The Quran objectifies women
-
So you have your opinion and I have mine. And I have reasons to have it. She has managed to sell you on her muslim background and how much she has suiffered with that... Good I know something about muslim backgrounds and I do not believe that is the reason for what she is doing. I know some people, particularly women, who ignore ompletely de ur'an but that does not rpevent them from talking about it as if it was their blood right to distribute shit on the Qur'an without knowledge. It is very comfortable and sel-righteous to do that.
Huruf, you do not even know me properly, yet you are writing long sentences on what you think are my intentions, how you think I am selling people regarding my muslim background, etc. And what do you think is the reason I am doing what I am doing? I have a humanistic vision, and I set out on this journey to see how this religion can fulfil that vision and actually give light to darkness in the world. I did find several universal and very progressive teachings. But I am also actively finding worldly/fleshly/non-spiritual attitude for some other things, and some very patriarchal manner of speaking. Also I found some minor grammatical, language and logical errors. So now I would be blamed heavily for finding these, and be heavily name-called as well?
Somebody told you already. Would you go into the bible forum and behave the way you are doing here? Or ahindu foruma nd do as much with their religious books.
You should have mentioned also Sunni forums. And whether I would do the same regarding their religious books among secondary sources, which they hold as gold; it is just as disrespectful as well. I am very much sure a person criticizing the Hadith books in a Sunni forum would get very similar attacks from people like huruf.
The Quran is the book I have been told to follow, and Islam is my religion. With that perspective I mainly speak on it however I see fit. I admit though I may have been more straightforward than what would have been required of me. But then, I also am frustrated to an extent, and don't see how more sugar-coating would solve the problem.
Tehere seems to be the widespread dogma that insutling islam and Qur'aan is perfectly alright, only islam and Qur'an, not the bible no the bagavad, not anything like that, just Qur'an and Islam. and of course if those who believe in islam and Qur'an feel autraged they should shut up or they are mean and bla, bla, bla...
The bible got more attacks than any other religious book. There are detailed books on it I have found on Amazon regarding the Bible, which have been bestsellers too, and lengthy videos as well. All other religious books have been criticised on, scrutinized, and spoken unbiasedly upon. Many muslims seeing their own book as the best don't find it necessarily wrong in seeing criticism regarding other books, since several may not even consider them as much holy. But once their own book is criticized they may go berserk, and feel as though they are the only ones being repeatedly attacked. I suggest you do a simple google search on other religions and their books, and see they have already been talked about openly.
An example Jesus have already been mocked and ridiculed at, and even made derogatory cartoons and spoken about as such as well. But then one single cartoon of Muhammad in the public caused Muslims to go berserk, demanding punishment of the cartoonists, going on protests, and even killing people in the process. And complaining on being the only ones whose religion is attacked or ridiculed on. That may be sectarian Muslims, but even some Quranists can have similar vision.
Stand up to what you do and don't play de innocent, because what you write is not precisely innocence what gives away.
I am not trying to play innocent, as you say. Unless you don't want me to be polite or something.
Huruf, I am sorry once more if my posts were offensive to you. But then also I would say, if you really find them intolerable I really suggest you to stay away from commenting, or even reading my posts. That would be better for everybody involved.
Peace,
Samira
-
The Qur'an gives a clear indication that the society of the Arabs was patriarchal, and at that time it was very common for people to even kill their daughters (burying them alive or leaving them out to die as babies) and preferring sons. This is something that is discussed in the Qur'an and a fuss is made in it about that. Infanticide was practiced in many parts of the world, and generally it was the daughters who were killed in preference to the sons. The Qur'an speaks out against this practice.
The Qur'an is for the most part addressing the male patriarchal audience, though the verse certainly can be understood in other ways, but I find no necessity to do that.
Would you prefer that the Qur'an, which is supposedly the "word of God" be written exactly as you would like? Then why not write a book that is perfectly to your liking?
What do imagine God to be, and what words are not the "word of God" who creates all information. How is God not compassionate, when all compassion in existence comes from God, where God could have made you a being of pure suffering but didn't, who is also seeing through your own eyes and has all the information, thus knowing your experiences exactly as they are, "as you" in a sense, since you are just information and all your experiences are just information and God encompasses all of that, including the experience of "being you" and whatever other information exists.
The Qur'an mostly addresses a male audience it seems, though what it says can be useful to both females and males, it is also useful because many people already believe in it so can be used to control their behaviors by studying it and making it say things that you want them to believe, like being good and kind and whatever else.
God is the Lord of Evil, the Master of Good, the source of all happiness, sadness, and all experiences and thoughts and creeds and technologies and evil deeds and good deeds and whatever else. It is not what you might imagine, because what you might imagine, if you imagine anything, is likely not God, since God is literally like nothing, as in not made of information, but is what produces all information Ultimately.
So if you don't like that idea, then you are free to make your own religion, and I encourage you even to do so, it might be good, if you can make it good and useful for people.
My religion is surrender. Not mindless surrender, but mindful surrender. I do not have any "faith" as in "blind faith" and God can not be "trusted" if you take "trust" to mean "not fearing, feeling totally safe with and not afraid, who will do whatever you want and you will always be experiencing pleasure". No, God is to be feared, is the Destroyer, the Harmer, the Killer, the Judge and Judgment (the Doom).
God is the one who creates fish to live the life of fish, and God is the one who creates evildoers to be exactly as evildoers and to live in hell as the fish live in the sea or as the good might live in paradise, these are all creations of God that God can freely make happen, God is the only true Free Will, God's will is whatever we do is God's will, nothing happens that isn't Ultimately God's doing, God's creation of information.
-
Thank you so much for taking the time to reply so thoroughly! I think you may have misunderstood some of my statements and their intended meanings, since I was not suggesting some mystical acceptance, but rather that allowing ourselves to think badly of Allah and the Qur'an and go fully into those extremes can help to make us realize that the reason we worship Allah is because regardless of any evil Allah may do freely, Allah is the one who we can't defeat, that Allah is the word used here to refer to the Ultimate, and that it can do whatever it wants to do, say whatever it wants to say. All the information, good and bad, all our thoughts, good and bad, are all coming ultimately from Allah who creates all information.
So I wanted you to line up the "conditions". Are your conditions that if the Qur'an says something you don't like or that isn't fully accurate in your interpretation or opinion, that the whole book should be thrown out? I was genuinely asking because I'm very curious.
Yes, it is true, not all females love sons or men, not all males love females or find them attractive nor want sons, etc. Not every statement in the Qur'an is true in every conceivable or imaginable way we can interpret it. If God says he makes the "sunrise" it doesn't mean that God makes the "sun rise" necessarily, I mean that is the kind of nitpicking that might be going on here, which is totally fine, but why do you even really care? Is the Qur'an important to you?
Why not turn the Qur'an aside if you don't care for it, if you do care for it, must everything it say be exactly as you want it to be? Must everything it say be impossible to interpret in multiple ways and all the multiple ways it can be interpreted all have to be exactly accurate as you wish?
One could even make excuses like "God that instant made that true, you were not existing for that", but honestly, I find these things petty and want to get to the real root of the issue.
The important question here is what are your conditions? What does the Qur'an mean to you, why is it important? Why would this verse disturb your sense of peace? Is your religion so fragile that something like this would make you feel that you are faltering? In that case I encourage you (and this is not meant to be rude or mocking, but to literally strengthen your resolve) to reject the Qur'an outright, and reject God too, to go full force into the deepest and darkest thoughts, and you may come out of it with a deeper understanding, that a Muslim is a Muslim because God can't be defeated, so we have no option but surrender.
So take from everything what is best, and eschew what you might not understand or what you might interpret as wrong or misleading or useless to you or harmful.
All the world is Allah's world, and all the words are from Allah, be they misleading or truthful, it is Allah who guides people or makes them wander.
My conditions for the Qur'an? My conditions for the Qur'an are that it says enough of what I want it to say and promotes the message that I already believe in, which is that there is only the Ultimate who has all power over all information (including power over us entirely), and can not be defeated. If it said otherwise, I would put it aside because it would not correspond with my beliefs or conditions, it wouldn't matter to me if it even did come from some "God" that claimed to have partners, I would fight against it, because such a concept is weak, even if it were somehow "true", I believe only in the Ultimate, and the Qur'an confirms my own beliefs and is a useful tool for promoting these beliefs (possibly the most useful due to its strong anti-shirk, anti-partners, Ultimate only stance).
I worship the Ultimate because I can't harm or defeat the Ultimate, there is no option but surrender, willingly or unwillingly. Its a fight I can't win any other way, there is no other action to take but to seek benefit from the Ultimate and hope to avoid harm from the Ultimate.
I believe in the Qur'an because it says what I want it to say mostly, if it didn't say what I wanted it to say, I'd not use it, it wouldn't be useful to me very much.
What the Qur'an might say that I don't want it to say, I try to make it say what I want it to say, and if I can't do that, I might try to justify it, and if that is even wrong, I might just ignore those parts or not put them into practice in the way I interpret them, because Ultimately, this is a discussion between me and God, a matter that might be brought up later, so if I want to give my child a certain amount of money for whatever reason, I think that I'm free to do that, while Allah has given prescriptions about stuff and there are reasons also for that, but I also don't really care always and think there is definite freedom and other circumstances and Allah knows best and Allah is the one that one should be careful of and directly be dealing with.
Do you view yourself as a "Qur'anist"? Why make this into a faction. I happen to like the Qur'an and follow it, because the religion it presents is generally the same as my religion, and anything which is in accordance to my religion, is acceptable and usable for me.
Allah can give guidance through any book or words or people or things or signs, and Allah can give a thing which has things we might like and things we might dislike, and Allah can give us a book that has things in it we hate or which he has made disgusting for us, and Allah can give us a book which has some good guidance and other bad guidance. Allah can make all these things. Allah has given us the beautiful Qur'an. " Give, then, this glad tiding to My servants, who listen to all that is said, and follow the best of it it is they whom God has graced with His guidance, and it is they who are endowed with insight!" - 3917-18
Follow the best of it, Allah will judge the matter, and may or may not answer your questions. Allah can turn you into a disbeliever, or strengthen you in Islam
226
Lo! Allah disdaineth not to coin the similitude even of a gnat. Those who believe know that it is the truth from their Lord; but those who disbelieve say What doth Allah wish (to teach) by such a similitude? He misleadeth many thereby, and He guideth many thereby; and He misleadeth thereby only miscreants;
I say embrace the Dark Side, that embracing the Dark Side may be a necessary step in your development, just as I embrace all those thoughts and examine them carefully to know firmly why I am doing this, why I am following this strategy. By "Dark Side" I mean allowing yourself to question and come up with the worst possible case scenarios and examining why those mean anything to you at all.
My religion is Surrender (Islam), I am an iconoclast, one who performs the Jihad, an idol-slayer (idolatry of the mind), Allah is the foe who can not be outdone, who can not be defeated, who can not even be harmed, who has power over all things, who controls me and everything, after smashing all the idols, all the concerns, all the political stances, we find behind it all is what is like Nothing, that is Allah only, SubhanAllah (Subhan meaning void, like nothing, not made of information while making all information).
So it is good to be fighting for equal rights for females and all kinds of nice things for humanity out of mercy and compassion and justice and righteousness, but at the end of the day (and the beginning of the day) it comes to one thing, nothing at all matters, nothing is necessarily even "true" (as in lasting) other than The Ultimate, and the Ultimate makes all information, destroys it, exchanges it, transforms it, animates it, and can make one thing true one moment, and another thing true another moment, just like Allah turned the piece of wood into a snake, and snake into a piece of wood, what is true? Allah only is True (as in lasting), but there is No Other Eternal Truth. "Nothing is True, Everything is Permissable (to achieve the goal)" Allah is the one who is like nothing, and the goal is paradise (lasting pleasure).
It is easy to become non-individuated and "return to Allah", simply by killing oneself (which one can not truly do unless Allah wills it and makes it successfully occur), and we will be returned to a state of non-information (which is entirely skipped, since we can only experience information and can't experience non-information which is Allah, who showed this to Musa also by making the mountain completely obliterated and Musa going unconscious, which is also "non-information", same as a dreamless sleep, all these things are connected to "returning to Allah" who is in a sense "like Death" which is non-information, no information is experienced by someone who is truly "dead" and Allah is not made of information so can not be experienced in that essential form but only through the medium of information can we experience anything. Allah is likewise, the "life" of all things, literally animating all reality.
Why I bring these things up is because I think it would be best if our minds contemplated these sorts of things rather than petty seeming issues like this verse.
It may not seem petty to you of course, but either you make a big deal out of it and spin it as being dehumanizing to women or ignore it or spin it in some other way, it depends on what your goal is. If your goal is to throw away the Qur'an, I believe everyone with such an inclination should absolutely by all means throw it aside or give it to someone else. In my case, the Qur'an is a tool, like lamp, that can be used to shine light upon the Truth which is the Ultimate, it has many useful things for that, so I would keep it for that reason, even if it had a single verse in it that said the worst possible thing imaginable, I would still use what is useful out of it.
So please, engage with me, talk with me, I would like to discover more about your particular religion (or Deen) and your qualms.
SalamFreedomStands. I,m impressed with your line of thinking and reasoning. May Allah bless you. Looking forward to hear more from you. Thank you.
-
Hello Novice,
Thank you for your reply. I appreciate it. What you say do make sense, to an extent.
Thanks Samira1234 I am glad that it made sense, to an extant.
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.
Verse 313 is talking about two groups
- one fighting in the way of God (who as per you were supposed to be reformers)
- one of Kuffar. To whom worldly things have been beautified/decorated not by God but may be the
society/culture. To my understanding pronoun KUM in in verse 315 is referring to this group
and not to reformers of the society.
History tells us that after wars women and children were enslaved, land and buildings were possessed along with other wealth and horses etc. It is Quran telling people that these are worldly gains and what is with God is better than these. Unfortunately Muslims were doing the same in later stages of their expansion. Remember Janissaries during Ottomon Rule. They used to take away healthy and strong sons from occupied land to brainwash them to give their lives only for the Sultan. They proved to be a deadly force.
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.
You are correct war booties should be to cover loses during battle for those fighting in the way of God but it is a worldly gain for Kuffar. That is what 215 is saying to these Kuffars.
Hope it helps.
Peace
-
Hello Armanaziz,
Thank you for your comment. I appreciate different people's opinions.
Seeing the verse only, without the war context as Novice had put earlier
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.
The verse is talking on the desires that have been adorned for people in a one-sided way. Simply put, it is speaking on 'Naas' having beautified desires for women, sons, ornaments made from gold and silver, trained horses, livestock, and fields. And that these desires are made enjoyment for this world. Although with God, there isn't something essentially wrong with enjoying these desires in this world, but in the Hereafter we would have even better enjoyment. In verses 316-20 is the description given for people, essentially those who can have a chance for the enjoyment in the Hereafter.
It would have been okay, if the verse talked on having desire for the opposite gender only. Most of us women appreciate and have our own "beautified desires" for men as well. But then this verse clearly mentioned "Naas' and "Nisaa". Not even "Rijaal" and "Nisaa". So it is not just mentioning on women being desirable for men, instead of also the other way around, but also it is talking on women being desirable for people. Which is why I had mentioned on this verse on women being objectified in this case.
The second desire is talking on sons. Which means having sons is a beautified desire for people. If it simply mentioned children, it could have made more sense, since most people, both men and women, do like having children or being with children, although many other people don't. That is not exactly objectification by itself, although still somewhat weird in my opinion, but then it is more clear where the beautified desire for children is coming from. But then mentioning sons singularly makes it look that people are patriarchal in general and hence having sons is a matter of "pride" over having daughters, or that their physical strength and role to provide makes them more of a valuable person. Many daughters also support their parents in old age, and are many a time more nurturing to parents than sons, so it makes no sense all the more.
If someone can try to understand my points, and perhaps try another shot at re-interpretation if possible, while being honest to the linguistics of the Quran, it would have been helpful. Otherwise people getting angry to see my criticism regarding the Quran, using ad hominem attacks, trying to subdue me or punish me in some way for speaking out would not be helpful.
Peace.
Salam Samira
We have been through this earlier ? the way I approach studying Qur?an and how you do is fundamentally different. I seek to see the signs of my Master in Qur?an ? Since I am already convinced that Qur?an is from my Master who created me - I know that Qur?an cannot have any nonsense in it. I accept it as the source of ultimate wisdom and guidance and knowing so, my goal is to take the ?best? guidance from it to the best of my ability. I know this is not your approach ? so there is no surprise that our interpretations will be different.
I am elaborating below how I take guidance from this specific verse. But once again, one will only find the interpretation useful if one?s goal is to seek guidance from it.
First, let me provide you my attempted translation of the verse
314 Love of - passion for women and sons, and the heaps of stored-up gold and silver, and the branded horses and livestock and tillage - is glorified for mankind ? that is the enjoyment for the life of the world ? and Allah ? with Him ? (there is) a nice retreat!
I strongly recommend you compare my translation with the translation you are using based on word-by-word translation from Arabic.
This verse, per my reading juxtaposes two types of enjoyment ? a) shallow ?worldly? enjoyments which has been glorified to give human beings temporary delights in the life of the world. Vs. b) taking enjoyment in retreating to Allah.
The ?retreat to Allah? is identified as the greater / nicer (husnu) enjoyment.
The verse identifies 5 types of shallow ?worldly? enjoyments
-
(Men?s) passion for women ? as I discussed earlier, this is not an enjoyment for the men only ? just as many men seek enjoyment is pursing passion for women ? women enjoy passionate men loitering after them. This pursuit of blind love for/from opposite sex gives men and women temporary emotional gratification ? not permanent peace.
-
(Mankind?s) passion for sons ? In Bedouin society the number of sons signified the power and strength of a tribe or a family. In a society where brute force was the only force that mattered ? a family with 5 sons was clearly more powerful than a family with no sons. This is not about preferring male child over this female ? this is about passion for getting strength in numbers. The same passion has been translated in present world into the longing for political power/strength through numbers. Politicians in a ?democratic? system often blindly pursue popularity ? even if that means pursuing falsehood or negative nationalism / hate mongering against other people / party / nation.
-
(Mankind?s) passion for heaps of gold and silver ? stored up Gold and silver imply lust for accumulating financial resources. That is the passion of the miserly ? whose savings comes of no use to him or his society.
-
(Mankind?s) passion for branded horses ? read ?branded cars? in today?s context. Branded cars (BMW / Mercedes / Ferrari etc.) serve the same purpose today that branded horses served in Bedouin societies ? they serve as ?status symbols?. This is different from the passion of a miserly person who stores gold / silver, a miserly person doesn?t spend money on branded horse/car. This passion symbolizes the desire for social status through material possession.
-
Passion for (grazing) livestock and tillage ? this symbolizes the ?hunger for wealth and productive resources?. Those who get into the habit of accumulating productive resources ? real estate, factories, stocks, bonds etc. ? indulge in a hunger for increasing their wealth limitlessly often ignoring how they are doing it.
So, these are the 5 worldly passions that have been glorified for mankind for temporary enjoyment ? but do not offer them lasting peace 1) pursuit of blind affection for/from opposite sex (as oppose to seeking true love) 2) longing for political power/strength through numbers (as oppose to moral strength/power); 3) lust for accumulating financial resources (as opposed to desire for spending in the right causes); 4) the desire for social status through material possession (as opposed to through pursuit of knowledge and skills). And finally 5) hunger for increasing wealth limitlessly (as opposed to developing wealth for the betterment of self and society).
I am not ignoring the context of two groups striving for different causes as pointed by Novice earlier. Those who ?fight in Allah?s path? - do not strive after these worldly pursuits ? they seek peace in retreat to Allah and long for better rewards in this life and the one to come.
May Allah guide us all to the straight route.
Regards,
Arman -
-
Salam Arman
We have been through this earlier ? the way I approach studying Qur?an and how you do is fundamentally different. I seek to see the signs of my Master in Qur?an ? Since I am already convinced that Qur?an is from my Master who created me - I know that Qur?an cannot have any nonsense in it. I accept it as the source of ultimate wisdom and guidance and knowing so, my goal is to take the ?best? guidance from it to the best of my ability. I know this is not your approach ? so there is no surprise that our interpretations will be different.
Agreed I think this is a proper approach towards understanding Qur'an. I try to stick to the same. handshake
So, these are the 5 worldly passions that have been glorified for mankind for temporary enjoyment ? but do not offer them lasting peace 1) pursuit of blind affection for/from opposite sex (as oppose to seeking true love) 2) longing for political power/strength through numbers (as oppose to moral strength/power); 3) lust for accumulating financial resources (as opposed to desire for spending in the right causes); 4) the desire for social status through material possession (as opposed to through pursuit of knowledge and skills). And finally 5) hunger for increasing wealth limitlessly (as opposed to developing wealth for the betterment of self and society).
You interpretation "pursuit of blind affection for/from opposite sex" is very convincing. It takes away the objection raised by Samira that are women not included in Naas.
I am not ignoring the context of two groups striving for different causes as pointed by Novice earlier. Those who ?fight in Allah?s path? - do not strive after these worldly pursuits ? they seek peace in retreat to Allah and long for better rewards in this life and the one to come.
Of course the verses are always to be interpreted as per context. True message is not understood if we ignore the context.
I have gone through your earlier posts and have found that you have a very good sense of interpretation of the verses. May Allah bless you and increase our understanding of His book.
Regards,
Tahir -
Salam Arman
Agreed I think this is a proper approach towards understanding Qur'an. I try to stick to the same. handshake
You interpretation "pursuit of blind affection for/from opposite sex" is very convincing. It takes away the objection raised by Samira that are women not included in Naas.
Of course the verses are always to be interpreted as per context. True message is not understood if we ignore the context.
I have gone through your earlier posts and have found that you have a very good sense of interpretation of the verses. May Allah bless you and increase our understanding of His book.
Regards,
TahirOf course naas includes the women, it includes naas in general, which is not the same as to say that every person.
What the aya says is not that women naase love women but that the coveting of women, sons, etc., is made fair to the eyes of the people. And that exactly what the gamour of the rich and powerful is. I see people, particularly women, gulping, at dentists offices, at hairdressers and in the homes to gulp the ppink ress, with descriptions and pplenty of pictures of the homes, of the rich and powerful, of the pets, of the horses of the sons and daughters oand of the new model wifes or the not so new model but glamourous and rich and well dressed and all that.
If it did not look fair to them all that those coveters of all those things parade their "trasures" they wouldn't gulp those stories, have plenty of gossip about them, etc. etc.
That is what is made fair in the eyes of people is the covetousness of the covetous, not that the peole themselves covet the somen nd sons and horses...
Tehy are two different things.
Salaam
-
Naas is more than only mankind; it is a special category compared to jinns (faithless). They are spiritual.
Have faith
-
Naas is more than only mankind; it is a special category compared to jinns (faithless). They are spiritual.
Have faith
Why do you say that? I mean can you explain that idea? So you mean "spiritual" even if its bad spirituality?
6112
And thus did We make for every prophet an enemy, the Shaitans from among men and jinn, some of them suggesting to others varnished falsehood to deceive (them), and had your Lord pleased they would not have done it, therefore leave them and that which they forge.Also, can you read the Surah all about the Jinn? It is Surah 72. I understand you've probably read it, but maybe you could try reading it again? The jinn are not appearing to be without faith in that.
There are many mentions of the jinn in the Qur'an, and their mention is often coupled alongside people, Iblis also testifies to Allah existing and was made before the human race, so what do you mean "faithless" exactly?
http//www.islamawakened.com/quran/72/1/default.htm
-
Peace Samira,
If someone can try to understand my points, and perhaps try another shot at re-interpretation if possible, while being honest to the linguistics of the Quran, it would have been helpful.
This is what I found, while being honest to the linguistics of al-quran
Naas in addition to people or mankind, can also mean "a particular group of people". Please see
3173 The ones who group of people (al-naas) said to them "Group of people (al-naas) have gathered against you, so be concerned by them," but it only increased their faith and they said "God is sufficient for us, and He is the best to put our trust in."
In the above verse, clearly al-naas cannot mean all people or mankind, but it means a particular group of people.
Nisaa can be gender neutral meaning those men or women who are left behind, those who are vulnerable, or stay back at home. Please see 434
434 Those who walk on foot (al-rijaal) maintainers/protectors upon those left behind (al-nisaa) .....
Al-baneen can also mean "children" or buildings in classical Arabic. Please see 727, 518, 9109
727 O children (bani) of Adam .....
Putting it together
314 It has been adorned for a particular group of people to love the desire of men and women who are left behind, and children (or buildings), 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.
That's the best I could come up with staying within the linguistics.
Peace and may the infinite Creator bless you.
-
Thank you truth seeker.
-
Peace Novice,
Verse 313 is talking about two groups
- one fighting in the way of God (who as per you were supposed to be reformers)
- one of Kuffar. To whom worldly things have been beautified/decorated not by God but may be the
society/culture. To my understanding pronoun KUM in in verse 315 is referring to this group
and not to reformers of the society.
History tells us that after wars women and children were enslaved, land and buildings were possessed along with other wealth and horses etc. It is Quran telling people that these are worldly gains and what is with God is better than these. Unfortunately Muslims were doing the same in later stages of their expansion. Remember Janissaries during Ottomon Rule. They used to take away healthy and strong sons from occupied land to brainwash them to give their lives only for the Sultan. They proved to be a deadly force.
I agree that the way 314 starts, it implies that society/culture has decorated/adorned the worldly things and not the infinite Creator but that is not the issue.
The issue is that al-quran, being divinely inspired for ALL ages and cultures, should not have any FACTUAL error. If the society/culture had decorated/adorned only the love of desire of women and sons in all ages and cultures, then there would be no problem with how this verse has been translated traditionally. It is a FACT, however, that society/culture has decorated/adorned the love of desire of men and daughters also in particular societies/cultures and in particular times. Therein lies the problem with the traditional translation of 314 .... there being an apparent FACTUAL error.
If the original Arabic of 314 does say "It has been adorned for some people to love the desire of some people (including men and women), and children ....." like I have shown above, then it would be factually correct for all ages and cultures and there would be no issue.
Peace and may the love and light of the infinite Creator be with you.
-
Hello everyone,
I know that is a controversial sounding name for this topic. I have come across this particular verse and I am finding difficulty in shaking it off. I am curious how you guys would see this verse, which appear misogynous
314 Beautified for people is the love of that which they desire - of women and sons, heaped-up sums of gold and silver, fine branded horses, and cattle and tilled land. That is the enjoyment of worldly life, but Allah has with Him the best return.
The word 'Nas' is translated normally as 'mankind' or 'people'. And here it says that in PEOPLE itself they have been given the desire of WOMEN. I thought women were supposed to be people as well? Hence we women are being regarded as not even people in this case, but like cattle, or as property, for men who are apparently the real people. That's a serious objectification regarding women, or is a blatant error, either in the Quran's interpretation or the Arabic text itself.
The Quran is NOT written for ALL audiences.. and for ALL times..
It IS a 'targeted' message.. a message send out to a man living in 7th century middle east.
As thus no wonder women is being objectified.. because he is a man..When you are trying to communicate with some one, you'll try to somehow 'uses' his/her point of view.
For "Regular Male" in 7th century middle east..
"women and sons, heaped-up sums of gold and silver, fine branded horses, and cattle and tilled land"
Is what they want in life.. living the amer... erghh.. 7th century midle-east dream..For "Regular Male" in 21st century Japan..
"wife/girlfriend, heaped-up sums of credits in the bank account, sport car, condominium in downtown Tokyo, Higher Management Jobs" is the male Japanese dream..No sons, heaped-up sums of glod and silver, horses, cattle or tilled land..
For "Regular Female" in 21st century Japan..
"Loyal and generous husband, healthy children (preferably 1 maximum 2), heaped-up sums of credits in the bank account, condominium in downtown Tokyo" is the female Japanese dream..No women, heaped-up sums of gold and silver, horses, cattle or tilled land..
And "Male" is also being 'objectified'.. because the message was formulated for consumption by "Regular Female" in 21st century Japan..Salam / Peace
-
It IS a 'targeted' message.. a message send out to a man living in 7th century middle east.
As thus no wonder women is being objectified.. because he is a man..Lol, I am so so so glad I am born in the 21st century. If there is one thing I can be eternally grateful for, it is just being born in this century. Maybe I should kiss the number "2015" on every calendar I pass by. Because the patriarchy and violence at that era is quite stunning for the average person. Which seem to stem from a child-like and run-by-animal-instincts type mentality.
What do you mean by the bold letters sentence though? So you are saying those words are written by man? And it makes no sense God going along with a misogynistic minded man, going along with the oppression of half of the world's race, and carving them in stone for eternity. So the Quran in this way can't be a timeless piece.
When you are trying to communicate with some one, you'll try to somehow 'uses' his/her point of view.
Yeah. But the same viewpoint need not be "updated" to suit the modern viewpoint. Love for gold, silver, horse/car, lands, etc, is a normal human wanting. The concept that actually caught my eye was the mention of desire by "people", for "women" and "sons". Desire for sons is a common thing in a patriarchal and misogynistic society, which is apparent in various societies (though in this modern age it is more different, since more of equality is emphasized). And love of "people" for "women"? We see that nowadays too, in an objectified way. The verse did not mention love of "people" for "opposite gender". Just "women". That's a little too much for a just God, and a God who is supposed to understand these matters and not make even a small mistake.
Several people have already tried to play around with the interpretations. At this rate any plain text can easily be justified by looking at it with different lenses. The reason why people do this with the Quran in particular, changing the meaning of a plain laid-out text, is because they love the Quran and truly believe all of it is divinely inspired, and a lot of the today's translations at least are fine the way they are.
I would say at the least the Quran needs a very different way of translation. It is unbelievable how many interpretations the Quran can have. Which means good people with their good interpretations are right in their own way, and bad people with their bad interpretations are right in their own way too. Just the "take the best out of what is taught to you" as is in one verse won't make the cut. Too many verses of the Quran are just plain non-spiritual, worldly, or gives a materialistic focus in it's words. So if one does believe the Quran is divinely inspired, I doubt a just God would do this to people; send a text that can be interpreted in various ways and all of them seem to be right, and then the people are left to fight with each other to see whose interpretation would make the cut to be set as rules within the society.
Peace,
Samira
-
There is a saying by Cardinal Reichelieu
Give me four lines written by the most innocent person in the world, and I will find in it enough grounds to hang him.
Salaam
Well, if the lines are far too easy to be laid on very justifiable grounds to hang the person, then I would say the person actually pretty much sealed his or her fate by doing so.
Peace.
-
Hello everyone,
I know that is a controversial sounding name for this topic. I have come across this particular verse and I am finding difficulty in shaking it off. I am curious how you guys would see this verse, which appear misogynous
314 Beautified for people is the love of that which they desire - of women and sons, heaped-up sums of gold and silver, fine branded horses, and cattle and tilled land. That is the enjoyment of worldly life, but Allah has with Him the best return.
The word 'Nas' is translated normally as 'mankind' or 'people'. And here it says that in PEOPLE itself they have been given the desire of WOMEN. I thought women were supposed to be people as well? Hence we women are being regarded as not even people in this case, but like cattle, or as property, for men who are apparently the real people. That's a serious objectification regarding women, or is a blatant error, either in the Quran's interpretation or the Arabic text itself.
People sometimes say it is other people's fault for misinterpreting the Quran and creating problems in the world. Looks like the Quran in several places actually approves of their actions as well to an extent. It even looks like many people's messed-up attitude is a direct result from reading the scripture, and coming across such verses. Some embarrassed translators translated 'Nas' as 'men', which is wrong.
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.
Salaam to all.
Peace
Samira1234 I think you need a better approach to cognitive reasoning, "People like
nice things, but don't let your love of worldly possessions, acquisitions or vanities deter you
from righteousness.314 Beautified for people is the love of that which they desire - of women and sons, heaped-up sums
of gold and silver, fine branded horses, and cattle and tilled land. That is the enjoyment of worldly life,
but Allah has with Him the best return.The Quran is NOT written for ALL audiences.. and for ALL times..
I agree in essence with bro Jafar, except the Quran is written for all audiences in regards to
the essentials of righteousness, but as far as colloquial language one must at least have common
sense to understand that wealth and distractions in the seventh century would be described
differently than in the twenty-first century, why that would have to be explained to someone
who can read is beyond me.God bless
peace
-
Lol, I am so so so glad I am born in the 21st century. If there is one thing I can be eternally grateful for, it is just being born in this century. Maybe I should kiss the number "2015" on every calendar I pass by. Because the patriarchy and violence at that era is quite stunning for the average person. Which seem to stem from a child-like and run-by-animal-instincts type mentality.
Of course 21st century (in general) is much better than 7th century middle-east..
And who knows 30th century will be much better than now..
No more religion.. no holy books.. no more fighting over some shitty-land.. etc..I would say at the least the Quran needs a very different way of translation. It is unbelievable how many interpretations the Quran can have. Which means good people with their good interpretations are right in their own way, and bad people with their bad interpretations are right in their own way too. Just the "take the best out of what is taught to you" as is in one verse won't make the cut.
Keep the good stuff... ditch the bad stuff...
Would it make 'sense' to say to Muhammad ?
"Beautified for people is the love of that which they desire - of loyal and generous man, healthy and behaving children, heaped-up sums of gold and silver, fine clothing and high heels.. That is the enjoyment of worldly life, but Allah has with Him the best return.It make sense if it was being said to Fatima (or Isabella, or Olga or Sonia)
Too many verses of the Quran are just plain non-spiritual, worldly, or gives a materialistic focus in it's words. So if one does believe the Quran is divinely inspired, I doubt a just God would do this to people; send a text that can be interpreted in various ways and all of them seem to be right, and then the people are left to fight with each other to see whose interpretation would make the cut to be set as rules within the society.
The MISCONCEPTION is Some Quran-Worshipper idolize the book too much..
- They believe that it's the LAST revelation.. in reality it's NOT the last revelation.. God revelation is continuing up until today and into the future... that's why 21st century is much better than 7th century Middle East.
- They believe that it's written by God.. in reality it's written by human hands..
- They see the book as 'constitution'.. in reality it's not written in such mode.. it's supposed to be a 'message' being received by a male 7th century middle-easterner... (and perhaps later on.. some other people add more to the message and then compile it to become a book)
-
Of course 21st century (in general) is much better than 7th century middle-east..
And who knows 30th century will be much better than now..
No more religion.. no holy books.. no more fighting over some shitty-land.. etc..Lol, okay. I would say especially religious text with at least half a dozen different interpretations are bound to cause people to fight like cats and dogs, particularly when actually deciding on implementing them in reality, rather than just discussing them in theory (which can still be respected as having differing opinions among people).
Would it make 'sense' to say to Muhammad ?
"Beautified for people is the love of that which they desire - of loyal and generous man, healthy and behaving children, heaped-up sums of gold and silver, fine clothing and high heels.. That is the enjoyment of worldly life, but Allah has with Him the best return.It make sense if it was being said to Fatima (or Isabella, or Olga or Sonia)
Which is why I had mentioned the Quran needed to mention both loyal and generous men, and women. Because as you said yourself, it looks highly patriarchal otherwise, and like the book has been written for only men or something. Or it should have been mentioned under a particular surah called 'For Men' or something. We women already crumble enough under patriarchy and misogyny often times, we don't need additional version of that in the form of religious text.
People tried to mention the war context for that ayah, which can be partly considered as true and partly as untrue.
The MISCONCEPTION is Some Quran-Worshipper idolize the book too much..
That's quite true. I had read in a book called 'Conversations with God Book 1' by Neale Donald Walsch that he had received inspiration-type words to him saying that thoughts, feelings, real world evidence and written words are the four methods of inspiration to people by God, but then the last one is the weakest one, since it is subject to human tampering and multiple interpretations, which can be right or wrong. So our thoughts, feelings and real world evidence should be given higher priority above all, and if written words (which can also be a good source of guidance) contradict these three, those words are most likely not from God. It makes a lot of sense.
I am currently going with the idea that the Quran has been divinely inspired. If I find out later that it is not, um, well. I would see about it that time. And also going with the idea that the method of translation of the book has been misinterpreted, and hence quite badly distorted. Surahs like Surah al-Tawbah, al-Anfal and al-Masad are great examples of non-spirituality, and coming from a worldly or materialistic viewpoint.
Peace,
Samira