But MQ; there is no evidence that this act is categorically forbidden. If its not forbidden: it means that God either forgot about it, didn’t know it was going to happen, or knew and didn’t want to reveal an edict forbidding it. This Amina Wadud act is not changing or contradicting Islam, it is contradicting cultural rituals. Why would God be against this?
Re: bottom line. You are wrong unfortunately. You are not equal if you are not given the right to lead prayers. Equality is a myth and illusion in this stream of islam. That’s like a women saying: i cannot vote, i cannot work, i cannot leave my house…but dammit i’m as equal to any guy!!! Does that make sense to you? apparently it does..maybe u can explain this inherent contradiction.
I say that Muslims who have this perspective completely drop the word “equal” from their dictionary.
Voting, working, leaving the confines of ur house and taking leadership positions are all natural human acts. They have nothing to do with ur gender and everything with u being a human being. This is not about being equal to man…its about becoming fully human.
828 -- It has been stressed in Islam that men attend prayers at mosques, Sunnah reveals that men led prayers, women did not. Sunnah was the explanation to add on to the Quran to help us. What do you mean it has not been forbidden? If it hasnt fine, when and where was it encouraged?
I can work, I can vote and I can leave the house. I dont see how this relates into me leading a bunch of guys in prayers.
And equality doesnt mean I should be able to do everything a man can. Equality means Im able to do what I want as a woman. I dont wish to do anything "just because men can". I wish to be recognized as a woman .Im not less if I dont lead prayers. And if Im going to follow the religion, I think I should abide by its rules.That is all.
Islam is not against technological advancement and such things do not and have never come under the category of “religious innovations” even under the strictest definition… it is beyond the bounds of logic to suggest that, well, Prophet Muhammad (saw) never used the Internet or drove a Mercedes so no one has the right to introduce such things into the lives of Muslims… anyone who thinks that way either has a severe comprehension deficiency or doesn’t know what the term “religious innovation” means or both… something that Prophet Muhammad was technologically prevented from doing or was impossible for him to do for whatever reason obviously falls outside of being classed as “innovation” if such things - which were unknown in his time - are made use of by later generations (so long as they don’t entail any forbidden act)…
women, however, did exist at his time and there was no technological or physical reason why they couldn’t have led a mixed congregation of men and women in prayer yet they didn’t…
the fact that they didn’t should make one think… there’s no reason why they shouldn’t have done so if it were permissible…
on the other hand, the fact that Prophet Muhammad never drove a hydrogen fuelled car is neither here nor there as there’s a perfectly simple reason why this was the case…
another important factor - which is central to this discussion - is that acts of worship are legislated by Allah. It is not for anyone to make up his or her own rituals thinking or assuming that this is how Allah should be worshipped and that He will be pleased thereby…
“And their prayer before the House is nothing but whistling and clapping of hands.” (Qur’an 8:35)
“You do not serve besides Him but names which you have named, you and your fathers; Allah has not sent down any authority for them; judgement is only Allah’s; He has commanded that you shall not serve aught but Him; this is the right religion but most people do not know.” (Qur’an 12:40)
your statement, therefore, 828, that “there is no evidence that this act is categorically forbidden” is coming at the problem from entirely the wrong angle… what you should be asking is, “where is the evidence to show that this act is permissible?” since an express permission is required through revelation…
Some scholars have taken evidence from the narration of Umm Waraqa (discussed elsewhere in this forum) and have argued for a middle ground, saying that the narration grants permission to women to lead a mixed gathering not in an absolute sense but at least to lead the “people of her house” including the male members… even then, as i recently read from the evidence cited by Mufti Desai in another thread here, a report in Sunan al Daraqutni suggests that she was still only allowed to lead the womenfolk of her household so that should be looked into…[/size]
So u dont go and lead prayers. But let other women leade prayers if they want to , and stop whining.
u will still be recognised as woman, even if u refuse to say prayers at all. Your state of being a biologically woman, has nothing to do woth ur beliefs and practises.
Its ok if YOU don’t want to lead prayers, but that does not mean that other women don’t. Equality shuold allow you the possibility…not force you to do or not do something. By neglecting women the right to lead prayers makes them not equal to men. So either you stop saying that men and women are equal..and admit that women have less rights or you change your interpetation of the faith.
In regards to the first chioce…i say “less rights” because there is no thing a women can do that a man is FORBIDDEN to do, but there are things that men can do that women are supposedly forbidden to do. If there is something, then i apolgize and would like to be educated on that. Remember, biological limitations aren’t forbidden..they are just impossible (giving birth to a child for example).
I do understand the difference, i was merely giving an analogy to the situation. The point is that there is no negative effect on society by accepting the change..whether it be technological OR social changes. Why do we have problems with accepting social changes; if the point is to make society better? Our goal shouldn’t be to strive for literalism and stagnation. Just improving technology is not the only thing in life. Otherwise you and others are implying that society did not need to evolve from the era of 1400 years ago (e.g. does Islam still permit slavery..or was it meant to be eventually destroyed as a primitive institution.). Again, this evolution of women-leading-prayers does not contradict fundamental Islamic values.
You say there wasn’t a reason to forbid women from doing it before..but thats inccorect.. the reason why women did not lead prayers 1400 years ago was becuase of the culture. Women were not brought up to live up to a leadership role and so in this newborn religion the cultural attitudes prevailed. Its the same reason why Jesus only had male disciples - culture. However culture has changed and religious expression must be found within that culture..not an alien one without contradicting fundamental principles. Women have equivalent education with men and are encouraged to take leadership roles…and so this is a natural extention of this culture.
You have brought up a good point about which side to look at this from: why is it not forbidden..or why is it not allowed? I bring forth another question: Why is God silent in this issue? Does God have an opinion on this…? I think its unfair for ‘your side’ to assume historic traditions (i.e. no precedence in early islamic history of women-led mixed prayers) as God’s opinion on this matter…when the purpose of the Qu’ran is to reveal whether something is allowed or forbidden. One thing should be sure..anything haraam and abhorrent to God..is certainly expressed and condemned with harsh words. So for someone to come and say that this act is haraam..well..is completely made up. It is neither forbidden nor encouraged…there is just silence. All we have left are that men have always done it. And that is pure ritualism..and does not get down to the fundamental issue: that women-led prayers are simply a natural expression of a human being in their religious community. It is similar to the plight of catholic women wanting an equal ground with the men in their church system..which also conveniently leaves women out of the leadership loop..yet considers them “equal”.[/size]
^ your reply assumes that God's revelation was subservient to the cultural norms of the time... not so... revelation took and still takes precedence and if indeed it did permit or didn't prevent - as you seem to be arguing - women from leading a mixed gathering then far be it for Prophet Muhammad (saw) in the first instance and thereafter Muslim society as a whole for over a thousand years to give preference to cultural tradition by preventing women taking on such a role, relegating revelation to second place...
as for your comment, "there is no thing a women can do that a man is FORBIDDEN to do"... of course, there is the well known prohibition reported in hadith on men wearing gold and pure silk, whilst both are perfectly allowable to women...
You are taking this to another tangent. As i said, the Qu'ran neither encourages nor forbides this act...and so when such a void takes place..the cultural attitude fills in the gap. The Qu'ran did not become subservient to the cultural norm..for if it did..then it WOULD assert that women were not allowed to do such. But it doesn't say anything on the issue so how would a Muslim women decide. What happened 1400 years ago with men only leading prayers was a cultural phenomena..and what followed till this day is cultural tradition. Cultural tradition does not and should not make something allowable or forbidden. They could not have relegated revelation to second place..because revelation has no opinion on this issue.
However, to say that revelation was not influenced by culture..now that is something huh? After all..with the whole talk of sex with slaves, polygamy, pork's uncleaniness..what not..all these are influenced by the specific culture the Qu'ran was revealed to. It is only the claim of Muslims that this revelation stands for all mankind and all cultures in all time. But..that is only a claim and is relevant because its enforcing the arabic-islamic culture to anyone who wants to be Muslim; and does not consider that other cultural norms should even be considered as acceptable. Somewhat myopic.
Back to the issue: I simply do not understand this idea of Qu'ran as prefection..and yet not able to answer such a pivotal concern such as women's leadership rights in a community. Did God really want to leave the answers of so many questions subtely hidden within the oral traditions now known as hadith?
Were men explictly given the role of leading prayers...or was this role never given a gender bias in the Quran? Does the Qu'ran even mention community prayers and the person leading?! How many hadith's speicifically record who led what prayers?
[as for your comment, "there is no thing a women can do that a man is FORBIDDEN to do"... of course, there is the well known prohibition reported in hadith on men wearing gold and pure silk, whilst both are perfectly allowable to women...]]
Yes, you are quite right about that hadith. Its fortunate to know that men cannot wear these silk clothes and gold jewellry and women are forbidden from leadership roles (among other things). quite fair indeed.
Using Qu'ran viewer..i was trying to search for these terms "prayer" and "mosque" to see if any relevant items will appear.
This one possibly has some relevance. It does not have any gender bias in its implication of the maintainers of the mosque (which may or may not be the same as leading ofcourse..but next bext thing i suppose):
** 9:18
The mosques of Allah shall be visited and maintained by such as believe in Allah and the Last Day, establish regular prayers, and practise regular charity, and fear none (at all) except Allah. It is they who are expected to be on true guidance.**
Feel free to look at the entire context of this Surah. It seemed to be discussing about Pagans and the sacred Mosque.
The next two verses, 9.19 and 9.20, are actually quite good:
9:19
Do ye make the giving of drink to pilgrims, or the maintenance of the Sacred Mosque, equal to (the pious service of) those who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and strive with might and main in the cause of Allah? They are not comparable in the sight of Allah: and Allah guides not those who do wrong.
9:20
Those who believe, and suffer exile and strive with might and main, in Allah's cause, with their goods and their persons, have the highest rank in the sight of Allah: they are the people who will achieve (salvation).
With regards to the other POV:
** 9:108
Never stand thou forth therein. There is a mosque whose foundation was laid from the first day on piety; it is more worthy of the standing forth (for prayer) therein. In it are men who love to be purified; and Allah loveth those who make themselves pure.**
This states that 'men who love to be purified' are inside the mosque. This is not about leading prayers however. Ofcourse..women are not mentioned at all to be 'in' the mosque. Why is this exclusion made?
MQ Ji, if a married woman is home alone and her child gets badly injured and she has to take her to an ER. Does your Islam allow that?
Since there is no Sunnah precedent about a woman driving her own vehicle and taking her badly injured child to the ER, would it be un-Islamic for her to do that?
