The Quran objectifies women

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

FreedomStands

Samira1234, I'd like you to check out if possible the fun stuff that happened in sushi1992's thread

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9607120.msg361287#msg361287 might be a good start since you are mentioned there, but the real action starts

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9607120.msg361365#msg361365

and onwards.

Your presence there might be fun! I invite you to speak freely and poke fun at my ideas and all that, I really enjoyed it in the other thread too where you had said "God of FreedomStands" and all that! So come for some fun!

Man_of_Faith

Despite Qur'an being old and using old allegories and metaphors it is a spiritual message and timeless and it is the general behavior and kind of thinking that is the point. Qur'an teaches on the right approach to life and the key to success in leading your life. You can read it now and you can read it in 2000 years with spacecrafts and hovercraft cars and still appreciate the abstract perception on how to lead a life. Only Pagans get absorbed in concretely literary meanings.

Qur'an is an elaboration on what Jesus taught approximately 2000 years ago and does not change the concept from what it was. There are no fleshly rituals or other nonsense, and since Qur'an is a later composition than Jesus' teachings the spiritual message should feel more modern and updated than what Jesus preached. However it does not, it seems more backwards and that is due to the lousy widespread interpretation. It basically teaches a Pagan religion and something based on Rabbinic Judaism with God as a distinct object in the sky.

However, it is clear there is a lot of misogyny in Qur'an's traditional interpretation, but the original Arabic does not even say half of it.

Have faith

Samira1234

Hello FreedomStands,

I didn't go through the lengthy posts because I tend to write in between my engineering classes, but this is what I have seen

Samira has a funny name to me too, it reminds me of Samiri, that is not saying she is "making a golden calf", but haha, maybe she is! Allah is the maker of all humor and jokes and laughter and senses of humor, all these are Allah's creations.

I do not think you are a disbeliever in God, per say, but that you may believe in a different God than me perhaps.

You see, I worship the Lord of Evil, just like a Jinn would do, right? I Worship the Binder, the one who fetters, I am the slave of the great and only Daemon (divider of fortunes).

Allah makes me happy at your speech and actions, and Allah makes me frustrated by your speech and actions.

I was so entertained by Samira's posts that called it "God of FreedomStands" haha its like making this whole thing into a cool movie, I love it.

I want people to come and duel with the big bad monster FreedomStands and his God of Evil.

Its fun! Oh you "servants of the Light". Come and face the "jinn" "according perhaps to the definition of Man of Faith based on what appears to be faulty etymology" and his religion of Realizing the Surrender.

Um, okay. Alright. If it's funny to you so be it. Like this >D yay

One, two, three; hahahahaha. I have yet to catch the actual joke though. Which you can also consider to be a joke if you want so.

Peace.

FreedomStands

Hello FreedomStands,

I didn't go through the lengthy posts because I tend to write in between my engineering classes, but this is what I have seen

Um, okay. Alright. If it's funny to you so be it. Like this > yay

One, two, three; hahahahaha. I have yet to catch the actual joke though. Which you can also consider to be a joke if you want so.

Peace.

Yes! We might as well enjoy each other while we are here!

FreedomStands

Despite Qur'an being old and using old allegories and metaphors it is a spiritual message and timeless and it is the general behavior and kind of thinking that is the point. Qur'an teaches on the right approach to life and the key to success in leading your life. You can read it now and you can read it in 2000 years with spacecrafts and hovercraft cars and still appreciate the abstract perception on how to lead a life. Only Pagans get absorbed in concretely literary meanings.

Qur'an is an elaboration on what Jesus taught approximately 2000 years ago and does not change the concept from what it was. There are no fleshly rituals or other nonsense, and since Qur'an is a later composition than Jesus' teachings the spiritual message should feel more modern and updated than what Jesus preached. However it does not, it seems more backwards and that is due to the lousy widespread interpretation. It basically teaches a Pagan religion and something based on Rabbinic Judaism with God as a distinct object in the sky.

However, it is clear there is a lot of misogyny in Qur'an's traditional interpretation, but the original Arabic does not even say half of it.

Have faith

It doesn't teach that "God is a distinct object in the sky" nor was that the Rabbinic understanding either, the Bible and the Qur'an match up in their message well, and also the Bhagavad Gita and so many other texts.

Of course, your interpretation, which I am agreeing comes to you from Allah alone, may be shown to be true, so I am not against you, I am only doing what I am doing by the will of Allah, just as you are, whether we know it or not.

Man_of_Faith

Freedom,
You should be aware that it is not particularly right to laugh at someone. And I did not consider you a jinn. This is something that you come up with yourself.
And false etymology or not, Gentile or Gen has the exact same meaning as Jinn. If it is a coincidence then it is very coincidental.
I think you should consider all knowledge that you hear even if it goes against your little bubble.
The Jews originally knew (I suspect that they lost their own insight through the decay of time and fabrications) that the realm is a highly spiritual one and hence why everyone that was not a Jewish was considered a jinn which refers to being worldly and fleshly, i.e. indulging in the flesh. This was the reminder that which Jesus came with and hence that his message was exclusively about elaborating on the already present "Commandments" (I call them 'Guidelines&#039 and showing their abstract nature and that spiritual depth in a soul is what matters.
He tried to erase the delusion of God, the God delusion and he rarely used the word God (Elohim) in his language but he used Sustainer or Creator which is the commonly translated word Father, and it is equal to Rabb. And this is the reason why he used the phrase "I am in the Creator/Father and the Creator/Father is in me, i.e. he spoke of spiritual assimilation and affinity. He also said that all of those who hearkened onto him would be called "sons of the Father" which rather refers to a person who have a direct relationship/assimilation with God rather than being biological sons.
Have faith

runninglikezebras

As Quran states man and woman are equal. Any understanding of verses in Quran that seem to disturb the balance between those two genders is a product of a failed understanding and should encourage to reexamine those verses.

FreedomStands

Freedom,
You should be aware that it is not particularly right to laugh at someone. And I did not consider you a jinn. This is something that you come up with yourself.
And false etymology or not, Gentile or Gen has the exact same meaning as Jinn. If it is a coincidence then it is very coincidental.
I think you should consider all knowledge that you hear even if it goes against your little bubble.
The Jews originally knew (I suspect that they lost their own insight through the decay of time and fabrications) that the realm is a highly spiritual one and hence why everyone that was not a Jewish was considered a jinn which refers to being worldly and fleshly, i.e. indulging in the flesh. This was the reminder that which Jesus came with and hence that his message was exclusively about elaborating on the already present "Commandments" (I call them 'Guidelines&#039 and showing their abstract nature and that spiritual depth in a soul is what matters.
He tried to erase the delusion of God, the God delusion and he rarely used the word God (Elohim) in his language but he used Sustainer or Creator which is the commonly translated word Father, and it is equal to Rabb. And this is the reason why he used the phrase "I am in the Creator/Father and the Creator/Father is in me, i.e. he spoke of spiritual assimilation and affinity. He also said that all of those who hearkened onto him would be called "sons of the Father" which rather refers to a person who have a direct relationship/assimilation with God rather than being biological sons.
Have faith

5343
and that it is He alone who causes to laugh and to weep;

Well according to normal etymology and language, Gen and Gentile, which are not Hebrew words at all, also do not mean what Jinn is generally defined as throughout the ages or the Hebrew GNN, which are both typically defined as referring to things "hidden".

I don't mind being a jinn if it means "faithless" as you say because I was telling you that I have no faith, I don't follow "blind faith" as people often intend of the word.

Gentile was the word used to translate the Jewish term which is transliterated as Goyim and means "nations" "peoples" and only came to be associated to "faithless" or "non-believers" over time, it didn't initially have that meaning in ancient Hebrew, it took on that meaning of "non-Jews" and by extension "those who are faithless" over time and usage by the Jews against other people, and the Jews speaking Hebrew and Aramaic still have the JNN/GNN root which they all say refers to "hidden" so words that have it mean "hidden" things. You can ask any scholar of the languages who isn't religious even.

You alone seem to have this system where you (do you invent the meaning of the letters?) say a certain letter has a meaning and then add the meanings you somehow come up with to invent what you think the word should mean even if it was used differently like people like in my example of how language actually tends to work.

Man_of_Faith

Faith is completely depending on what you have faith in. Trust is another connotation to the Arabic word Salam. If you do not have faith then it means you do not trust God which is against your own agenda here. You need to realize that the word faith is different from that of belief. This is why I generally avoid belief in favor of faith.

You make an error in trusting sources even taking they were 1000-2000 years old or older. Like I said to you; the combination of letters forming Jinn (&#1606 literally means 'lowly one' or 'low-bound one'. Making sense of it would render it as worldly or fleshly in Jesus manner. With al-jinn it would take an adjectival expression in a context opposite of what traditional sources say (AL indicates literally "to be" or in its Arabic linguistic order "be to", but it is an attributing prefix), so Al-Jinn ought to be seen as "wordly" .

And even if you are not worldly but spiritual albeit not concerned about the right things then it does not matter how rejecting you are to materialism. This is the meaning in the phrases that start "Al-anas wa Al-Jinn", the Arabic continues to describe what it means and that is the wrong approach to life. Even if you reject materialism this is not enough if you do not have the right spiritual affinity. What is right you already have the 'Guidelines' (Commandments) which say

Serve God goodly (the phrase used Elohim Wahed which implied to do according to what is good)
Do not take any image of anything in Heaven or Earth and use it in attribution.
No vain talk (do not conjecture)
Keep the shabbateh
Treat your neighbor as yourself (Jesus elaborated and told to include also your enemy)
Do not murder (Jesus said that even the one who holds a grudge against his brother will be held accountable.
Do not steal (because it is like eating the flesh of your brother)
Do not carry false testimony (do not lie, at all)
Do not commit adultery
Do not be jealous

All ten "commandments" were/are meant as spiritual guidance.

They are mentioned several times in Queen as the adjectival phrase "al-masjed al-haram", but some scholar(s) decided it means some idol building in the desert somewhere.

And to be spiritual does not mean you have to discard all your possessions right away, but you should be aware of them. Although Jesus would have said throw them all away, but that was because Jesus had reached further than the majority of us in spiritual ascension. You can at least begin being aware of what is important in life.

I think Quran is the most misinterpreted book in the world. It reflects a Pagan religion in its common shape.

Have faith