why woman is not allowed to become Imam (leader)

[Seminole]

Peace Seminole

But it was you who cherry picked a selection of names from our history of women leaders, not that they were necessarily "great" ... but you did it in your attempt to prove a point that women 'can' lead.

In this post you seem to renounce using history to support this view now as it was male dominated ... if it was male 'dominated' then how did those women come to power?

If 'men' allowed them to come to power then were those women 'great' or was it just another display of male 'domination' be it in disguise?

Then your argument fails substance. If the women leaders are just leaders not necessarily 'great' and then you argue that history cannot be used anyway ... then what basis is there for 'great women leaders' from your argument?

Someone asked for the name of one successful woman leader, I supplied a list of many. I predicated my list by saying "In spite of a world ruled by man, where laws, religion, culture and history have been made to keep men in power..."

Sorry, but is your agrument that lacks any substance. Women are just as capable as leading as men, perhaps more so - your desire for their femininity aside. So far we have deemed them less intelligent, too emotional and incapbable of doing anything when they are on their period. All ridiculous notions.

They said the same kind of things about blacks in America, and they were wrong. In spite of all the obstacles whites have thrown in front of blacks, there is a black leader now. Women WILL be the leaders of the future.

[diwana]

So far we have heard that women are capable of leading.

Just for the comparison:
Some women had success and many failed miserably.
Some men failed miserably but many men had success in leading.

Who would you want to put the money on?

Next:

What is needed as qualification to lead?

Power, aggression, strength, judgment, perseverance, emotional integrity, full time availability, and intelligence.

Few things may be common in men and women but some requirements are lacking in women intrinsically and you have admitted on those. Aggression and strength etc.

Its not men's fault if women have some limitations including monthly cycles, hormonal imbalance and emotional swings. Its just part of the whole package.

Someone just wanted to see if there was a penis or not....as the differentiating qualities in men and women.

No That's not just it. You can cut the penis off the man and put it on a woman He will still be a man and she will still be a woman with all other qualities not to make her a good 'leader'.

Now a gay man cannot have the qualities of being a leader if he has lack of aggression/strength/perseverance and emotional integrity.

Last thing anyone want to see a leader who says: My heart jumps whenever enemy calls for my name!

Sorry, I am not going to really discuss Imamat by women as it is just not part of religion. Take it or leave it.

[psyah]

Someone asked for the name of one successful woman leader, I supplied a list of many. I predicated my list by saying "In spite of a world ruled by man, where laws, religion, culture and history have been made to keep men in power..."

Sorry, but is your agrument that lacks any substance. Women are just as capable as leading as men, perhaps more so - your desire for their femininity aside. So far we have deemed them less intelligent, too emotional and incapbable of doing anything when they are on their period. All ridiculous notions.

They said the same kind of things about blacks in America, and they were wrong. In spite of all the obstacles whites have thrown in front of blacks, there is a black leader now. Women WILL be the leaders of the future.

Peace Seminole

So now you provided a list of successful women leaders?
Let's clarify everything from the beginning ...

From our perspective ... it is a misnoma to try to achieve equality by treating the outward/material nature of life i.e. role and function as a means by which if made equal to women would render their equality with men.

You however, are trying to show that women can be better leaders than men and have provided a short list of female leaders (with whom I have taken exception, mostly due to the harshness of those women not known for their pragmatism or charm) I have been forced to argue a position against women leadership when the intention was not so.

The intention is to root to the main concern ... In order for women to be TREATED EQUALLY do they have to lead? The answer is not going to be 'yes' ... the answer should be 'WHAT DO WOMEN WANT?' Do women really want to lead nations? I don't think they really want to, unless of course that is they are duped into believing that their equality will come about by outward functional sameness.

Women will be made equal when they are given the freedom to do what they want and are naturally inclined to do. We should not have to force women to work or to lead or any other thing, unless they feel they can do the job. Not every woman can, but some can. So it is not my argument about women being leaders or not ...

It is however my intent to put the issue straight that women aught to do what is natural for them and men aught to allow women to do what is natural for them and no one aught to tell women or men that one gender is better or worse at any given functional role in life ... that issue is taken up on an individual basis.

[Seminole]

Peace Seminole

So now you provided a list of successful women leaders? Let's clarify everything from the beginning ...

From our perspective ... it is a misnoma to try to achieve equality by treating the outward/material nature of life i.e. role and function as a means by which if made equal to women would render their equality with men.

You however, are trying to show that women can be better leaders than men and have provided a short list of female leaders (with whom I have taken exception, mostly due to the harshness of those women not known for their pragmatism or charm) I have been forced to argue a position against women leadership when the intention was not so.

The intention is to root to the main concern ... In order for women to be TREATED EQUALLY do they have to lead? The answer is not going to be 'yes' ... the answer should be 'WHAT DO WOMEN WANT?' Do women really want to lead nations? I don't think they really want to, unless of course that is they are duped into believing that their equality will come about by outward functional sameness.

Women will be made equal when they are given the freedom to do what they want and are naturally inclined to do. We should not have to force women to work or to lead or any other thing, unless they feel they can do the job. Not every woman can, but some can. So it is not my argument about women being leaders or not ...

It is however my intent to put the issue straight that women aught to do what is natural for them and men aught to allow women to do what is natural for them and no one aught to tell women or men that one gender is better or worse at any given functional role in life ... that issue is taken up on an individual basis.

Of course the issue is on an individual basis - for a man or woman. Not giving women the freedom to do what they want is the philosophy you prescribe to, not me. I'm not in favor of forcing anything on anybody. If it is natural for an individual woman to lead and she wants to, she should be allowed and in my view can be as successful as a man. That is really the only point I am making.

I do take exception that harshness or a lack of pragmatism and charm are only qualities of women leaders. Most male leaders also have had those characteristics.

[psyah]

@Seminole

Of course the issue is on an individual basis - for a man or woman. Not giving women the freedom to do what they want is the philosophy you prescribe to, not me. I'm not in favor of forcing anything on anybody. If it is natural for an individual woman to lead and she wants to, she should be allowed and in my view can be as successful as a man. That is really the only point I am making.

I do take exception that harshness or a lack of pragmatism and charm are only qualities of women leaders. Most male leaders also have had those characteristics.

Peace Seminole

He or She who desires power is the least of us who deserves it.

Leadership in the secular countries is based on who the people choose. Should this mean a woman is voted in then so be it. No special treatment should be given to her simply for wanting to be a leader, she will have to fight for top dog just like the rest of the candidates.

Leadership in Islam is not based on personal advertising campaigns - it is based on the one who is most averse to the responsibility yet most capable of doing the task. And is voted in purely by those who are the learned.

As for most male leaders I agree with you, but can you cite ANY women leaders who have both been generous yet strict, charming yet upright?

[MatineeSiren]

@psyah

Peace Seminole

He or She who desires power is the least of us who deserves it.

Leadership in the secular countries is based on who the people choose. Should this mean a woman is voted in then so be it. No special treatment should be given to her simply for wanting to be a leader, she will have to fight for top dog just like the rest of the candidates.

Leadership in Islam is not based on personal advertising campaigns - it is based on the one who is most averse to the responsibility yet most capable of doing the task. And is voted in purely by those who are the learned.

As for most male leaders I agree with you, but can you cite ANY women leaders who have both been generous yet strict, charming yet upright?

What you've described as an Islamic system of rule is actually an oligarchy, which we have seen in the case of Benazir Bhutto-- and thus how bad it is. Secular democracy speaks for the people, not just those who are fortunate enough to be in a position of power or influence.

What's this with describing individual cases? Women used to rule their tribes. People were matrilineal and matriarchal. It was only until the advent of an agricultural system where tasks were relegated to specific people and women were judged to stay with the children and home tasks that women lost that power. Women were seen as the life givers and sustainers of their people. They were midwives and were the healers their people depended upon. The birth of patriachy and these vast stereotypes about women that accompany it have clouded people's minds from our collective rich history of women in leadership roles.

[Dushwari]

Re: why woman is not allowed to become Imam (leader)

some thoughts:

women instead, pray among women, just like men pray among men.
women can be great scholars in religious studies and there is no power that stops or condemns it because that will be foolish, and this can be inspiring to men, as well.

women's womanhood is not the contention, for blessing a wedding or saying a salat-e-maeghfiret, is and can be done by women.
the imamet is secured for men, due to the nature of public interaction at the mosque, on the street , at which men are appointed to fulfill the duties of an imam - a spiritual healer.
this issue of not having the space for a woman in the mosques, as an imama for a combined congressional of women and men, is either based on an inherent difference to be equated motive or a gender benevolence ideology, which is perceived differently, due to ulterior motives or some people on the one hand and misinformed people, on the other hand.
Unless, this can be rightly sorted out, the issue will look like as simply manipulated and ordered as such, by narrow-minded power-hungry men who presume the roles of religious priests, preachers etc., singling out women from the profession, and Islam as a faith will look like an obstructive faith, which disallows woman kind in this sphere of religious leadership role. And that is not fair to Islam.
Thoughts?

[Balqis]

Men have ruled throughout history because of their superior physical strength and aggressiveness, not because of any alleged superior leadership skillls. In uneducated or unenlightened societies - just like in the animal kingdom - these physical attributes dictates who rules.

In spite of a world ruled by man, where laws, religion, culture and history have been made to keep men in power, we still have had dynamic women leaders in history such as Nefertiti, Sammuramat, Cleopatra, Joan of Arc, Queen Isabella, Catherine the Great, Queen Victoria, Queen Elizabeth, Catherine the Great, Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, Susan B. Anthony, Benazir Bhutto and Margaret Thatcher.

... and Queen of Saba, Bilqis, who is quoted in the Quran as being a very wise and attentive woman, a Surah bears her name (Saba).

[Balqis]

Allah (swt) knows better than us the respective capabilities and responsibilities of men and women. Why Allah didn't select even a single woman out of the 124000 prophets (as) He sent for the guidance of humanity to different parts of the world ? Because they have better leadership qualities to guide general public.

Btw Budha, Raam, Guru nanak....etc. and major leaders of most religions were men.

How many religions do you know the founder of which were women ?

Woman are good leaders for woman, but not for both men and women together. In addition there are other fields in which women are more capable then men. For example, in bringing up a child, taking care of household activities...etc..even other fields of life but NOT in becoming Imam of men.

What is the link between a divine mission and the Imama ?

Anyway, look at the Surah "The Prophets", Maryam Ibn Imran (as) is cited among the others prophets of God, and everything in her mission shows us that she was a Prophet too (visit of Jibril (as), the changement that she brought to her people etc )

And, as another member said, there were so many prophets and messenger of God ! We know that the messengers were all men (see chapter 21, verse 7, the word "rijalan" ) but we don't know if there were others women before Maryam among the Prophets. A prophet is not necessary a messenger but a messenger is inevitably a prophet (for example, like Harun (as) etc)

There were (and there still are) matriarchal societies in the world, I think it was more intelligent to send women as prophets to these kind of societies led by women, for example ..

[Balqis]

Allah (swt) knows better than us the respective capabilities and responsibilities of men and women. Why Allah didn't select even a single woman out of the 124000 prophets (as) He sent for the guidance of humanity to different parts of the world ? Because they have better leadership qualities to guide general public.

Btw Budha, Raam, Guru nanak....etc. and major leaders of most religions were men.

.

In Judaism, there are a lots of Prophets who are women (like Sarah, Hanna, Debhora etc), in African religions there were also a lots of women who were prophets, in Northern religions (the Volvas ) and so many others ...

It is clear that a patriarchal society needed a man as prophet but all the societies in the history of humanity were not necessarly patriarchal

[Balqis]

you know what men do when they stand behind a woman?

I cant imagine a rather revealing cloth wearing imammah leading the prayer.

The mosquee is the House of God, you must not have these kind of thoughts in such a place !!! And tell me please how a woman can attract a man if she is covered from the head to the feet ??

[Balqis]

Re: why woman is not allowed to become Imam (leader)

I hope that people know the difference between Abu Bakrah and Abu Bakr (ra). Abu Bakrah is considered as a liar by so many muhadithun ...

[psyah]

Re: why woman is not allowed to become Imam (leader)

What you've described as an Islamic system of rule is actually an oligarchy, which we have seen in the case of Benazir Bhutto-- and thus how bad it is. Secular democracy speaks for the people, not just those who are fortunate enough to be in a position of power or influence.

What's this with describing individual cases? Women used to rule their tribes. People were matrilineal and matriarchal. It was only until the advent of an agricultural system where tasks were relegated to specific people and women were judged to stay with the children and home tasks that women lost that power. Women were seen as the life givers and sustainers of their people. They were midwives and were the healers their people depended upon. The birth of patriachy and these vast stereotypes about women that accompany it have clouded people's minds from our collective rich history of women in leadership roles.

Peace MatineeSiren

An Islamic Caliphate is not an oligarchy though it may seem to you to be that way. There are fundamental differences between these two orders. These are:

a) Oligarchy: a person rules - Caliphate: a person is appointed to lead under the Rulership of God

b) Oligarchy: Rulers are groomed from the heirs of the elite - Caliphate: Any such person from the whole Ummah (Muslim Community) can be Caliph and persons appointed should not generally follow a blood line or lineage.

c) Oligarchy: Does away with people taking account of their leaders - Caliphate: A Caliph is subject to the laws of God, and he is checked against by the scholastic group, who are in turn kept in check by the people at large. It means anyone can raise an issue and be heard.

d) Oligarchy: Puts the elite in a position where the masses serve them (slave like) - Caliphate: Puts the elite in a position where they must serve Allah (SWT) by serving the masses, putting themselves in tighter check than they would on a layman.

e) Oligarchy: Has no concept of charity tied in to its structural identity - Caliphate: the most important part of the Shar'iah on an economic level is that taxes or charity is given on savings, no interest in any form of transaction, and the higher position in society is the one who is most virtuous and money does not come in to the equation.

Benazir Bhutto is not even the best example of a successful oligarch let alone a good example of a good leadership in the general sense. The problem with secular demoncracy is that it does not work in practice. Any such system that claims to be a democracy is in fact an oligarchy in disguise. Yes ... countries like US and UK are from these too. Democracy is a buzz word designed to appease the masses but it pure form does not even exist and its current form is merely for the election of representative leaders who are governed by strict laws and legislation which have been put in place by the oligarchs of large corporate companies. Deny this if you like!

You can say women used to rule and only until agricultural this or that ... but I'm a simple minded person I need names of people to be happy with this idea that you are postulating.

In Islam women are far more honored than men and for every man he has his mother to whom he must be dutiful 3 fold more than his father. The role of women is a sacred one and they are the first teachers of all people. In Islam there is little burden of responsibility on women and men have been appointed with the role of leadership over their wives only not all women, but this is to level the playing field because Islam acknowledges the power of women over men and had they been given equality in leadership of the family the women would dominate because they are natually more sophisticated than men. They mature quicker then men and are far more wise than men at earlier ages. They have a better heart and more patience than men and are more in tune to the sensitivities of the feelings of other people. The way we achieve equality is by giving the men the headstart that is needed because women are in fact superior naturally. These are not just my words but the position of many of the ulema.

[desi_ostrich]

Re: why woman is not allowed to become Imam (leader)

interesting discussion during my absence

[PyariCgudia]

Because if they, as an imam, issued a fatwa while they were going through their PMS, that will make the entire humanity suffer. Similarly, if they took a step during their PMS, that will surely go against the favor of whichever nation/country/community they are leading.

I dont think it would have been possible to take away their power from them only for the duration of their PMS.

We have seen, over the course of humanity, leaders of the worst kind. I promise you, they were all men.

:)

[psyah]

Re: why woman is not allowed to become Imam (leader)

^ Peace Sister

Because the frequency of women leaders has not been that high, you are right all the worst leaders will be men, but so will it be the case that all the best leaders will be men. Saying one or the other does not really prove any points.

[RealityCheck]

We have seen, over the course of humanity, leaders of the worst kind. I promise you, they were all men.

:)

And there is always a woman behind a man... so that should explain those exceptions where men were the worst kind of leaders...

And also don't forget, Eve was for Adam not the other way around, remember the famouse dialogs in Quran between Iblees and Allah about Adam where Allah ordered Iblees to bow infront of Adam ?

The center of focus and the topic of dialogs was Adam not Eve.

And Allah himself is a male figure not female...

You think all that is for no reason ?

[PyariCgudia]

Re: why woman is not allowed to become Imam (leader)

Are you kidding me?

Wonderful, because your post shows just how misled people are regarding the Quran, and Islam's stance on this issue. You might have missed the gazilliion other ayahs that speak of the importance of a woman, and no my dear friend, its much more than "oh she has to cook and clean and stuff".

Allah is not male. Lets get that into our heads straight. Neither male nor female is Allah. The term "he" is used in reference in English for God, and its something that actually comes more from how the Christians and Jews and other previous pagans in Europe saw God, and therefore, the English language carries "He" on to describe God, but as we do not have any other pronoun that is transgender, we use "He". We could use "It" to be fair, but that just sounds insulting.

Eve was made for Adam, and likewise, Adam was made for Eve. The Quran talks about how the relationship is a mutual one, not one of dominance and subservience, as you suggest. The purpose of a woman is NOT just to be there for a man. And the purpose of a man does not preclude the purpose he had for a woman. Human beings have other purposes in life, and if you've ever paid bills and been an adult, you might know about that.

Iblees was ordered to bow in front of Adam, not because he's a man, but because he's human. It has nothing to do with the gender, the gender is pretty arbitrary.

As to your first point, a woman is only behind a man in as much as his failures are concerned? So, successful men do not have strong good women behind them?

BTW, again, if you've been an adult living in the real world, as oppose to la la land, you'll know that there are no such black and white rules. There are some good women out there, and some bad ones; some good men and some bad ones, and we hope that good men end up with good women, but that doesn't always happen. :-) At the end of the day, the corrupt leaders of the world have to bear their own burden of sin, and their wives do not bear that burden for them. If you knew Islam well, you'd know that.

[psyah]

Are you kidding me?

Wonderful, because your post shows just how misled people are regarding the Quran, and Islam's stance on this issue. You might have missed the gazilliion other ayahs that speak of the importance of a woman, and no my dear friend, its much more than "oh she has to cook and clean and stuff".

Allah is not male. Lets get that into our heads straight. Neither male nor female is Allah. The term "he" is used in reference in English for God, and its something that actually comes more from how the Christians and Jews and other previous pagans in Europe saw God, and therefore, the English language carries "He" on to describe God, but as we do not have any other pronoun that is transgender, we use "He". We could use "It" to be fair, but that just sounds insulting.

Eve was made for Adam, and likewise, Adam was made for Eve. The Quran talks about how the relationship is a mutual one, not one of dominance and subservience, as you suggest. The purpose of a woman is NOT just to be there for a man. And the purpose of a man does not preclude the purpose he had for a woman. Human beings have other purposes in life, and if you've ever paid bills and been an adult, you might know about that.

Iblees was ordered to bow in front of Adam, not because he's a man, but because he's human. It has nothing to do with the gender, the gender is pretty arbitrary.

As to your first point, a woman is only behind a man in as much as his failures are concerned? So, successful men do not have strong good women behind them?

BTW, again, if you've been an adult living in the real world, as oppose to la la land, you'll know that there are no such black and white rules. There are some good women out there, and some bad ones; some good men and some bad ones, and we hope that good men end up with good women, but that doesn't always happen. :-) At the end of the day, the corrupt leaders of the world have to bear their own burden of sin, and their wives do not bear that burden for them. If you knew Islam well, you'd know that.

^ Peace sister

Thank you for clarifying that ... women are not the cause of evil ... Allah (SWT) is not male, and another argument to support this is that men are the ones who are warned the most about previous tribes and people, referred to in the masculine in many cases. Firaun was a man and not a woman and no woman was behind him.

Also Islamically men take a share of their wives sins, but not vice-versa ... had it been the case that woman cause men to do evil then surely women should share in the evil of their husbands.

Anyone who argues this particular point with you is not talking from Islam at all.

[RealityCheck]

Are you kidding me?

Wonderful, because your post shows just how mislead people are regarding the Quran, and Islam's stance on this issue.

After reading your post, I 100% agree with you on this.

You might have missed the gazilliion other ayahs that speak of the importance of a woman

I never said women are not important, we need them for reproduction.

Allah is not male. Lets get that into our heads straight. Neither male nor female is Allah. The term "he" is used in reference in English for God

FYI, The language of Quran is Arabic not English and Allah has mentioned (in Arabic) himself as a male figure in Quran not as female.

Urdu translation of Bismillah...
SHUROO KARTA HOON ALLAH KAY NAAM SAY, JO NIHAYAT MEHARBAAN AUR RHM KARNAY **WALA **HAI...

notice the RED word...

Eve was made for Adam, and likewise, Adam was made for Eve.

You are incorrect here, Eve was made for Adam....PERIOD.

The Quran talks about how the relationship is a mutual one

Irrelevant point...

Human beings have other purposes in life, and if you've ever paid bills and been an adult, you might know about that.

Men have other purposes and responsibilities and men pay bills not women.

There are some good women out there...

Where ?

... some good men ...

I would replace 'some' with 'most' to make the statement correct...

BTW, again, if you've been an adult living in the real world, as oppose to la la land, you'll know that there are no such black and white rules. There are some good women out there, and some bad ones; some good men and some bad ones, and we hope that good men end up with good women, but that doesn't always happen. :-) At the end of the day, the corrupt leaders of the world have to bear their own burden of sin, and their wives do not bear that burden for them. If you knew Islam well, you'd know that.

Your opinion and personal choice of Quran's interpretation of your liking does not change the facts and true meaning of Quran and teachings of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH).

Women are unequal and inferior to men by design and there is nothing you or anyone else can do about it. You shouldn't try to make the features of this design look like flaws.

Women have totally different roles and reasons for existence and competing with men to prove eqaulity is not one of them.

And BTW, WOMEN CAN NOT LEAD A PRAYER WHEN MEN ARE PRESENT.

It hasn't happened in 1400 years and it won't happen now, no matter what justifications you or some sissy men cook-up.