The Quran objectifies women

Noon_waalqalami

I wonder how you guys would translate this verse. In this case both 'Nas' and 'Nisaa', or either one of them, would require a dramatic re-interpretation. Otherwise, the Quran very clearly stated something which objectifies women, since the wording in this verse is as though they are not being part of "real" people. I know it may look simple to casual viewers, and I had never properly glimpsed at it before, but now that I did, it has stuck in my head and disrupted my peace.

Peace, was this not posted for you in the other thread?
Why not quote the rest and what's the issue 314-17?

2212 beautified to the those disregard they of the life the world and are mocking from (i.e. subset follows) the ones believe they of and the ones fear/mindful they of over them day the resurrection and the god provides whom wills without measure

1223 and sought to seduce him the one he in house hers about himself and closed she the doors ...

1230 and said nis'watun/women (i.e. few of from the community) in the town woman the mighty seeking to seduce youth hers about himself hence infatuated her love surely we surely see her in misguidance clear

314-17
beautified to the humankind love the desires from (i.e. subset of things follows)...
the womenfolk
and the sons
and the heaps the stored up from the gold
and the silver
and the horses the branded
and the cattle
and the harvest
such yours provision the life the world
and the god before him best the place of return
say shall I inform you in better from such yours?
to the those fear/mindful near lord theirs gardens flow from beneath it
the springs eternally live therein
and spouses purified
and approval from the god
and the god seer in the servants? the ones are saying
lord ours surely we believe we so forgive for us sins ours
and save us punishment the fire
the steadfast
and the sincere
and the obedient
and the who spend
and the who ask forgiveness in/by the dawn

Hizbullah

Hello Samira1234,

The Quran is not only sent to HUMAN RACE but also JINN RACE,

So when ALLAH says that, HE means men of the HUMAN RACE. The verse does not include the JINN RACE.

When ALLAH says for ALL - human race and jinn race, HE says "Oh you who believe - ya ayyuhal lizhina amano"

Similarly, in verse 2227

And proclaim to the PEOPLE the Hajj ; they will come to you MEN and on every means of transportation; they will come from every distant pass -

All translation to the above verse says "RIJALAN' means walking. If the verse meant for MANKIND including women than there is of no use including the word "RIJALAN". It is how you put it in context.

However, no where in the Grand Quran that FORBIDS women from performing the Haj. It is up to the individual.

Peace

Samira1234

@huruf

Fair in the eyes of people is the love for the appetite after women, sons...

Since the verse starts with 'Zuyyina linnasi...' it's supposed to be 'It has been adorned for people to love the desire of women, and sons...'

Make up your mind, either sons are males or they are females, because if the women are being objectified so are the sons, and they according to you are not women.

Huruf you are not getting my point. Since the verse is talking on mankind, it's supposed to mean in general on both men and women, and what has been adorned for them both. In this verse it talks on having sons, which is having male children as offspring, which has been put as part of wanting to have as 'people' itself. This is not objectification, this is more of a patriarchal mindset where for children the males are desired more than females, and apparently this patriarchal mindset is 'natural' for people as well since God adorned it for people.

Your pretented need to understand is obviously not at a pace with the attempts to find the good meaning of the text. You exactly want to find the worst possible interpretation.

I already said I put aside my rose-coloured lens which I had on for my whole life. And yes, I am indeed scrutinizing the text of the Quran to see whether it is in par with reality or not. Just looking for the good won't serve that purpose. Every religion needs to contain good otherwise people won't come and follow it. I am looking for things apart from the good as well to see how the overall content validates it as a scripture.

Well keep at it. You will find it. The beauty is in the eyes of the beholder and the shit as well.

Looks like you are getting irked already. In that case I would suggest you to stay out of commenting on my posts. I am not here to try to please other believers who do not have a truth-seeking outlook in them. Every religion seems to be okay with their own absurdities but are not the same with other religions and scrutinize other religions for what they are. Even many Quranists are okay scrutinizing Hadith for what they are and calling them out on it, but are blind to the Quran instead. So yeah, if my posts annoy you, stay away from them please instead of trying to name-call or something.

My be you should put a complaint with the animal liberation front, because in that aya not only women and sons are objectified, which would be acceotable, but horses and cattle too are objectified. That should be unacceptable by any standard. The animal liberation front, yes, find help against the Qur'an there.

So you are putting women in the same category as animal liberation front apparently. Which isn't that strange, since I don't know which 'people' are being targeted here. The verse should have been clearer that 'It has been adorned for MEN to love the desire of women...', where the word 'rijaal' or something is used in place of 'naas'.

That is it is preciesely to consider women or sons as objects of luxury or signs of success or power what is being deprecated, not an honest love and tenderness for a beloved or for a child, but , and so on and so forth for the horses and the cattle and the other signs of worldly goods.

Maybe living in a patriarchal society that is what you are used to, where women are considered as objects of luxury or signs of success or power, but in other parts of the country such as Scandinavian countries where several of the countries are feminist, the women won't have the same vision as you and would actually take offense at being considered as such. Either call both men and women as objects of luxury for each other or not call either one of them at all. This verse is one of the sure signs how patriarchy is tolerated all the more since God 'adorned' it for PEOPLE to love the desire of women and having sons.

Peace.

Samira1234

I see what you mean about this verse to seemingly objectify women but do you not also agree that women can also desire women? People is not defined to be men. It can incorporate either gender.

Ummm, I was expecting that. People consider attractive people as desirable, whether they are male or female. And no, I don't think there are more number of lesbians in the world apparently because women are considered better looking than men. Being lesbian or gay is not exactly dependent at the attractiveness of their own gender. Many women consider other women as attractive and may even stare at them, but that doesn't mean they also 'desire' those women, in a way worth actively mentioning about.

In any case, the REAL MAIN MESSAGE of that ayah (what we are supposed to take away and learn from this) is that all physical things we experience is only the enjoyment of the life of the world, but with Allah (following His Guidance) is better than what we all experience in the life of the world.

Yeah, in that case the Creator who is the author apparently should have been more careful on the wording of the verses. People can easily justify unwanted patriarchy using such a verse, and say desiring women in an objectified way and wanting males for offspring is perfectly natural since it is the Creator who has adorned for them as such, as adornment for this world. So if we women feel hurt by such desires it's not the men's fault, since they are acting precisely from their 'naturally adorned' desires.

Peace.

Samira1234

Hello Hizbullah,

So when ALLAH says that, HE means men of the HUMAN RACE. The verse does not include the JINN RACE.

Um, the word 'Nas' is used. I don't think the word 'Nas' means 'men of the human race'. Is that how you translate the word 'Nas'? I thought "Nas' was 'mankind' or 'people' from both genders or either gender?

And proclaim to the PEOPLE the Hajj ; they will come to you MEN and on every means of transportation; they will come from every distant pass -

All translation to the above verse says "RIJALAN' means walking. If the verse meant for MANKIND including women than there is of no use including the word "RIJALAN". It is how you put it in context.

Are you translating 'Rijalan' in a different way, as in 'walking'? So you are saying 'Rijalan' has a different meaning for each context? Like the word 'daraba'? I didn't know that. Please clarify more for me. Thanks.

Peace.

Hizbullah

Hello and Salam Samira1234

I thought "Nas' was 'mankind' or 'people' from both genders or either gender?

Yes, exactly what i meant. Both genders. We all - men and women are NAS - MANKIND / HUMAN BEING / HUMAN RACE. So when ALLAH means in this context, HE is referring to the men only of the HUMAN RACE / HUMAN BEING / MANKIND.

Are you translating 'Rijalan' in a different way, as in 'walking'?

I am translating "Rijalan" as men . From what I know all the Quranic translation on 2227, we have now, translated "Rijalan" as walking which is wrong. The word Nas as in 2227 shows that the annunciation is to the HUMAN race only - both men and women. At the same time, the command is to men ONLY and that they WILL come - , on every mode of transportation for the Hajj ritual.

So you are saying 'Rijalan' has a different meaning for each context? Like the word 'daraba'? I didn't know that. Please clarify more for me.
Peace.

Yes, exactly, the Quran 02239

And if you fear (an enemy than perform Salah) on foot or riding. And when you are in safety, then remember Allah (pray) in the manner He has taught you, which you knew not (before).

The word "Rijalan" in verse 239, means walking. In actual fact, it should be spell as - and not

Peace

Man_of_Faith

Harmony with you Samira,

As usual I must disagree with the supplied translation. It speaks of spiritual people from the families and children.

Quran does not speak of women specifically as much as tradition wishes to imply. It is fairly gender neutral. Genders are not that important since we have genders in this fleshly world but once we attain spirit forms/ethereal forms then this will matter little.

The purpose for us in this world is not to indulge too much in the flesh but rather separate us from it to gain spirituality. If a traditional interpretation of Quran speaks fleshly it is a bad translation.

Have fajth

Samira1234

Hello Hisbullah,

So when ALLAH means in this context, HE is referring to the men only of the HUMAN RACE / HUMAN BEING / MANKIND.

How do you know this? So that verse is not for us females to read? And what's with the love of sons as offspring? That makes no sense at all. Giving reasoning for why sons are preferred as offspring would only end up hurting us females deeply, especially verses which are supposed to have a universal message. I for one would not let my daughter in the future to read such verses. Just saying.

I am translating "Rijalan" as men . From what I know all the Quranic translation on 2227, we have now, translated "Rijalan" as walking which is wrong. The word Nas as in 2227 shows that the annunciation is to the HUMAN race only - both men and women. At the same time, the command is to men ONLY and that they WILL come - , on every mode of transportation for the Hajj ritual.

Yeah obviously if 'Rijalan' is quoted it would mean plural men. So there not need to be confusion in that verse. 314 is in a same way quite clear to me as well. There is no 'Rijalan' quoted there. The word used is 'Nas'. So saying Allah meant the men in that verse only when the word 'Nas' is used, I don't quite see the sentence logic behind it, except to try to play, um, interpretation acrobatics, because of quite obvious reasons. Perhaps someone could try quoting another ayah to illustrate an example of when 'Nas' is written, it is specifying one gender only.

The word "Rijalan" in verse 239, means walking. In actual fact, it should be spell as - and not

What do you mean? The Quran says what it says, there is no actual fact of how it should be written. Unless you are saying there is a clear grammatical error there? I need honesty, and lack of biasness, please.

Also if a book is going to be called the best written book in the world, with the best linguistic example out there, with excellence in terms of grammar, language and logic, people need to be a hundred times more careful at least regarding the linguistics of that book. Because since it is supposed to be one of the best books, if we take grammatical or language teachings from such a book, we should be able to apply the examples of it in, for example, a linguistics exam in Classical Arabic. I am just saying. I hope I am not being offensive or anything, so forgive me for that.

Peace.

Novice

Peace Samira1234

Allow me to explain how I understand verse 314

The word
is a passive perfect verb (http//corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=3&verse=14)
It means "beautified/decorated/made attractive". As we know the actor in a passive verb is not declared so who has done it God or society/culture.

Now start with verse 313 It is talking about two groups at war. One is in the way of God and other is Kuffar.

Verse 314 says that certain things have been made attractive/desirable for people. So the warring groups were desiring to have these things as a reward of fight. But what is with God is better than these.

Verse 315 says to the people fighting in the way of God that these are wordly things and there are better rewards for you in the later life.

So when I see these three verses together they make sense to me. Hope it helps.

Samira1234

Hello Man of Faith,

The purpose for us in this world is not to indulge too much in the flesh but rather separate us from it to gain spirituality. If a traditional interpretation of Quran speaks fleshly it is a bad translation.

Thank you for your comment. What you said makes a hundred times more sense than most other opinions. I for one am tired of rolling around in the mud with dozens of interpretations, none of which actually make satisfactory sense in a living world, and which causes me to hope that Muslims don't take over the governments in developed countries which other countries look up to and implement their Quranic rulings. I am very sorry for being direct in my speech and offensive sounding, if I am. I am just laying it out the way I see it, from my opinion only.

Many of the interpretations provided by most other people sound very 'fleshly'. One of the sayings of Jesus, a man I appreciate, is that as people we need to separate our spirit from our flesh, which is one of the prime importance given for us to enter the "narrow gate of heaven" (I get very scared of mentioning Jesus's name, or any of his examples, despite he being quoted in the Quran as well, in fear of people here saying out 'We knew she is a Christian in disguise!' or 'Why don't you embrace Christianity? You two would get along very well like a hand in a fitted glove' or something similar). I do appreciate several of Christian teachings and values (apart from the Son of God reference), such as those belonging to Jesus, but that also I am very careful to cherry-pick accordingly.

Anyway, I wish the interpretations provided for the Quran were less fleshly in their approach and more spiritual.

This is what I saw a non-Muslim women commenting regarding Islam in a blog. She was commenting earlier on how men are given lenience in having multiple partners at some occasions, while women are required to be absolutely faithful in all occasions. She was referring mainly to Islam as a whole with Quran and Hadith combined such as Sunni Islam, but also to Quranist Islam it could be applicable at certain areas

"Religious belief lives off consistency and claimed universality. My feeling is what is ?broken? about the Islamic faith is that it lacks the claimed universality in too many respects. Examples Of course polygamy as a break from a general frowning of promiscuity, only for men. Then the repeated break of a prohibition to kill (?who kills a man kills all of mankind?) for rather petty reasons (such as infringement of holy sites ? ?persecution is worse than slaughter? ? what could be worse than killing all of mankind?). Now this repeated pattern of breaking one?s own quasi-universal principles in my opinion creates uncertainty, and insecurity. From insecurity stems the often hysterical and excessive defence against all criticism from both inside and outside of the faith community. Faiths that have few, trully universal principles seem to be more grounded and secure in their faith, and less outlashing at people who do not share those views, even if those principles that are allegedly universal are of course broken over history. But then it is due to human fault, and that is always an easy excuse. Humans were just not good enough, and need to try harder to attain the universally agreed ideal state God demands."

Anyway, I appreciate everybody's replies, and am thankful for them. I learn from you guys which is a reason why I post. But I try to use my conscience and reasoning as well. I can be mistaken as well in several ways.

Peace.

Samira1234

Hello Novice,

Thank you for your reply. I appreciate it. What you say do make sense, to an extent.

Verse 314 says that certain things have been made attractive/desirable for people. So the warring groups were desiring to have these things as a reward of fight. But what is with God is better than these.
Verse 315 says to the people fighting in the way of God that these are wordly things and there are better rewards for you in the later life.

314 It has been adorned for people to love the desire of women, and sons, and ornaments made from gold and silver, and trained horses, and livestock, and fields. These are the enjoyment of the world, and with God is the best abode.

Okay, in that case, why are sons and fields mentioned? Edip translated 'waalbaneena' as 'buildings' instead of 'sons'. Even then, how can one take buildings and fields as booty? And women?? So in the warriors desired to rape the female war captives too? I thought these people were supposed to be reformers of the society, and not wanting to do the same thing as 'jahilliyah' people.

And what is with this love for excessive booty? Is that being spiritual? Unless it is something like to cover their own losses during battle, that would make more sense. But also that needs to be in a carefully calculated amount only. Unless they have no way of returning the goods back to the enemy, then they could distribute those to the poor and needy people in their community, if required.

Peace.

Armanaziz

Salamun Alaikum.

Samira?s primary observation about this verse is how the ?love for Passion for women? can be said to be glorified for entire mankind? Doesn?t that imply women are merely objects of passion within mankind?

It does not. Look carefully ? it is not women who are glorified/beautified, it is ?(men?s) passion for women? which is glorified. ?(men?s) passion for women? is not something exclusively men enjoy, women also enjoy or take pride in the opposite gender?s passion for them. Men take sensual pleasure in indulging in being passionate for women and women take sensual pleasure in indulging in blind passion for them from men. Thus ?men?s passion for women? is glorified as a worldly pleasure for both men and women. Once we understand that men and women both indulge in ?(men?s) passion for women? ? we can see that the verse is not objectifying any specific gender, rather categorizing ?excessive/blind passion for / from the opposite gender? as a misleading shallow worldly pursuit.

May Allah guide us all to the straight route.

Regards,
Arman

huruf

Maybe living in a patriarchal society that is what you are used to, where women are considered as objects of luxury or signs of success or power, but in other parts of the country such as Scandinavian countries where several of the countries are feminist, the women won't have the same vision as you and would actually take offense at being considered as such. Either call both men and women as objects of luxury for each other or not call either one of them at all. This verse is one of the sure signs how patriarchy is tolerated all the more since God 'adorned' it for PEOPLE to love the desire of women and having sons.

Peace.

What are you talking about? You seem to play at posing as if you did not understand what is written. I cannot envisage that anybody can be that obtuse and be sincere at the same time.

Powerful or rich men pick women, beautiful and young women as a show of their power or wealth is not anything private to any parituclar country people nor to where "I live".

It is not said that those things are made to be beautiful for the males. It doe snot say that, it says that to the people are made to look fair the covetousness for those things. That is when powerful rich men get a new model wife people do not think that is something bad, it is admitted as mark of their position. in general. They are abundantly pictured in the press, just as much as they are pictured int heir beautiful homes, with the pets, their horses, their whatever.

AND THE QUR'AN WARNS against beautifying that glamour of the rich and powerful. You mke me laugh oretending to an ignornce of the glamour fact of the world at large,which delights in reading and watching about the rich and powerful.

And at the same time that you are SO INSULTING to people who trust the Qur'aan you pretend to be annoyed because others point out to you your lack of dependability and moving of posts and deliberatly ignoring what youa re answered , answering in your turn as if the person who answered you was saying all the times enormities. As er the Quraa'n that kind of behavoiur is that of a hyopocrite.

The expression of "a new model" referring to the new wife of some big shot
of a man is not an expression coined in my country nor in any muslim majority country but in the Holy West your so deeply love, and it depicts admirably what the aya is saying. Do you remember Sarkozy, the president of France marrying a new model, and in this case she was that, a model? Ws nto that made fair to people? That is what the Qur'aan say. Not the kind of idiocy you attempt to put in its discourse.

I don't follow the pink press so I am out of the usual gossip, but I am sure there are plenty, many, many of those examples in the holy West at all the levels of power and greed.

As to sons, which again you put aside, and keep with the nonsense of objectifying women and what ?sons are not objectified too, according to your idiotic reading? aren't they also likened to horses and animals according to your filthy argumenting? But you keep harping on the subject of women because that is the pet weapon of the antimuslim and anti qur'aan propaganda of people who themselves are devoid of all moral values.

As to the animal liberation front... ?You are so cute! you make it seem as if you hadn't noticed it was pure sarcasm...
ignore ignore ignore ignore ignore ignore ignore

?Come on! Your are overdoing your part of selfrighteous outrage.

In general you seem to deliberately appear as if you did not understand what you are told, but who cares?

At least you give raw material for honest searchers to get helpful answers. And that is what I try to do. I wouldn't waste efforts it was not the case that those honest searchers also may be reading the threads and they do deserve the best efforts of people. It is for the sake of those that I write, for whatever it is worth to them. That, also, is the ourpose of this forum. The ppeole who set it up, surely, did not intent it to be a place for Qur'an haters to have a field day.

If I were to give you an advice, try not to be so obvious. I even doubt that you have a country or even that you are of a particular sex.

Salaam to all honest searchers.

Samira1234