No such thing. If that were the case, everyone in society would have hushed Aisha (R) from the beginning. How did she marshal the army support that she got - it wasn't an army of women, may I remind you. And Ali (R)'s gave no such reminder to her - she chose to withdraw to a more private life after the war was over. Regardless of who won or not, he steps were taken and an army was formed, and that alone should tell you the roles women took.
Women fought wars at the time, in the Prophet's army. A minority, sure, but they were there. Those who didn't fight, were in the support staff - providing food and shelter and clothing and doing all kinds of things to help their army. They were doing much more than cooking and changing nappies.
The Prophet WORKED for and MARRIED his female boss; if he disapproved of such roles, he would never have married her. He sure didn't marry women who did wrong sorts of things, did he? Weren't his marriages examples?
Obviously you have never read Islamic history, pretty evident from your reply. She was not alone but infact supported by prominent companions Talha RA and Zubair RA. Please before you come and present people from our history know what it is you are talking about. Do not present them for people they were not.
Again read what I said, I am not saying women do not have a role to play in society but before you give examples of women in Islamic history know the reasons they acted in particular ways before you base leaborate theories on it. Don't be so naive to assume when you have not much knowledge about what you are saying. Aisha's decisions to goto war was a decision made in an hour of need not for promoting womens prominence in the society back then. And again I repeat todays society is different with different norms and roles.
I did not say he disapproved such roles but he did not want his wives to become part of the political affairs or leadership probably because he had foresight about what calamities would befall the muslims after him. Aisha RA had even resolved to turn back before reaching Basra before her conflict with Ali RA but was tricked into not retreating.
Before you argue with me make sure you know what I am talking about. I know you do not have an idea of what I am saying.
Obviously you have never read Islamic history, pretty evident from your reply. She was not alone but infact supported by prominent companions Talha RA and Zubair RA. Please before you come and present people from our history know what it is you are talking about. Do not present them for people they were not.
Again read what I said, I am not saying women do not have a role to play in society but before you give examples of women in Islamic history know the reasons they acted in particular ways before you base leaborate theories on it. Don't be so naive to assume when you have not much knowledge about what you are saying. Aisha's decisions to goto war was a decision made in an hour of need not for promoting womens prominence in the society back then. And again I repeat todays society is different with different norms and roles.
I did not say he disapproved such roles but he did not want his wives to become part of the political affairs or leadership probably because he had foresight about what calamities would befall the muslims after him. Aisha RA had even resolved to turn back before reaching Basra before her conflict with Ali RA but was tricked into not retreating.
Before you argue with me make sure you know what I am talking about. I know you do not have an idea of what I am saying.
Thank you for clarifying that, some people think other wise. Feminist movements around the world use that to bring about some morbid views regarding Aisha r.a. The mother of all believers.
And some people clearly have not gained enough knowledge of her life.
You're not alone USR. Some folks around here just don't take No for an answer because they "believe" their views are the ideal others ought to understand and follow without any hesitation, and anyone against that is no muslim or an extremist altogether.
It's like talking to a wall really.
I do pray for their guidance, and the guidance for the rest of us.
It's often best not to speak on a issue you know nothing about than to speak without knowledge and pretend to sound smart. Open mindedness and the will to learn more is the best avenue for anyone IMHO.
Obviously you have never read Islamic history, pretty evident from your reply. She was not alone but infact supported by prominent companions Talha RA and Zubair RA. Please before you come and present people from our history know what it is you are talking about. Do not present them for people they were not.
Again read what I said, I am not saying women do not have a role to play in society but before you give examples of women in Islamic history know the reasons they acted in particular ways before you base leaborate theories on it. Don't be so naive to assume when you have not much knowledge about what you are saying. Aisha's decisions to goto war was a decision made in an hour of need not for promoting womens prominence in the society back then. And again I repeat todays society is different with different norms and roles.
I did not say he disapproved such roles but he did not want his wives to become part of the political affairs or leadership probably because he had foresight about what calamities would befall the muslims after him. Aisha RA had even resolved to turn back before reaching Basra before her conflict with Ali RA but was tricked into not retreating.
Before you argue with me make sure you know what I am talking about. I know you do not have an idea of what I am saying.
Petty excuses. All you say is true, but it doesn't disqualify my points. Talha and Zubair (RA respectively) followed her. Again, if women were not meant to be leaders and get involved in politics, even the Prophet's wives specificially, don't you think this would be common knowledge among the sahabah? Then why did some give her allegience? Whether she turned around or not, or was tricked into going forward into battle is completely irrelevant. The topic is not her failure or her success, its the mere fact that she did engage in politics and no one really tried to stop her BY VIRTUE OF the idea that she was prohibited by the Prophet. No such prohibition to engage in society affairs ever existed. I make this point because I don't want any woman to walk away from here thinking that she has no right to be publically active for whatever cause she's interested in; and that much you do agree with me on.
Petty excuses. All you say is true, but it doesn't disqualify my points. Talha and Zubair (RA respectively) followed her. Again, if women were not meant to be leaders and get involved in politics, even the Prophet's wives specificially, don't you think this would be common knowledge among the sahabah? Then why did some give her allegience? Whether she turned around or not, or was tricked into going forward into battle is completely irrelevant. The topic is not her failure or her success, its the mere fact that she did engage in politics and no one really tried to stop her BY VIRTUE OF the idea that she was prohibited by the Prophet. No such prohibition to engage in society affairs ever existed. I make this point because I don't want any woman to walk away from here thinking that she has no right to be publically active for whatever cause she's interested in; and that much you do agree with me on.
Salam,
Sure but in the RIGHT context!
Zubair r.a. and Talha r.a. persuaded her to do it, she didn't establish an army herself. Injustice is what she went up against.
And she did it within the boundry of SHARIA. She didn't participate in the war, she was on a camel at a high point watching over it. She didn't escape the bounds of Sharia, and thats the key issue here.
No such thing. If that were the case, everyone in society would have hushed Aisha (R) from the beginning. How did she marshal the army support that she got - it wasn't an army of women, may I remind you. And Ali (R)'s gave no such reminder to her - she chose to withdraw to a more private life after the war was over. Regardless of who won or not, he steps were taken and an army was formed, and that alone should tell you the roles women took.
Women fought wars at the time, in the Prophet's army. A minority, sure, but they were there. Those who didn't fight, were in the support staff - providing food and shelter and clothing and doing all kinds of things to help their army. They were doing much more than cooking and changing nappies.
The Prophet WORKED for and MARRIED his female boss; if he disapproved of such roles, he would never have married her. He sure didn't marry women who did wrong sorts of things, did he? Weren't his marriages examples?
USR, is right here. And If you keep own changing Islamic history for your own sake and argument, then this will lead to nothing but more rumours about us muslims and the Islamic history. And of such people we have enough on this planet. Changing Islamic history and It's historic events to prove a point is utter sin.
Petty excuses … excuses for what. All I meant to do was put your historical interpretation in the proper context. There is nothing for excuses here. What I meant to say is please do not use the incident of Aisha RA as a punchline for claiming that women were meant to be involved in worldly affairs. What Aisha RA did was in a totally different context and different time. I have not differed about womens role in todays society. I just do not like to see people using our prominent Islamic people as a stepping stone for their half-cooked theories. Niether am I changing the facts, yes Aisha RA was involved in a war, yes she was involved in a leadership role, all of this transpired and was short lived and for very specific reasons, reasons which have nothing to do with what you are promoting here.
When you use Islamic historical events to drive a point ensure it is in the correct context. I have never stated that I am against women having active roles in society but using the example of Aisha RA for propagating this view is bending the truth about what reasons drove her to war. And for the record muslim women can participate in wars as that is a service for Allah SWT and for the ummah. And yes they can take roles in society as long as they observe the proper Islamic ettiquette and this is equally applicable to muslim men as well. In todays world it is easier and with lesser hinderance for them to participate in societal affairs provided the society is civilized enough to accept it, centuries ago this was not the case infact it was an extreme rarity.
The topic is not her failure or her success, its the mere fact that she did engage in politics and no one really tried to stop her BY VIRTUE OF the idea that she was prohibited by the Prophet. No such prohibition to engage in society affairs ever existed.
She would not have to be tricked into marching forward if she did not realize that she was making a mistake. Even on the battle field when the parleys occured between the Ali RA and Aisha RA, she realized her mistake and a peace deal was in the making until the treachery of some people from Ali RA army led the two armies into full scale battle.
Golly sister, you are truly as blind as a bat. I specifically stated all this prohibition was about Aisha RA and here you are extrapolating it about women in general. The Prophet SAW did not in specific mention do not goto to war but had described the situation that one of his wives would pass where the dogs of Haubah would bark at her. His SAW prediction was that she would be making a mistake, when Aisha RA had reached the place called Haubah, this exact event transpired and she got very worried that the prediction the Prophet SAW had made was about her. She had resolved to turn back at this point and this is where she tricked and led to believe that the place they were at was not Haubah.
Might I advise you that arrogance is not the trait of muslims. We shoud work to rid ourselves of our arrogance, it is much hated by Allah SWT.
This Aisha story illustrates why I believe history is history, science is science, math is math and religion is religion. They aren't as related as many make them out to be. In this case, it just clouds the issues. It seems like a lot of wasted energy goes into studying the history of those involved in the early days of Islam with no real purpose other than to give Muslims a unique sense of identity and history.
This Aisha story illustrates why I believe history is history, science is science, math is math and religion is religion. They aren't as related as many make them out to be. In this case, it just clouds the issues. It seems like a lot of wasted energy goes into studying the history of those involved in the early days of Islam with no real purpose other than to give Muslims a unique sense of identity and history.
Oh Semi, just waiting for the moment to piggyback weren't you.
Oh Semi, just waiting for the moment to piggyback weren't you.
I would have jumped in earlier, but recently I have been fascinated with the obsession people have with history and by default, Arabic culture. As if all the details of what people did 1400 years ago is really that relevant to today.
Islamic tradition dictates that every single thing Muhammed may have uttered or tripped over is seen as a direct message from God, but when Aisha (who is supposedly held in very high esteem) did something alongside the prophet, one is not supposed extrapolate that about women in general.
Let's face it, no one knows exactly why someone did or didn't do something 1400 years ago and to try and extrapolate any of that as a spirtiual guide is a guess at best.
I would have jumped in earlier, but recently I have been fascinated with the obsession people have with history and by default, Arabic culture. As if all the details of what people did 1400 years ago is really that relevant to today.
Islamic tradition dictates that every single thing Muhammed may have uttered or tripped over is seen as a direct message from God, but when Aisha (who is supposedly held in very high esteem) did something alongside the prophet, one is not supposed extrapolate that about women in general.
Let's face it, no one knows exactly why someone did or didn't do something 1400 years ago and to try and extrapolate any of that as a spirtiual guide is a guess at best.
IMHO it is a double edged sword. Historical study and obsession is required to know what is in conjunction with the message of Allah SWT just as much as it is required to know what is not.
IMHO it is a double edged sword. Historical study and obsession is required to know what is in conjunction with the message of Allah SWT just as much as it is required to know what is not.
But history is incomplete and inaccurate. And even if we know the "what" we don't necessarily know the "why" behind it. There isn't any advantage to having the perfectly recited, recorded and protected book if one still has to wade through inaccurate and unrelated history, stories, interpretations and supporting texts to know what the message is that was supposed to be already there in perfect form. If we are still unsure what the history and the meaning of certain events after 1400 years of study, how is it going to get any easier as time marches on? If history were to be the indicator of how to 'know the message', we should already know. There shouldn't be any doubt if wearing hijab is necessary or if is permissable to eat shrimp.
History is a preceptor of prudence, not principles. The foundation for morality is laid out in the Quran and almost any other religious texts. But the detials of how the morality plays out today differs greatly from a time that was as polar opposite to today's society as you can get. Dishonesty, murder, selfishness, lewdness, treachery, perjury,etc are wrong for eternity. Knowing the history of who fought what battle and stood on what mountain 1400 years ago is irrelevant. Particiluarly if we aren't 100% sure that it even happened or if it did what it meant.
Are you a Native American? Anyways I don't think you can convince Muslims to disregard their history since that's what has led to divisions into various sects and sub-sects. History (regardless of being accurate or not) has become an integral part of their belief system.
Are you a Native American? Anyways I don't think you can convince Muslims to disregard their history since that's what has led to divisions into various sects and sub-sects. History (regardless of being accurate or not) has become an integral part of their belief system.
If you mean that history (or versions of it) has led to division/sectarianism, then yes you are right... it has been a major contributor.
