Should women be kept from positions of power?

Don’t discuss whether or not you believe in the authenticity of hadiths, the lineage of any individuals mentioned below, or the legitimacy of any/all of the Caliphs. Solely during this thread, i am not interested in what you believe regarding these three issues. Keep it out of my thread.

This goes back to an earlier thread of mine - which got zero replies :smiley: - regarding patriarchy in Muslim cultures and how that had impeded women’s progress towards fulfilling their religious obligations. Someone forwarded this to me a long time back, and i’ve been meaning to post it up here ever since. i believe it is an interesting read, worth reading.

Should Women Be Kept Out of Positions of Power?, Suraya Al-Shehry, Arab News, 2 January 2004

The story of Queen Saba in the Holy Qur’an is the strongest evidence that women are capable of holding top governing positions. The wisdom Queen Saba showed in her decisions and in dealing with her rivals proves that women do not lack the qualities a ruler needs. If women had lesser mental powers than men they would not be equal to men in reward and punishment, as the Qur’an considers them.

The issue is important and deserves serious discussion. Shoura or consultation is part of the democratic set-up. There must however be a legal framework or constitution that guarantees the freedom of Shoura members. Oppression will produce internal and external contradictions and psychological pressures which can intensify to the point of intellectual terrorism.

Human society is made up of men and women. Women believe that they are as capable as their male counterparts. But men often underestimate the abilities of women. They place less importance on their role in society, ignore them and neglect to consult them in important matters.

How depressing that even those women who have proven administrative skills are not given leadership positions, especially in politics. This is true not only for Muslim women but also their counterparts in other parts of the world.

But it is important to focus on the situation in the Arab and Islamic world. People who deny women a leadership role point to a Hadith compiled by Al-Bukhari. There Abu Bakrah [not to be confused with Abu Bakr, the first Caliph] says he had heard the Prophet (peace be upon him) saying: “A nation that appoints a woman as its ruler shall never achieve success.”

Abu Bakrah said the Prophet made this comment when he was informed that the Persians had appointed a woman as their ruler.

We have to study the historical background of the Hadith. Remarkably, it is the only Hadith that says women should not be rulers. What prompted Abu Bakrah to narrate this Hadith 25 years after the death of the Prophet? He might have done it to justify his position in the Battle of Camel in which Aisha, the Prophet’s wife, stood with the opponents of Caliph Ali. He objected to her opposition to the Caliph and also felt uncomfortable about apposing Aisha, the mother of the believers.

There are doubts about the authenticity of the Hadith. First, Abu Bakrah’s lineage is obscure. Imam Ahmad ibn Hambal made only a passing reference to him in his book on the Prophet’s Companions. Moreover, Abu Bakrah does not fulfill the criteria Hadith scholars have established because he was found guilty of bearing false witness against Mugheerah ibn Shueba during the reign of Caliph Omar ibn Al-Khattab. He was found guilty of making false accusations against Mugheerah that he committed adultery.

In my view this Hadith as well as its detailed commentary are intended to keep women away from political life. But there are differences of opinion among Islamic scholars on the issue. Al-Tabri, a prominent scholar, said he was unable to find convincing evidence preventing women from becoming leaders.

**Some people argue that women are not qualified for such top jobs because they are governed by their feelings. Their maternal nature, they say, prevents them from taking serious decisions quickly. Maternal feeling in themselves are no disadvantage. Rather, it may be an added advantage in a leader, especially since the world has suffered much because of the harshness of men.

If men experienced the same concern as women for their children, homes and families, they would think twice before launching a war or manufacturing nuclear bombs. Little, in other words, can be gained by keeping women out of the mainstream. The problems of Muslims and Arabs are huge, and our energies could be much better employed if we did not have to wear ourselves out arguing a case that should have been settled centuries ago.**

Nadia, I read a book that mentioned the history of that particular hadith, and according to that book, the hadith was mentioned by that narrator right after Ayesha (RA) lost the battle with Ali. It also mentioned as you did, about the false account made by him. Therefore, considering him an unreliable source.

I do not believe women should be kept from positions of power. And I think the Prophets(SAW) wife Khadijah (RA) is a good example as well, along with Queen Saba.

but then what would us people do?

what with the lesbian thread on general and you people taking away the one thing we had going for us i think the brotherhood is under attack.

clearly we dont have the same maternal feelings as you which seem to be beneficial for the ruler. otherwise you're equally brainy equally capable in every respect. thus we're lesser rulers.

:-/. drat. i guess theres always playschool jobs for us.

why is it so difficult for people arguing for parity to avoid arguing for superiority instead?

Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allaah has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means”

[al-Nisa 4:34]

please post the meaning of what Allah says, rehman1, and not the interpretation.

Was Queen Saba a Muslim?

take care

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ravage: *
please post the meaning of what Allah says, rehman1, and not the interpretation.
[/QUOTE]

Its the same. Now from a different source. I didn't copied
Tafsir.
Happy now. This meaning.

004.034
YUSUFALI: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).
PICKTHAL: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.
SHAKIR: Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

**

**

wow. Interesting statement. Sorry, maybe it’s too early in the morning for me right now - but do you mean that this article is too “feminist” (whatever that means)? i don’t consider myself a “feminist” [again, i don’t even know how i would define that word, but i certainly am not arguing that females are superior than males]. Just wondering where you are coming from in posting that statement… i’ve had about 5 hours of sleep so excuse me if i’m being daft :smack:

Munni :flower1: yep, i agree about Khadijah (RA) being a good example.

Something else is that, if women were supposed to be “lesser” in any way, then we women wouldn’t receive the same amount of sawaab that we do for our actions, as men. Whoever does an atom’s weight of good shall see it, and whoever does an atom’s weight of evil shall see it - if women were in anyway ‘less than’ their male counterparts, we would NOT have been given equal status in our deeds… due to our ‘lesser’ status, we would have received less sawaab for our good deeds and lesser punishments for our bad ones because, it would be deemed, we are not starting off equally as males to begin with.

oh i just reread what i wrote - do i make any sense?

rehman1:

thanks. wasnt necessarily criticism of the content of your post, asked because 'interpretation' has come to be a dirty word these days.

i dont really see how this confines women exclusively to housewife status. suppose they're capable of fulfilling both duties, then what.

suppose benazir bhutto kept zardari happy and was obedient, and guarded in her husband's absence what Allah had her guard. does this aya then mean that she was an islamically-correct ruler in your opinion.

is it not her husband's position to deem if she was obedient and did the rest of the stated above? if so, then i guess it was a bit unislamic (tantamount to tuhmat) for all the mulley to automatically assume that she wasnt obedient, and condemn her as an unislamic ruler.

base your argument on this aya.

in which case the comment was irrelevant. you seemed to comment that women were equivalent in every way to men and had the additional feature of motherliness, which is according to your post possibly a positive feature in a ruler. in which case it would make us men lesser candidates for making rulers. thats where i was coming from.

but i guess i read too much into your words. retracted therefore.

quite a lot.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by ravage: *
**in which case the comment was irrelevant. you seemed to comment that women were equivalent in every way to men and had the additional feature of motherliness, which is according to your post possibly a positive feature in a ruler. in which case it would make us men lesser candidates for making rulers. thats where i was coming from.
*
[/quote]

ah i see. Thank you for the clarification.

The "motherliness" would be a definite asset, i think. But that doesn't mean to me that it's indicative of our superiority... where there's real humility in character, arrogance will always be under constant regulation.

i see it this way - we have different roles, responsibilities, traits, modes of behaving, duties, rights, - these are all "different" but not less important than the other. Who's to say that a husband's financial obligation towards his family is any more important than a wife's responsibility towards her household - honestly speaking, what job can ever be more important than successfully raising a family in this world. Anyways i'm digressing.

[quote]
*quite a lot.
[/QUOTE]
*

Thanks.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *

ah i see. Thank you for the clarification.

The "motherliness" would be a definite asset, i think. But that doesn't mean to me that it's indicative of our superiority... where there's real humility in character, arrogance will always be under constant regulation.

[/QUOTE]

so one could say for our aggressiveness. possibly men could make better rulers in times where decisions were needed positively, quickly. or in times when they had to make a 100m dash which you people are yet to beat us at.

[QUOTE]

i see it this way - we have different roles, responsibilities, traits, modes of behaving, duties, rights, - these are all "different" but not less important than the other. Who's to say that a husband's financial obligation towards his family is any more important than a wife's responsibility towards her household - honestly speaking, what job can ever be more important than successfully raising a family in this world. Anyways i'm digressing.

[/QUOTE]

think thats my take on it too. i dont believe the very strong link in our culture of women and family is necessarily one that needs to be weakened.

that said, family certainly does not consign women exclusively to nothing-but-housewife status. I'm glad i've seen the most relevant argument these people have.

i find it extraordinary hypocricy that while religious parties were criticising benazir based on the fact that islamically women are less capable rulers, IJI actually threw its weight behind Nawaz Sharif and actually never criticised him for being the dumb ****wit he was.

..

women.. not strong rulers????

which fantasy world did that come from?

just look at the rule of Thatcher.. amd compare her to modern day rulers..

she had conviction of her beliefs.. and followed them through.. not spin politics of modern day.

I dare anyone to show that she was not an able leader.. and was any lesser than her male counterparts ...

Rehman1.. i have read that ayah.. and it does not relate to 'not having women' in power.. it is relasted totally to the 'relationship between a husband and wife' .. and nothing else.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ravage: *
rehman1:

thanks. wasnt necessarily criticism of the content of your post, asked because 'interpretation' has come to be a dirty word these days.

i dont really see how this confines women exclusively to housewife status. suppose they're capable of fulfilling both duties, then what.

suppose benazir bhutto kept zardari happy and was obedient, and guarded in her husband's absence what Allah had her guard. does this aya then mean that she was an islamically-correct ruler in your opinion.

is it not her husband's position to deem if she was obedient and did the rest of the stated above? if so, then i guess it was a bit unislamic (tantamount to tuhmat) for all the mulley to automatically assume that she wasnt obedient, and condemn her as an unislamic ruler.

base your argument on this aya.
[/QUOTE]

Ravage
I didn't said a single word. Please, don't try to say things on my behalf.

Using the intellect solely to create new laws pertaining to islam, or using our reason to justify the commandments of Allah(swt) is a very poor excuse for creating new legislation.

I dont pray because its good for my joints
i dont fast because it helps me lose weight

i dont refrain from alcohol because it makes my head go dizzy

I pray because its a commandment from Allah(swt), and i refrain from Alcohol because Allah(swt) forbids it.

Likewise, justifying a course of action for muslim women's power has to be done in accordance with the commandments of allah(swt). Lowering ourselves to the debates and trying to find some "logical" reason such as Women are mature, or are more emotional etc is a fruitless debate.

The hadith makes it clear, and therefore the issue is simple and decisive.

This is an outdated question, you’re wrestling with something in the past that has already been proven in the present. If I eat a pinkberry and an hour later read a book that says 'those who eat the pinkberry will die within 5 minutes' do I question if I am dead?

eemo

that is the point exactly

apart from that particlar hadith from a dubious source, you do not have any reference which states that women cannot be in the position of power or as head of state etc.

as we have already pointed out that the source of this hadith is not reliable.. would you really hold on to what the hadith says? or would you lay credence to everything else in Quran and Sunnah which does not say that it is wrong?

case and point

i rest my case

Re: Should women be kept from positions of power?

without a shadow of a doubt.. there are certain jobs women are not qualified for.

What did Hazrat Khadija RA do for “power”? :konfused:

and how was Queen Saba’s “queenship” related to Islam?

In 1965 elections for Presidentship in Pakistan took place. The two rivals were Ayub Khan and Miss Fatima Jinnah. All the maulvees were against Miss Jinnah just because she was a female except Maulana Abu Ala Moudoodi (along with the 'Jamaat-i-Islami ). He believed that it was permissible in Islam for women to be rulers and he supported Miss Jinnah. Unfortunately Miss Jinnah lost this election (Ayub Khan was accused of manipulation but no one knows for sure). Now all of you know how 'capable' Ayub Khan turned out to be. I really believe if Miss Jinnah had won that election the whole history of Pakistan would have been different and it would have been good. I think Miss Jinnah was the only one after Mr. Jinnah who could have become a good ruler.
Even when the maulvies knew that Miss Jinnah was the best candidate they opposed her just because she was a 'female'!!!! This doesn't seem like Islam to me. Islam would never deprive a deserving person from his/her right. The times have changed and the women have proved their abilities in administration. If not all women are as good as men, then some are and those 'some' should be given a chance to rule!!