The Quran objectifies women

hawk99

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

Jafar

@Jafar

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)

Samira1234

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

Samira1234

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.

Samira1234

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
997

And 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.

good_logic

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.

Samira1234

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.

Samira1234

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.

hawk99

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 Samira1234

You say you are a truth seeker, but you operate from a bias! nope operating from a bias
betrays the term truthseeker. Please see post #45

God bless

peace

good_logic

Thank you Samira.

I think we all need to cleanse our minds from the garbage that is fed to us by "inheritance" .
Every generation "adds a bit of seasoning" to the content passed to them by their parents /rulers/masters.

Science, logic,common sense and revisiting what GOD is really saying from scratch will help us with our task.

I hope we keep on trying until we get to the truth. Also the main task is to keep being good ourselves and doing good for others, whoever they are.

GOD bless you.
Peace.

truthseeker11

Peace Samira,

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.

Agreed.

I myself tried to interpret 314 in a gender neutral way so that it makes sense, while staying within classical Arabic linguistics, but failed (

If I interpret "nisaa" as "those left behind" then it doesn't make any sense. Why would people love the desire of "those left behind"?

If I interpret "nisaa" as women, then it becomes factually incorrect even for a 7th century audience as I will show in my next post.

The only inescapable conclusion would be the possibility that the original Arabic of this verse could have been tampered with after it was channeled to Muhammad, or this verse was channeled by a negative higher density entity. The infinite Creator's channeling is perfection, and should make total sense and be factually correct.

It would have made sense if the verse had said

"314 It has been adorned for people to love the desire of other people, and children, and ornaments made from gold and silver......"

Because then it would have been factually correct.

Peace and may the love and light of the infinite Creator be with you and everyone else.

Samira1234

Thank you Samira.

I think we all need to cleanse our minds from the garbage that is fed to us by "inheritance" .
Every generation "adds a bit of seasoning" to the content passed to them by their parents /rulers/masters.

Science, logic,common sense and revisiting what GOD is really saying from scratch will help us with our task.

I hope we keep on trying until we get to the truth. Also the main task is to keep being good ourselves and doing good for others, whoever they are.

GOD bless you.
Peace.

Thanks good logic. I agree. I would say both cultural and religious conditioning have affected our minds, even our conscience, to an extent. I would say much of this conditioning is centuries old, even millennia old, so figuring out the truth from falsehood is a harder task for many of us.

Peace.

truthseeker11

Peace Jafar, Samira, others,

The Quran is NOT written for ALL audiences.. and for ALL times..

21107 which says otherwise

21107 And We have not sent you except as a mercy to the worlds (aalameen).

This is the same word that is used in reference to the infinite Creator itself

12 Praise be to God, lord of the worlds (aalameen).

If "al-aalameen" is not ALL audiences and ALL times, then God is also not the lord of all audiences and all times.

If "al-aalameen" is ALL audiences and ALL times, then the message channeled to Muhammad to be proclaimed to "al-aalameen" would be for all audiences and all times and then 314 would not make sense because it becomes factually incorrect.

So the implications of Jafar's statement would be

Either the infinite Creator is not the lord of all audiences and all times,

OR

314 is not factually correct and therefore could not have been channeled from the infinite Creator.

Either way there is a problem with the current quraanic text.

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.

The message is not targeted to Muhammad the messenger, but to "al-aalameen" as per 21107

Yes it was channeled (sent, inspired, revealed) to a man living in 7th century middle east but it was targeted to "al-aalameen".

314 is targeted to "al-naas" of "al-aalameen", ALL audiences and ALL times, so it becomes factually incorrect when it limits the loved and desired objects to only women and sons.

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..

What about a "Regular Female" in 7th century?

21107 clearly says Muhammad was sent as a mercy to "al-aalameen". Even if you don't include ALL times in "al-aalameen", you will have to include ALL audiences in 7th century AD in "al-aalameen", which includes the whole world population at that time.

Hmmm ..... Let's see

There were powerful female rulers in various parts of Earth in 7th century AD

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category7th-century_female_rulers

Azarmidokht, was Sasanian queen of Persia from to 630 to 631, and daughter of Khosrau II. She ruled Persia after her cousin Shapur-i Shahrvaraz.

Balthild of Ascania, was the wife and queen of Clovis II, the king of Burgundy and Neustria (63965.

Borandukht, was the daughter of the Sasanian king Khosrau II (59062. She was one of only two women on the throne of the Sasanian Empire (the other was her sister and successor Azarmidokht). She was the first Sasanian empress of Persia, reigning from 17 June 629 to 16 June 630, and later from 631 to 632 after a brief usurpation.

Constantina, (ca. 560 ca. 605) was the Empress consort of Maurice of the Byzantine Empire. She was a daughter of Tiberius II Constantine and his wife Ino Anastasia.

Queen Jindeok of Silla, reigned as Queen of Silla, one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea, from 647 to 654. She was the kingdom's 28th ruler, and its second reigning queen following her predecessor Queen Seondeok.

Empress Jit, was the 41st monarch of Japan, according to the traditional order of succession. Jit's reign spanned the years from 686 through 697.

Empress Kgyoku, also known as Empress Saimei, was the 35th and 37th monarch of Japan, according to the traditional order of succession. Kgyoku's reign spanned the years from 642645. Her reign as Saimei encompassed 655661.

Nanthild, was a Frankish queen consort and regent, the third of many consorts of Dagobert I, king of the Franks (629639).

Ix Sak K'uk', was a Queen of the Maya state of B'aakal, now known as Palenque, in what is now eastern Mexico. As Pakal I seems to have had no male heirs, she ascended to the throne on 22 October 612, a few months after her father's death.

Seaxburh, was a Queen of Wessex. She is also called Queen of the Gewisse, an early name for the tribe which ruled Wessex. She is said to have ruled Wessex for about a year after the death of her husband, Cenwalh, in 672. It was extremely rare for a woman to rule in her own right in Anglo-Saxon England, and she was the only woman to appear in a regnal list.

Queen Seondeok of Silla, reigned as Queen of Silla, one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea, from 632 to 647. She was Silla's twenty-seventh ruler, and its first reigning queen. She was the second female sovereign in East Asian history and encouraged a renaissance in thought, literature, and the arts in Silla.

Empress Suiko, was the 33rd monarch of Japan, according to the traditional order of succession. Suiko's reign spanned the years from 593 until her death in 628.

Wu Zetian, "Empress Wu", was a Chinese sovereign, who ruled officially under the name of her self-proclaimed "Zhou dynasty", from 690 to 705. She was the only female emperor of China in more than four millennia.

Yohl Iknal, was a female ruler of the Mayan city of Palenque, ruling from 583 to 604, during the Mesoamerican Classic Period. Her name means "Heart of the Wind Place".

There were many other famous and powerful women in 7th century AD

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category7th-century_women

A
Adalsinda
?lffl?d of Whitby
Aisha
Khawlah bint al-Azwar
Austrebertha

B
Barra binte Samawal
Begga
Begnet
Begu
Bertha of Kent
Bertha of Val d'Or
Beuve, Abbess of Saint Pierre de Reims

C
Clotilde (floruit 673)

D
Der-Ilei
Domentzia
Dymphna

E
Emma of Austrasia
Epiphania of Pavia

E cont.
Ermenilda of Ely
Eudokia (wife of Justinian II)
Fabia Eudokia

F
Fausta (wife of Constans II)
Saint Florentina
Frithuswith

G
Gauthildr Algautsd?ttir
Gertrude of Nivelles
Gwenllwyfo

H
Halimah bint Abi Dhuayb
Hilda of Whitby

I
Irene of Tomar
Itta

K
Kahina
Princess Ki

L
Leofwynn
Leontia

M
'Asma' bint Marwan

M cont.
Mildgyth
Mildrith
Marina the Monk

N
Nagisa (harpist)
Naila bint al-Farafsa

P
Patricia of Naples
Pega
Princess Pingyang
Princess Seonhwa of Silla

R
Rayhana bint Zayd

S
S?thryth
Shirin

T
Saint Tanca
Thuwaybah

U
Lubaba bint Ubaydillah

W
Saint Winifred

X
Empress Xiao (Sui dynasty)

What about the love and desire of these famous and influential women of 7th century AD? They were part of "al-aalameen" weren't they?

What would have been the reaction of these famous and influential women of 7th century AD to any patriarchal and misogynistic message meant for "al-aalameen"?

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.

No it wouldn't, because then it again becomes factually incorrect by not mentioning women and sons, even for 7th century AD.

It would make 'sense' to say to Muhammad

"Beautified for people is the love of that which they desire - of other people, children, heaped-up sums of gold and silver ........"

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)

Agreed 100% handshake

Peace and may the love and light of the infinite Creator be with everyone.

Samira1234

Peace Samira1234

You say you are a truth seeker, but you operate from a bias! nope operating from a bias
betrays the term truthseeker. Please see post #45

God bless

peace

I am sorry hawk99 if I sound that way. But then again, from the very translation you have provided

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.

Hence in plain text at the beginning it is written, for people in general in this world they have women and sons beautified for them. And yes, with Allah they have the best return, despite the desires they have in this world. At one glance it looks pretty simple and negligible to give serious thought. With more deeper look, the misogyny starts to surface. The very fact that for people itself, the desire of women and the desire for having sons have been beautified is a misogynistic concept.

Many people who have not been exposed to such text or believe in them are not patriarchal and hold such views. Such text by themselves encourage patriarchy and misogyny.

Thanks for your contributions. I appreciate them. I am sorry if my criticism may be hurtful in any way to anybody. But then I am not really criticising people here, just the text and their possible interpretations.

Peace.

truthseeker11

Peace good logic,

I hope we keep on trying until we get to the truth. Also the main task is to keep being good ourselves and doing good for others, whoever they are.

bravo

Belief in the infinite Creator, the last day, and doing good deeds (service to others) is what really matters

262 Surely those who believe; and those who are Jewish, and the Nazarenes, and the Sabians, whoever of them believes in God and the last day and does good works; they will have their recompense with their Lord, and there is no fear upon them, nor will they grieve.

569 Surely those who believe; and those who are Jewish, and the Sabians, and the Nazarenes, whoever of them believes in God and the last day and does good works; then they will have nothing to fear nor will they grieve.

No doubt about these verses.

Peace and may the infinite Creator bless you all.

Samira1234

Hello truthseeker11,

Thank you for your enlightening posts. I learn from you a lot. It's great to see someone of a similar mindset here )

314 is targeted to "al-naas" of "al-aalameen", ALL audiences and ALL times, so it becomes factually incorrect when it limits the loved and desired objects to only women and sons.

Thanks for clarifying this verse further )

What about the love and desire of these famous and influential women of 7th century AD? They were part of "al-aalameen" weren't they?

What would have been the reaction of these famous and influential women of 7th century AD to any patriarchal and misogynistic message meant for "al-aalameen"?

You are darn awesome ;D And giving the list of women's names. That's exactly one of the points which confused me thoroughly as well. Even the Bible has a list of names of female prophetesses as well.

I appreciate your detailed posts very much.

Peace.

Sonny

If we go with this logic than Creator objectifies sons as well in that verse and they are not women.
I would not give my opinion on this verse because I fear I will insult some feminists here.

Samira1234

If we go with this logic than Creator objectifies sons as well in that verse and they are not women.
I would not give my opinion on this verse because I fear I will insult some feminists here.

I already answered on this several times earlier. Please go through my earlier posts more carefully. Thanks for your response by the way.

Peace.

hawk99

I am sorry hawk99 if I sound that way. But then again, from the very translation you have provided

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.

Hence in plain text at the beginning it is written, for people in general in this world they have women and sons beautified for them. And yes, with Allah they have the best return, despite the desires they have in this world. At one glance it looks pretty simple and negligible to give serious thought. With more deeper look, the misogyny starts to surface. The very fact that for people itself, the desire of women and the desire for having sons have been beautified is a misogynistic concept.

Many people who have not been exposed to such text or believe in them are not patriarchal and hold such views. Such text by themselves encourage patriarchy and misogyny.

Thanks for your contributions. I appreciate them. I am sorry if my criticism may be hurtful in any way to anybody. But then I am not really criticising people here, just the text and their possible interpretations.

Peace.

Peace Samira1234

Thank you for replying to my post.

I am not referring to a sound, but your approach, you ask a question, get answers, then return to your
original conclusion! Is this truth seeking? No it's making a stand. like 3/14 addresses all people
and is easy to understand, If you reflect without bias you may understands that women have
similar desires and distractions. If your point is that women are not mentioned specifically
then you miss the context of the text, try hard to understand that the Quran addresses men
and women. Do women desire wealth and can be distracted by their desires? If so then the
ayat addresses them also.

The very fact that for people itself, the desire of women and the desire for having sons have been beautified is a misogynistic concept.

Here you operate under a gross misunderstanding of history and the Quran. The Quran was/is
a beacon that gave women rights long before the witch hunts of Europe, and the Women Suffrage
act of America.

Here is a link from brother Wakas that may be helpful

http//www.quran434.com/study-method.html

God bless you

peace

Samira1234

Peace Samira1234

Thank you for replying to my post.

I am not referring to a sound, but your approach, you ask a question, get answers, then return to your
original conclusion! Is this truth seeking? No it's making a stand. like 3/14 addresses all people
and is easy to understand, If you reflect without bias you may understands that women have
similar desires and distractions. If your point is that women are not mentioned specifically
then you miss the context of the text, try hard to understand that the Quran addresses men
and women. Do women desire wealth and can be distracted by their desires? If so then the
ayat addresses them also.

Here you operate under a gross misunderstanding of history and the Quran. The Quran was/is
a beacon that gave women rights long before the witch hunts of Europe, and the Women Suffrage
act of America.

Here is a link from brother Wakas that may be helpful

http//www.quran434.com/study-method.html

God bless you

peace

Hello hawk99, thank you for sharing your comment. In a way yes, I make a stand for something that I quote, till somebody comes by and really says something to knock me off from my position with reason and sense. Hopefully not in a rude way though. But in a way that the three main tools that I fall back on; conscience, reasoning, and observance of the real world evidence; is not disturbed, but actually goes hand-in-hand with.

By the way truthseeker11 and Man of Faith made a lot of sense regarding that particular verse in this thread. Novice as well, to an extent. For the others, I appreciate their responses, because I do look at everybody's responses, but they have not been satisfactory enough for me on their interpretations and method of translation. My conscience, reasoning and observance of real world evidence have not been sufficiently upheld when considering other responses more on that particular verse. However, I am grateful to every one of you, since everybody with their own dimensions gave me extra food for thought, and additional knowledge in other ways. So thanks for that.

Peace,

Samira