The Quran objectifies women
-
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
-
As Jesus said in the Gospel
Let the dead bury their dead.
And also, do not throw pearls to the pigs.
Salaam to the sincere
Thanks for the quotes. I would keep them in mind when meeting potential scenarios when I could apply them.
Peace.
-
Jafar, I just saw this in your footnote
"The Arabs (al-arabu) are the worst in rejection and hypocrisy, and more likely not to know the limits of what God has sent upon His messenger
997And yes it's written as Al-Arabu and not Al-Badawi or Badawiyun..
*For those who had a hard time accepting this fact.."Hey that's racist, man. As people we are not supposed to generalize a whole race of people due to the actions of some people who may have those characteristics, because it is then just plain cruel and anti-human rights. But then, it is part of the Quran, so it must be right, isn't it? Lol.
Oh man. Racism, misogyny, violence, hate speech, the Quran seems to have it all, besides the good and progressive teachings which are usually cherry-picked and mentioned over and over. But with good knowledge of interpretation acrobatics, apparently they are all justifiable.
These verses need re-translation, rather than just re-interpretation, if people noticed issues with them and want to deal with them or something. But at this rate why only deal with the "negative" ones and leave the "good" ones or "halfway-tolerable" ones? The whole book, or at least a rather large portion of it, needs a re-translation and re-interpretation method at this rate.
Peace.
-
Peace Samira.
Look Samira ,either you deal with Qoran yourself , you leave it or keep criticising it all your life . Qoran is not going to disappear?
GOD says there are no intermediaries ,no one is responsible to translate the Qoran for you. It is between you and your creator.
GOD ahead and do what you say here
These verses need re-translation, rather than just re-interpretation, if people noticed issues with them and want to deal with them or something. But at this rate why only deal with the "negative" ones and leave the "good" ones or "halfway-tolerable" ones? The whole book, or at least a rather large portion of it, needs a re-translation and re-interpretation method at this rate.
I say this in the nicest possible way ,without meaning any disrespect ...
Unless you deal with it by yourself , you will always have issues with Qoran. Otherwise leave it alone if it happens to be so bad!
GOD said take it or leave it.
People can only give you their opinions ,even if you accept them, you have to double check yourself to leave no doubt in your mind.
The best thing if you want to do this properly, is to tackle the job yourself,if you wish to.
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
Hello good logic,
People can only give you their opinions ,even if you accept them, you have to double check yourself to leave no doubt in your mind.
The best thing if you want to do this properly, is to tackle the job yourself,if you wish to.
In one way I am trying to learn more, also in another way I am trying to give a wake-up call to people that there is something very wrong present in our scripture, and that a lot of the harm and injustice present in the world is directly because of the scripture's words itself. Either a massive re-translation and re-interpretation should be done for the scripture, one that keeps honesty to the original Arabic text of the Quran while keeping people's conscience, reasoning and observance of the fruits in the real world intact, or the harm and injustice in the world would remain, and people would keep blaming each other without pointing a single finger at the source itself which is creating or sparking much of it further.
Peace.
-
By the way I appreciate everybody's responses, whatever they may be, and also I give my own input, in an honest way as possible. Whether that includes agreeing with the responses or criticizing them accordingly. I hope people don't mind. I appreciate all of you people as my fellow brothers and sisters.
Peace.