QM Forum

The Quran => General Discussions => Topic started by: wanderer on August 04, 2016, 01:43:15 AM

Title: Sons>Daughters (?)
Post by: wanderer on August 04, 2016, 01:43:15 AM
Hey guys, this is a question that has been bothering me for a while now- Does the Quran value sons over daughters? I'm asking this based on the sections of the Quran that refute the claims of female deities. The tone of these verses seems to indicate that daughters are somehow less than sons, particularly the line "or has he chosen, of what he has created, daughters over sons" and verse 43:18. I know there is a reasonable answer to this, so can anyone, (especially Joseph), help me??
Regards
wanderer
Title: Re: Sons>Daughters (?)
Post by: deleted on August 04, 2016, 04:54:02 AM
37:149, and 43:16 for reference. Peace. :)
Title: Re: Sons>Daughters (?)
Post by: wanderer on August 04, 2016, 04:56:46 AM
I do not see your point at all
Title: Re: Sons>Daughters (?)
Post by: wanderer on August 04, 2016, 04:57:06 AM
Please elaborate.
Title: Re: Sons>Daughters (?)
Post by: Amira on August 04, 2016, 05:22:35 AM
Assalamu Alaikum,

First look at the word-by-word translation of 43:17-18:

http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=43&verse=17

The phrase used is "one who is brought up in ornaments, and he in dispute is not clear." Basically, the verse is saying that the polytheists thought women were only brought up to look pretty, and the polytheists were in dispute about it. The verse doesn't say that women can't "express themselves in a dispute." The masculine Arabic pronoun is used, showing that the polytheists are the ones who are in dispute, not female children. The pronoun is used to refer to an adult man, not a little girl.

Most of the translations missed out on this part. A better translation for the verse would be something like this: "What use is an offspring that is brought up to be beautiful? He, in dispute, is not clear."

"He" refers to the polytheistic man. This interpretation has been mentioned on a few other websites and fits the Arabic text better.

Verse 43:17 describes a polytheist who is given "good news" (bushra) of a daughter. So according to the Quran, daughters are good news. But the polytheist is not happy about having a daughter, as described in the verse.

According to 81:8-9, some polytheists buried their daughters alive. 43:16 says, "Has He taken daughters and chosen for you sons?" Put together, these verses show that daughters themselves are good news. However, polytheists hated female children and insulted them. Despite the fact that they thought girls were inferior, they still attributed them to God. So the Quran was stating that the polytheists were degrading God by attributing something they hated to Him.

The Quran also condemns those who say God has a son, so it's clear that having children of any gender is beneath Him. However, both sons and daughters are considered a blessing:

"For Allah only is the kingship of the heavens and the earth; He creates whatever He wills; He may bestow daughters to whomever He wills, and sons to whomever He wills. Or may mix them, the sons and daughters; and may make barren whomever He wills; indeed He is All Knowing, Able.” 42:29-50

“And when one among of them receives the glad tidings of a daughter, his face turns black for the day, and he remains seething. Hiding from the people because of the evil of the tidings; "Will he keep her with disgrace, or bury her beneath the earth?"; pay heed! Very evil is the judgment they impose!” 16: 58-59

Other interpretations:

https://newqurantranslation.wordpress.com/2011/07/17/4318/

http://seekershub.org/ans-blog/2011/10/03/raised-in-adornments-and-ineffective-in-disputes-the-meaning-and-background-of-verse-4318-of-the-quran/

I hope this makes sense :)


Title: Re: Sons>Daughters (?)
Post by: wanderer on August 04, 2016, 05:30:56 AM
Hmm.. thank you for your response sister Amira, but I am still not convinced as to your claim, can you or someone else provide further proof?
Regards,
wanderer
Title: Re: Sons>Daughters (?)
Post by: Hassan A on August 04, 2016, 06:00:37 AM
Salam Wanderer,

I don't believe the Quran (or Allah) values daughters / women over boys / men.

Both are a creation of Allah, and many verses attest to how both are equal under the "eyes" of Allah and how both will receive equal reward(s) for their acts. The Quran also makes it clear that that the only basis of superiority and excellence that there is, or can be, between us is that of moral excellence / righteousness:

"O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted." [Quran 49:13]
[/i]

Now, with respect to those verses which supposedly seem to indicate that daughters are somehow less than sons it is vital to keep in mind the context / era in which those verses were released. The era / time of prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was one in which women were seen, by the pagan Arabs, as inferior (physically and mentally) and unequal to men and hence regarded them (their daughters) as a mere liability and their birth as a disgrace; therefore, those verses are obviously ironical and in a way rhetorical, as well.

Hope that clears it up
Title: Re: Sons>Daughters (?)
Post by: wanderer on August 04, 2016, 06:20:47 AM
I'm getting mixed messages here: On one hand, sister Amira is saying that the verses are not rhetorical and just mistranslated, but on the other hand brother Hassan A is saying that the verses aren't being mistranslated,  and are instead rhetorical. Who is right?? And does 43:18 refer to a man of a girl??
Title: Re: Sons>Daughters (?)
Post by: wanderer on August 04, 2016, 06:31:39 AM
Because, I just say another discussion on the Women section of this forum where it said that 43:18 did in fact refer to a girl. Please Respond
wanderer
Title: Re: Sons>Daughters (?)
Post by: Amira on August 04, 2016, 06:41:30 AM
I'd say it's both mistranslated and rhetorical. The first part of the verse, which talks about girls being raised for beauty, is rhetorical. It's meant to reflect the polytheists' attitude toward daughters. 43:16 is also rhetorical, as well as the verses asking the polytheists whether they witnessed the angels' creation.

Or the entire statement in verse 43:18 could have been said by the polytheists. This sequence would also make sense:

"And when one of them is given good tidings of that which he attributes to the Most Merciful in comparison, his face becomes dark, and he suppresses grief. The one who is brought up in ornaments and cannot give a clear account in dispute!" (the last part said by the polytheistic man)

There could be several interpretations of these verses, but gender preference is not implied.

Title: Re: Sons>Daughters (?)
Post by: Amira on August 04, 2016, 06:49:02 AM
I don't speak Arabic, but I looked up the Arabic pronoun "huwa" and I don't see how it can be used to refer to a female child. It's a masculine pronoun.
Title: Re: Sons>Daughters (?)
Post by: wanderer on August 04, 2016, 06:52:38 AM
You are contradicting yourself sister Amira!! In your first post you said that the end part of verse 43:18 refered to pagan men, but now you say it refers to female children (in the context of what men are saying about them)!! Now you are making me more confused!!
Title: Re: Sons>Daughters (?)
Post by: wanderer on August 04, 2016, 06:56:35 AM
Also what is everyone's opinion on all the other verses that deal with this topic?
Title: Re: Sons>Daughters (?)
Post by: Amira on August 04, 2016, 07:10:56 AM
 I didn't contradict myself, I offered two different interpretations. If "huwa" refers to a man, then the verse was mistranslated. If it refers to a girl, then it's possible that the entire verse was spoken by the polytheist.

I checked several websites and "huwa" is never used in reference to a girl. It seems like it should refer to the male polytheist, but I haven't ruled out the other interpretation either.

In case you haven't noticed, there are dozens of Quranic verses with multiple interpretations. I just gave you more than one. There's no need to get so irritated about it.
Title: Re: Sons>Daughters (?)
Post by: wanderer on August 04, 2016, 07:19:47 AM
I'm sorry if I seemed irate, sister Amira. It was not my intention to appear upset. And yes, you are right; from the Arabic I DO know, 'huwa' means 'he'. But what about the other verses I refered to though? And is there anyone else on this forum that can help us?
Regards,
wanderer
Title: Re: Sons>Daughters (?)
Post by: Amira on August 04, 2016, 07:27:00 AM
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to sound angry either. Are you talking about the verses that say, "Has He taken preference for daughters over sons?"

These verses, again, seem to be aimed at irony and reverse analogy, throwing the polytheists' own statements back at them. That's the best interpretation I can think of. The poytheists were rebuked for attributing things they hated to God without knowledge.
Title: Re: Sons>Daughters (?)
Post by: wanderer on August 04, 2016, 11:07:49 AM
Thank you again sister Amira. Would any one else like to provide their interpretation of these verses?
Title: Re: Sons>Daughters (?)
Post by: Hassan3000 on August 04, 2016, 04:27:59 PM
Peace be upon you :)

The line "or has he chosen, of what he has created, daughters over sons" is just a criticism of their claim. Thats what they used to claim, the claimed that God would choose their daughters and they would have their sons and they would kill their daughters for God.

The claim of the christians for example is also criticized in the Quran.
As it is, some assert, "The Most Gracious has taken unto Himself a son„!
Indeed, [by this assertion] you have brought forth something monstrous,
whereat the heavens might well-nigh be rent into fragments, and the earth be split asunder, and the mountains fall down in ruins!
That men. should ascribe a son to the Most Gracious, (19:88-91)

God criticizes any claim that ascribes a son to God, or a daughter to God.


Title: Re: Sons>Daughters (?)
Post by: relearning on August 16, 2016, 05:56:44 PM
Thank you again sister Amira. Would any one else like to provide their interpretation of these verses?

Dear brother these verses when sent never bothered any arabs. It is very clear that arabs always had high esteem of sons over girls. And here what quran criticize that arabs when in their cultural enviroment put sons in the upper degree than girls and then associating girls with god but taking them sons which means they are putting themself over god. So they take the good statues to them but give god less important less valuable things (to their understanding but God doesnt says o arabs girls and sons are equal because the context is not about equity it is about their morbid behaviour).  This characteristic morbid behaviour also stated in other sections of their religious behaviour for example: 6:136.
Title: Re: Sons>Daughters (?)
Post by: Truth Seeker on August 18, 2016, 08:06:33 AM
Salaam,

God, does not value one gender over the other as we are His creation.

In the verses where God is rebuking those who mock Him when they say He has female offspring etc ..they do it to deride God as those people think females are inferior and by making these claims, they feel they are insulting Him.

With verse 43.18 it seems that the subject matter is the male as per the verse previously and "ornaments" happens to be a genetive feminine noun. 

Title: Re: Sons>Daughters (?)
Post by: Lobotomize94 on December 27, 2019, 12:15:29 PM
Hello, I know this is an old topic, but I wanted to add something and correct a misunderstanding.

"Huwa" (he) can refer to children of either sex. It can mean a young boy or young girl and the word happens to be masculine. Based on the context surrounding this verse, it is referring to the daughter/girl.

There are 2 plausible interpretations of this verse:

[43:18] "Does God choose for Himself the kind of children who grow up wearing ornaments and who are not able to defend themselves in conflict?"
[43:18]“What! [Am I to have a daughter -] one who is to be reared [only] for the sake of ornament?”  and thereupon he finds himself torn by a vague inner conflict.

The first interpretation is saying that the polytheists see females as good for just looking pretty but not able to fend for themselves--and Allah is using this as a rhetorical statement back at them--"if this is what you believe about females, how could you ascribe with me this inferiority"

The second interpretation is saying that the polytheists see females as good for just looking pretty, and similarly Allah is using this as a rhetorical statement back at them, but instead the polytheist is the one who finds himself unable to defend this flawed position.

Which one is the right interpretation? I think both mean the same thing either way. Both show the polytheists misogyny and underappreciation of girls. So it doesn't matter, the message is the same :)
Title: Re: Sons>Daughters (?)
Post by: ilker on February 02, 2020, 08:45:34 AM
Salam,

Allah knows bests and may He guide to us to the right way of thinking.. But with my limited knowledge, I agree with the second interpretation Lobotomize94 stated above. Those ayat simply mean: "Why do you (polytheists) ascribe with Me a gender that you think is inferior ?" Because their faces became dark, frustrated when they had daughter in 43:17.
Title: Re: Sons>Daughters (?)
Post by: jawediqbal on February 27, 2020, 03:12:15 PM
:)
Title: Re: Sons>Daughters (?)
Post by: relearning on June 18, 2020, 05:58:04 PM
but it would be cool if god said or stated that how wonderful females are as well as males and making it a wider point that he is not insulted by their saying that girls to god and explain the basic sin was their seeing females lower than males as he/she/It created them from the creator point. It would be great then and now =)
Title: Re: Sons>Daughters (?)
Post by: Lobotomize94 on July 04, 2020, 04:42:35 AM
but it would be cool if god said or stated that how wonderful females are as well as males and making it a wider point that he is not insulted by their saying that girls to god and explain the basic sin was their seeing females lower than males as he/she/It created them from the creator point. It would be great then and now =)

Actually, it may not have been great then (during the 7th century). We already knew that the Arabs valued their sons more and as such Allah wanted to avoid whatever mental noise it would've created to the Arabs had he said what you wanted him to say.
Title: Re: Sons>Daughters (?)
Post by: Truth Seeker on July 09, 2020, 01:06:29 AM
Salaam all


I think it was prevalent in Arab culture that sons were considered more in status than daughters. In the eyes of God, He is above His creation so it would be abhorrent to attribute sons or daughters to Him. As some one pointed out earlier, there is a verse where God refers to those who were given glad tidings of a daughter, so He does not think them to be bad/inferior.

However those who were attributing daughters to God were in fact insulting Him because in their culture, daughters were unwanted. So surely if they were to attribute anything to God, it would be sons because they were revered so much and and considered to be the best?