Sons>Daughters (?)

[Amira]

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.

[wanderer]

Thank you again sister Amira. Would any one else like to provide their interpretation of these verses?

[Hassan3000]

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.

[relearning]

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.

[Truth Seeker]

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. 

[Lobotomize94]

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

[ilker]

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.

[jawediqbal]

[relearning]

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 =)

[Lobotomize94]

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.

[Truth Seeker]

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?