold and silver appeal to women
6.) Trained horses appeal to men
7.) Livestock and crops which were equivalent to money, I guess appeal to those who are hungry for more money and are thus stingy which I can say will full confidence include both men and women.The hypocrite men and the hypocrite women belong with each other - they advocate evil and prohibit righteousness, and they are stingy. They forgot GOD, so He forgot them. The hypocrites are truly wicked.
Of course there are exceptions as we all have different wants and needs. Some women might want horses, while some men might want gold and silver. But these are what the majority have known to do.
That's my understanding. Women don't drive anyone away from God.
The submitting men, the submitting women, the believing men, the believing women, the obedient men, the obedient women, the truthful men, the truthful women, the steadfast men, the steadfast women, the reverent men, the reverent women, the charitable men, the charitable women, the fasting men, the fasting women, the chaste men, the chaste women, and the men who commemorate GOD frequently, and the commemorating women; GOD has prepared for them forgiveness and a great recompense.
There, God has equated both to have exactly the same capactityand capability to do what is expected of them by God. And whose testimony is greatest than God's? The rest is all nonsense.
-
Peace *,
That's a very good interpretation of the verse...it brought something different to the forefront that i had not thought about. I agree, thats a balance.
And whose testimony is greatest than God's? The rest is all nonsense.
Wholeheartedly agree.
-
Peace,
Savage Carrot, I read in your message some generalizations. I dare to state just two things as specific of women, pregnancy and feeding the baby from the breast.
With respect to the issue of vegetarianism, you say "Being a vegetarian and opposing people who eat animals is common"
Well, you probaly faced that situation in your environement, I faced the opposite here in Spain, not in other countries like UK, where being vegetarian has nothing to be surprised. What I faced here is that a lot a lot a lot of non vegetarians, as soon they know they are with a vegetarian, they start to bombard them with questions and reasons about why they should eat meat. It is just my experience, checked very frequently. You can believe me or not, of course.
I see generalising as wrong.
Sorry for drifting the topic, I don't know why vegetarianism was included in te thread though. -
Peace Elena,
Savage Carrot, I read in your message some generalizations.
Yes i stated that there were, but always exceptions, but there is a common way of life since we have existed due to the roles we have as men and women.
With respect to the issue of vegetarianism, you say "Being a vegetarian and opposing people who eat animals is common"
It's relatively new to us, due to the changes/globalisation etc etc...and if God hasn't forbidden it, there is no reason to say it's right or wrong. But if someone stands up from either side and says its the only right way, then thats not on.
Well, you probaly faced that situation in your environement, I faced the opposite here in Spain, not in other countries like UK, where being vegetarian has nothing to be surprised. What I faced here is that a lot a lot a lot of non vegetarians, as soon they know they are with a vegetarian, they start to bombard them with questions and reasons about why they should eat meat. It is just my experience, checked very frequently. You can believe me or not, of course.
Since i see no reason why one shouldnt be if they choose, extremism from both sides is wrong...i believe you of course...it's sad when people go off the handle and try to force the other people to what is the better way of life...God did NOT forbid vegetariansim (dunno if thats a word)...everyone is free to choose what they want to eat (except whats forbidden of course)....no right to force...and both sides would have their versions of why its better...so its upto an individual to decide whats better for them...and if someone asks them, they can always debate but not make statements like what kind of God allows that to happen etc etc...
I see generalising as wrong.
Sorry you feel that way, but the point i was trying to get across is that men and women both have different roles and according to those different roles have a general way of doing things in this plane of existence...there are ALWAYS exceptions...
Women for example have children. This is a generalisation. Will you say it is a wrong generalisation?
What are the responsibilities on women having children? According to the quran you should (or try to) feed them yoyr milk for two years...what does that tell you? There is a natural system in place to get the mother and child together and keep them like that for a couple of years.and other things etc etc..we can discuss what is better or worse but one can't deny that there ARE general roles men and women go by.
If you would like to discuss this, please do.
-
Greetings with peace, Nadia.
Just digressing a little...
Is "there are ALWAYS exceptions" an absolute statement or is it tied only to the context below?
If it is absolute, then what is the exception for establishing Salaat? If you happen to know, give the reference too.
Anwar AzimSorry you feel that way, but the point i was trying to get across is that men and women both have different roles and according to those different roles have a general way of doing things in this plane of existence...there are ALWAYS exceptions...
-
Peace Anwar,
It was tied to the context...er, i wouldn't know very much about salat...and all teh controversy surrounding it...but what i do know is that if there was a method or the 'correct' method...it would have been abundantly clear and we wouldn't spend so much time haggling over it! Since there is none, i prefer to go with brother Ayman's analysis which is that salat is a natural process (makes sense in the context of jesus/birds etc)...though i'm still thinking about the timings thing as that makes some sense too...if you want to discuss this, please do...i would be interested in your point of view!
Nadia
-
Peace,
Dr. Muhammed Shahrour has a very interesting opinion regarding this verse. He says that word nisa'a here doesn't refer to the purlal of woman but to the purlal of nas'e . The word nas'e refers to something that comes later or after ( which could also mean it's newer or more modern). Actually, women are called nisa'a in Arabic because the Arabs believed they came later to existence ( meaning after men ).
I think this makes more sense since people in general do find pleasure in acquiring the newest or the latest of everything ( e.g. cars,clothes,etc...). Also , as mentioned earlier, both men & woman are addressed ( all people) which supports his view IMO.
Another interesting thing is that he doesn't think the word baneen refers to children ( I don't know if I can talk about it in this topic brcause it might be considered off-topic).
For those who speak Arabic & are interested in reading Dr. Shahrour's opinions on this subject I reccomend checking this page
http//www.shahrour.org/bookListPages.php?cid=462&pid=638&page=637&bid=1&imagetopurl=drasat1.jpg -
Peace,
Actually, women are called nisa'a in Arabic because the Arabs believed they came later to existence ( meaning after men ).
Is this because of the eve and rib theory? Was that prevalent in christianity before the revelation of the quran? It's interesting but would you recommend a book or so which discusses this...or is this common arabic knowledge that the word nisaa is because the women came later?
-
Peace be upon you,
He says that word nisa'a here doesn't refer to the purlal of woman but to the purlal of nas'e . The word nas'e refers to something that comes later or after ( which could also mean it's newer or more modern).
Fatima, thanks for that link. However, I speak no Arabic and I'd like to ask you a favor, if you do speak Arabic then could you please skim a translation of that article for me? Just the main points. I tried sending you a private message regarding this, but I guess it did not work.
Also, here's my question How would one know in what sense what word is being used? The word used is clearly "nisa'a" which means women. Now eventhough it means modern/new, do you think the case would be the same with all the places in the Koran where the word "nisa'a" is used? Could God use a word that is so close to having two totally different meanings?
For example, a verse says "...for the believing men and believing women...God has prepared Paradise". Now, if we were to use this theory, it'd translate instead to the believing men and believing modern things God has prepared Paradise. How could that be? Even the majority of Arabs 1400 years beilieved the word "nisa'a" to be a woman and the proof is the fact that God used that same word whenever woman was to be used in the Koran. If people had double meanings, then a clearer word would have been used, as God tells us this Book has been made easy to understand with no difficulty. Now, let alone the dilemmas we are having understanding the word now in the 21st century.
I am sorry, I am having a bit difficulty understanding this concept. I came to a differnent conclusion (which you can read above), but I am open to what you have to say as well.
By the way, the person who wrote that article (whose link you posted) Dr. Muhammed Shahrour is he an Arab? Is Arabic his native language? Through my experience, I think it is best to ask such questions to those who speak that language and are fluent in it, instead of asking those who can only understand is so-much.
Also, now that I further investigated, some translations use "O men..." instead of "O people" for that verse. You can read them here
http//www.submission.org/quran/webqt.phpThanks for your help.
