^ Indeed. I don't know about the crowd being turned on, though. Despite their hideous lives, people are the same everywhere and violence takes away from their humanity. A killing for a killing is Islamic but like you said, so is forgiveness. What is not Islamic is sticking a man with 'toorey' repeatedly in full view of so many. Punishment, yes, torture, no, please! What do I know, though? Sunny Xamar and its brutality is a world away from where I am.

With all the guns in Muqdisho, they couldn't find a single bullet to shoot this poor man in the head and end his misery. Whatever happened to mercy! Shouldn't also be there an executioner who does this in a prison? An execution maybe just but what the hell happened to compassion and humanity.

Is there really one true love for everyone? Yes. At any given time. Forever is a different story; we should fall in love deliberately and if things don't work out for whatever reason, we should cure it by falling in love with someone else. Only the love is true, the object of love can be changed.

^ Easy there, nameless-chick, no need for personal attacks. I'm deeply suspicious of anyone labelled a national hero. History books are rife with the celebratory accounts of people hooting and hollering about a country's liberty or whatever while brutalizing their people .

^ I understood your objections, Xiin, and respect your view on due process when examining any prophetic tradition. And I am aware of how these two ahadith made it into the collection. For me, faith in something unseen is a monumental spiritual challenge and belief in the prophet's (csw) revelation (Quran) is a conscious and deliberate choice. Perhaps a significant difference in your view and mine is that I treat all that is not divinely protected with suspicion. Calling these ahadith dangerous is generous on my part as I believe they are opposed to a message that needs not reinforcement. I could be mistaken on every front as only time and greater study will tell but I am not committed to this view out of stubborn ignorance. I believe we do justice to knowledge when we truly ponder it. I am also not interested in rebelling against an establishment; faith and religious practice are an intensely private affair. I accept that you think my approach and entire view are incorrect but nowhere did I suggest that the sunnah and traditions be revised. The mindblowing versions of ahadith and their interpretations would make it nearly impossible. I do agree with you that religious study needs a greater deal of time and deeper reflection. I have found our exchange intensely thought-provoking and thank you for the intelligent and committed responses. And your cautions are well noted and accepted, brother.

^Nice going Naden. "eye has not seen...ear has not heard...". It is unthinkable what will be there. Even our best thoughts are short. Laakini, being an obedient wife won't get me there, that much I know for sure. Thanks, Bishy. It is indeed a mystery but with hope, rewarding to all. Indeed, these are your own thoughts, which like so many of your thoughts, show your extreme limitations of what you’re talking about. ......but the way forward from such ignorance is not to engage in nonsensical arguments, rather, you should ask those whom Allah (swt) granted knowledge of these matters. S.O.S, Allah will surely grant knowledge to those who seek it. Some of us have been relishing watching sapient Naden's amazonian endeavors. Undoubtedly a sight to behold. So you can get lost Kheyr, ok? No need for your cheerleading, unless you're wearing revealing outfit. Socod Badne, a scary mix of titillating and nauseating . Must. Have. Photos. For. Ebay. No one is here to jeopordize their salvation for a chance to win a forum argument No doubt, good Fidel.

Good Xiin, Deep knowledge of the process does not compensate for content irregularities. A mistake you’ve unfortunately made was assume that I have not read interpretations/context of these ahadith, and that I am unaware of the laws of Isnad and the stages of writing them down. You insist that some lack of respect is the reason I see these contradictions, and seem deeply offended that someone perhaps as inconsequential as me even dares to ask questions. I believe that scholars do not possess a miraculous understanding of text and they are not the custodians of the religion. They may have done the work or answered all the questions, as you have asserted, but they have not answered my questions. This thinking within an ‘Islamic framework’ solely, as I have understood it, smacks of intellectual and knowledge protectionism. The very nature of a contradiction, even if imagined, suspects that a piece does not fit within the larger picture. The interpretation you’ve included in your post is not the only one out there. I’ve read at least 3 other interpretations in a number of texts and I am simply not convinced. Almost all are apologetic in their tafsiir, as though the prophet (csw) could not clearly express his thoughts about women and deficiencies and heaven and gratitude. I could be wrong in my understanding of the hadith and/or ignorant of other interpretations out there. However, guesswork and conjecture about the true intentions of the man trusted with the message do not pass the test of ‘science’ in my world. Worse yet, his predictions of who will be in heaven is a contradiction to the Quran’s admonishment that people will be judged on their piety solely and that he does not know where he himself is going, never mind menstruating, non-praying, ungrateful women. It is an injustice to the prophet (csw) to even claim that he would speak this way. Surely bringing answers or disagreeing with the whole premise are better than questioning a person's intentions, trivializing their thoughts as those of hysterical feminists screaming about ‘inconveniences’, and labelling arguments with a slew of angry adjectives. I have tried not to descend to that type of debate. I am also not unwilling to admit a shortage in knowledge; quite the opposite, I have placed my limitations right in the middle of my thoughts. I do not say that I know what the prophet (csw) may have or have not said in that gathering, if there indeed was such a gathering. I do take the seminal ideas and proclamations in the Quran seriously, and I believe that the prophet (pbuh) would not have had a competing agenda with contradicting ideas. You bring up what you term as ‘self-referential thinking' as though it impedes real or productive examination of the faith and its tenets. Everyone, including scholars, absorbs knowledge and integrates it into their cognitive repertoire. Some are more critical and better able to grasp contextual influence than others. However, short of expressing revealed knowledge, untainted and to the letter, all understanding and expression is self-referential. My questions maybe amateurish or even odious to you but to have engaged them or dismissed them altogether would have been better than dismissing me and accusing me of being 'reckless', 'proud', 'dodgy' or 'evasive' with my arguments. Curiously, the tone of your posts seem to indicate that your arguments are at a higher level of truth than mine. That may very well be the case as mine are certainly a work in progress, but you have not furnished any strong evidence in their support. And that is it for me as well, good Xiin.

Good Xiin, My stance on your action items matters not a wit. You spoke of being slightly ahead in an earlier post. Brother, you haven’t even played the game . What you did was raise your argument above any discussion of ‘divine directives’ (a most curious label for ahadith) and their scholarly interpretations. Might I remind you that the main question was whether these ahadith contradict Quranic principles? Your arguments, unfortunately, have not moved beyond questioning my ‘fundamental understanding of Islam’ and labelling this entire discussion ‘idle talk’ and ‘ad hoc shortcuts’. You've asserted that anything in the Muslim and Bukhari is authenticated, and I gather, beyond criticism. Given this, perhaps your initial opinion was that no contradictions could exist. If so, you may have simply added it to your circuitous defense of the status quo. Just a final thought on your last post: what you refer to as ‘reckless freelancing’, I call thinking. One reads text, understands the words, learns the context and history as available and voila, comprehension and thinking. Right or wrong, a discussion can exist outside a simple comparison between schools of thought and interpretation.

Good Xiin, There may come a time when women and men could discuss gender equality with a commitment to truth. I sense from your posts in this thread and others that you are respectful of the work and ambition of women in society. Perhaps it is the mixing of gender equality and the authenticity of a hadith that is not to your liking and would discuss them more readily if they are separated. Unfortunately, that debate may not be forthcoming any time soon. Instead, it will largely be in the court of those who belong to a club whose mission statement includes a distorted interpretation of some verses and reverent respect for misogynistic, frankly laughable, sayings. A few of its members lust after an Islamic state where right will be made right and a woman will know her place. It will be the playground for the fellow who is otherwise incapable of competing on his own merits. Barring any real influence through study, innovation or sheer hard work, he will at least have a woman who is several ‘degrees’ under him for whatever reason. Neither hadith can be taken seriously. They are dangerous and contrary to both the letter and spirit of the religion that misogynists foam at the mouth protecting. In my opinion, they are clear fabrications from their content alone, let alone their mean-spirited and hateful tones. Unless they are removed from consideration in the issue of gender equality, people will use them to inflict even more oppression on muslim women than is already present. An ambitious and capable woman couldn’t be satisfied with the notion that a male-engineered lot on earth is her salvation and passport to heaven. When people speak about differences between equity and equality in gender relations, I can guess with a fair bit of accuracy where the discussion is headed. I’m not much of a mind reader but let me take a quick stab at it so perhaps I could convince you that it eludes me not: Equality: Men and women are equal, God thinks they’re equal, gender equality is not an issue in Islam, equality is everywhere, we are practically gorging on it. (Translation: Women and men are equal but men are more equal than women (with due reference to Mr. Orwell). Equity: God made men and women different, one has a uterus and the other has um…um…a double chin? She will be judged according to her capabilities and the man according to his. (Translation: Do what you need to do, woman, but don’t mess with my gender protectionist goals cloaked under Islam. I can tolerate you working your estrogen-pickled selves as hard as you want but the big chair (and a bunch of smaller ones) is mine, all mine, dammit). Am I close? Way off the mark? The issue is not whether men and women are physiologically different or that civilizing legislations on marriage, divorce, and inheritance have differing rights. The issue is that there are interests of power, access and influence that must be protected at any cost, and islam is but one tool to use for this protection. If I got it wrong, however, and you hold no such view you can correct me, and we shall discuss it further………………… Consider yourself corrected, brother. It was a moment of temporary insanity quickly remedied by an injectable dose of ijtihad. I wouldn’t reserve a spot in the street corner for a bum; he’d have to earn it by becoming a seriously committed junkie with suspect hygiene . I don’t believe for one moment that the rasuul (csw) could have claimed psychic powers and singled out women as a group (and not hypocrites, thieves and other unpalatable members of society) for such a grim prediction without so much as a feeble reason. Rationalizations by imams and wannabes don’t count, except for comic relief. The door of Ijtihaad is not closed shut, and I could see how you may want to extract realistic answers by your own, but the work had already been done by men whose entire life was a dedication for this cause........ Not only is it shut, good Xiin, it is sealed with a blow torch . Just look at the amount of takfiir and death fatwas hurled at people. It is clear that you don’t think that a contradiction could be present; alas, you’ve brushed the whole thing aside and placed it squarely on my ineptitude in understanding the principles of the faith. I may be an amateur student of the quran who couldn’t tell a sufi from a salafi to save her life, but I can smell lies coated in religion a mile away. Deferring to men of knowledge when things get difficult is also not an option for me, it would be akin to going to a street dealer for rehab. I believe learned men can be wrong and on this particular issue, they ARE largely wrong. Men have dedicated entire lifetimes to the belief that the earth was flat but that didn’t make them any more right.

SOS, In different verses in the Quran, the prophet (pbuh) is described or admonished to say that he has no knowledge of the unseen (al-ghaib). You can probably take a crack at your own question if you refer to those verses and examine these premises: 1. Knowledge of what is forthcoming (the unseen or ghaib) on earth or in the afterlife is limited to God and those he chooses. 2. Mohamed (csw) is not chosen to know the unseen as explained in verses where he says he knows not of the fortunes of God or what will happen (6:50) or that he knows not what will be done to him or us ((46:9), and finally that if he knew of the unseen, he would have much of good and would not have been touched by harm (7:188). 3. We consider the revelation to be the truth. Then, I cannot understand how the prophet would be privy to what will happen in the afterlife outside of what is revealed to him in the Quran. These are, of course, my own thoughts and fall under my limitations.

ThePoint, I appreciate what you’re trying to say. In this particular issue, the interpretations/explanations don’t answer my questions regarding contradictions. They do offer a great deal of entertainment with their rationalizations. No one can dispute the importance of scholarly work in Islamic studies. In my view, the study of Quran and prophetic traditions is greatly facilitated by the work of not only Islamic scholars but scholars of language and history. The Quran, however, is not a book of mysteries with magical codes to crack; the language is difficult but not impossible to grasp and the history and traditions available in a number of critical works. Azmaya, I'm afraid I know little of this hadith and I don’t know anything about huralain or rewards to martyrs beyond what is in the Quran. If in existence, what would concern me more than the 70 wives (wonder why not 60 or 80) is that it gives the prophet (pbuh) knowledge of the unseen (what happens to a martyr when in heaven). In surat al anaam (6:50), we are reminded that he does not but follows what God has revealed. Other verses point to that such as Sura 72, Verses 25-26 and especially in Sura 46, Verse 9 where Mohamed (csw) is told to declare that he knows not where he himself is going and follows only what is revealed to him. The way I understand it, outside of what is revealed about martyrs and huralain in general in the Quran, the prophet (pbuh) would not know where the martyrs are going or whether 70 huralain would be in store for them. It is very possible that 70 wives or mates are awarded martyrs and I couldn’t even guess whether women will have the same or will have to share but I believe that heaven is surely a place of peace for all of us. I also believe, from the Quran, that we will have our justice from God and will not be mistreated. Other than that, the whole 70 mates business seems awfully crowded to me and could turn promised hedonism to domestic misery. Have you ever seen people who come from super large families? They have a great deal in common and a life of peace is not one of them. Personally, I wouldn’t want all those people invading my space and breathing my oxygen. A single hottie who’s nauseatingly handsome and does as he's told is all I need .

^^ I’m glad to hear that both your teeth and clothes remain unharmed . Thank you for the civil and reflective response, and the ‘almost’ praise . I will attempt to reciprocate. I see no difference between ‘equity’ and ‘equality’ in the Quran although semantic differences can be argued by the inclined. There is also nothing elusive about the type of equality that I challenge in my original post: women can be leaders of a muslim nation as no such prohibition exists in the book AND they do not have any deficits in intelligence and religious practice as anyone with a functioning cortex can reason. There is not a valid argument that can be presented for either declaration, just reasons of reasons built on rationalizations. But that is not the only reason that they should be treated with serious suspicion; they contradict basic dictates of the Quran. Not only does the Quran set equality and justice at the core of its principles, it promises it in judgment and reward. This equality is present in Quranic legislations that civilize human relationships with a requisite reminder of duties and rights for men and women. While these legislations are sometimes used to deny women their rights, they can be reasoned through and their spirit of compassion examined in their historical context and applied with much thinking in everyday issues. Provided it comes from an authentic source, divine directives are to be obeyed. Don’t get me wrong as there is nothing bad about asking propping questions as you did. But what held me in reserve is your self-referential style… You may believe this to be a reaction to an ‘apparent prejudice against women folk’ or an insult to feminist sensibilities but I assure you that even a feminist is capable of lucid and rational thought every once in a while. The issue is about equal rights to lead, and not to be considered deficient by mere mortals. Equal rights for half of humanity (half of muslims) is an issue of justice that is worthy of serious examination beyond the we-don’t-know-why-but-get-over-it. Asking probing questions is also not an extracurricular activity, the results of which to be quickly shelved to defer back to old texts done by fallible, albeit learned, individuals. If one can read (a privilege enjoyed by a small fraction of muslims), they have a serious responsibility to learn, read, understand, think, reason, and reflect. Funny how all these verbs are actions demanded of the believer in the Quran. The issues of divine and authentic are prickly. The Quran, we are instructed, is divine and needs not authentication. My belief in its truth is at the center of my faith. Since the ahadith need authentication and are not divine, they are by necessity requiring of more serious ijtihad. It is also a matter of ‘science’ for its gatherers and academics but raises many questions for someone who knows something of the scientific method. More specifically, penning a hadith 6-7 generations (about 240 years) removed from the original source and whose intermediary sources have also long perished is a perilous affair at best. Curiously, since the collectors and academics think of them as a science, they differ. Muslim (a student of Bukhari) discarded some ahadith kept by his teacher and kept some that he discarded. Many ahadith were deemed ‘inauthentic’ or ‘weak’, an interesting euphemism for a fabrication. Some of these inauthentic ones were not thrown out, of course, but left to linger leaving a scent that could come handy for some occasion. Interesting also that Ahmed Ibn Hanbal who came before them had differing ahadith in his musnad, not to neglect sect-based and interpretation differences. This is enough to make the most faithful jittery unless they give their brain an indefinite holiday. And these are authentication issues only and not content ones that require even more critical study. Many would argue that these differences are inevitable but welcomed signs of rigour, that the science has a system of checks and balances that insures an accumulation of wisdom and a reduction in fallacy. I don’t disagree. In theory it should. However, you could try and authenticate sayings till blue in the face but they remain hearsay at best. And since the divine protection of the Quran against human fallibility and interference for whatever reason is not guaranteed, I reserve the right to doubt and criticize. It is not my place as a layperson to dismiss anything but I will not blindly obey a non-divine doctrine that conflicts with a divine one or falls outside of reason and logic. There is a brain attached to this exceptionally attractive face . Worse still, you can’t be serious in wanting to understand the rationale and the reason behind the legacy you cited, and yet scoff the works of some early and contemporary scholars, and indict their interpretation as a one tainted with self-serving biases! You see, I choose to believe that I will stand in front of my maker some day and scholars would have to pardon me if they take a second seat to my faith and afterlife. My objection to the 2 ahadith in the original post is not about an interpretation by a scholar, I can understand them fully in both English and Arabic and have read of their supposed context. It is their truth, ‘authenticity’ if you will. My question was this: how do you view and judge a saying ascribed to the prophet (pbuh) that is in stark contradiction with a principle in the Quran? Questioning my understanding of these principles is legitimate but won’t resolve the contradiction. When the Quran and ahadith differ, you can either believe in one or the other - or forget the whole thing and be anaesthesized by a scholar of choice with a logic-defying reconciliation. Let me note quickly that I did not single out scholars in my original post but spoke of biases that we all have. That disloyalty of yours to the consensus of learned community of this Ummah is not a good sign. I would advice you work within the parameters of Islamic fiqh……. I owe no loyalty to a ‘consensus of learned community’. If they can advance my knowledge of the Quran and religious practices, I do and will continue to seek them. If they offer nothing save for recycled ideas and applications that do not pass the test of my intellect (despite its deficiencies), they will be respectfully ignored. The hadith that regulates the degree to which a Muslim woman can rise to serve her community has a binding legal effect………It is a settled law, so to say, and any one who dares to challenge is destined to a doomed insurgency. I wonder if this doomed insurgency can be unleashed upon one of these jurisprudential schools if they differ about the authenticity of a hadith or maybe it is reserved for the lone believer ‘who dares’ to challenge. The other hadith that addresses women’s deficiency in reason and religion (wonder who is not deficient in both) has no legal consequence…… Does that mean its only purpose is to cuss women? I accept that I have much to learn about Islam but refuse to view any questions as pointless or idle. In my original post, I spoke of personal and ideological interests that are protected at all costs, using even religion (or perhaps especially religion). I will admit that these interests propel the questioning. This doesn’t mean that they are illegitimate queries that must pass the approval of scholars.

Originally posted by Khalaf: My dear sisters think about this: "What I have forbidden for you, avoid. What I have ordered you [to do], do as much of it as you can........ I don't know, something's not right. The hadith seems innocuous enough but it could also be a clever re-wording of Sura 59, Verse 7 that admonishes believers to follow the prophet's (pbuh) lead in what to take or what to leave behind of township booty. There is no harm in giving deference to a hadith that repeats a quranic admonish or command. Really, what's the harm? It does get hairy when someone paraphrases the first couple of sentences, injects a tailor-made command (similar to the one above against questioning) and then attributes them to the prophet (csw). For the unaware, there is a different version of this that shares those few first sentences of What I have forbidden for you, avoid...., only that one admonishes women against tattoing, removing hair from the eyebrows but not the mustache and beard (my great aunt is so thankful ), and deliberately making space between the teeth for beauty. The uni-brow, buck-tooth look must've been all the rage in 5th century Arabia. All your questions have been asked by people stronger in intellect and more articulate then u, our ulma have answered each and every question Good for them. All self-respecting Ulema should predict questions from unsuspecting Xaliimos and then answer each and every one of them. They will get full marks for it when the day comes, I'm sure. On my end, I refuse to look like a D student in the afterlife after pulling straight As in this life (kinda, sort of........okay, fine, Bs :mad: ). On a serious note, nations have been destroyed by 'disagreeing' with prophets according to Bukhari's narration. They've disagreed by killing them, oppressing followers and driving them out of their homes. Suras 2,3, 10, 11, 12, 14, 21 and more expound greatly. Ahura I agree as well. * Gently reminds JB that although she has 6 fingers on the right hand, this Canadian from the North can easily mistake a peaceful Swede for a baby seal and cyber cull...mwahahahahah *

Originally posted by Cara: Does any woman really think that this is a message from her creator? It's so wrong on so many levels it's kind of breathtaking. I can't believe some wouldn't reject it even on the basis that it clearly contradicts the Qur'an. [/QB] Unfortunately, many women (and men) are either illiterate or believe that the ahadith are actually the words of the prophet (pbuh), instructed/inspired by God. This particular hadith and the leadership one (among many others) have a couple of incredulous qualities about them: 1. They ascribe to the prophet knowledge of the unknown (when will the hour be, who will be in heaven or hell and so on) when the quran clearly spells out that he does not. The following ayas show that: Sura 6, Verse 50; Sura 7, Verse 187; Sura 46, Verses 9-10; Sura 79, Verses 42-44 and many more. 2. They ascribe to the prophet the prototypical sexism and condescension of the region across times. Very tempting and easy it must be to place "it was said by prophet Mohamed (csw)" before a personal and vile thought. The above hadith sounds like the mutterings of a man tortured by multiple wives and female slaves whom he wishes he could stuff into hell. This gem and others are in the book of menstruation . Originally posted by Pi: Why is there an exception when it comes to the number of women required in buiseness transactions? Is this exception only applied in buisenesss transactions(the 2 women= 1 man rule) or is it more general? And why? Any explanations? Anybody? I believe the provision of two female witnesses in the place of a male is only seen in commercial transactions. In the other specific acts of witness - against a fahisha (Sura 5, Verse 15-16) and to a punishment (Sura 24, Verse 2) - all believers are admonished. Bearing just witness is a required duty for all believers in general (Sura 5, Verse 8). From a limited knowledge of the history and customs of the time, contractual and commercial issues were dominated by men who tended to socialize only with other men . As I understand it, the need for multiple witnesses (male or female) is seen as a reminder for one if the other(s) forgets not as a comment on the cognitive and memory functions of women. This legislation probably introduced women as credible witnesses into commercial transactions with a responsibility to present themselves as such when needed and to be just when doing so. Interesting to see the quran also admonishing all witnesses to be 'just witnesses' (Sura 5, Verse 8), be present when called and not intimidate scribes (Sura 2, Verse 282).

JB, overwhelmingly latent, most people psycologically repress religious dissonance becouse it depicts painful and disturbing realities that need to be excluded from the embellished realities.............It is cogent to see how you enchantingly weave the relation between the infalliable messenger and the follies of ( parts ) the message. Interesting how dissonance was seen as one of the reasons for either dropping a belief entirely or becoming a relentless (extreme?) and unquestioning supporter. I don't believe the messenger was infallible, no human is; of high morality, yes, but not infallible. What is ascribed to the prophet (pbuh), which is essentially hearsay, should always be intensely examined. Where in the intellectual ladder you´ve placed the feet of the dissonance-crux , threatens to turn your point of contention to nothing but a great farce, however,you came off as genuine and cincere contemplator. Umm, thanks .......I think :confused: . I think dissonance is only part of it and other sources of spiritual angst maybe culprits. An interesting read is Al-Nabulsi's 'religious sin complex'. He comments on critics of religious doctrine who backtrack after intense attacks, and denounce their previous writings. Could it be that any serious reflection and questioning buckle under the burden of sin, perceived or otherwise? Sin is at the center of religious instruction and is seared into the psyche of anyone reared with its ideals. Probably an effective tool in moral development, if only this instruction is not often imbued with equal doses of guilt, manipulation and fear. You see, the neighbour sins, my great aunt with the moustache sins, I sin (but will deny unless tortured ), we all sin according to these doctrines and religious reflection can be like picking at scabs. A painful and difficult reminder of not only what you're doing but what you're not doing but should be doing and all the shidh you shouldn't have done but did anyway. Who are we then, pathetic lot of stinking sinners, to question this and that? that is why it seems to me that you were hunting a Bear with a pocket-knife so to speak. I would have brought heavier artillery but all those bloody sins made my legs buckle . WB Emperor Castro, and that SOL has suffered due to your absence, is an understatement. *Shakes her head and mumbles about SOL ingrates who don't notice that you missed Law & Order on Wednesday and Numb3rs on Friday to share reflections. Note to self: add JB to a list of people to cyber poke with a pocket knife.*

Originally posted by Amelia: Hi Naden , You might find this (Chapter 4 if you want to cut to the chase) interesting and helpful in your quest for answers. Hi Amelia, thanks for the link.

Originally posted by Castro: My suspicion is the answers you seek may not be found here (or other similar quarters). What you can do is share these answers when, or if, you find them. Good day and good luck. [/QB] Indeed, more questions than answers. Although of principal importance, there are many issues more pressing in the day to day struggles of muslims. This is easier said, of course, by those of us in the Western world. And a good night to you.

Ever wonder what cult members do when they think the world ends on Tuesday but Wednesday shamelessly strolls in? Leon Festinger did research on prophecies in the fifties by studying a woman who believed that a cataclysm was approaching. She claimed the date was delivered by aliens and her followers believed they would be spared the end if they followed her. The dates, of course, came and went and no cataclysms of any sort, not even a meteorological hiccup. Did this make her followers change their minds? No such luck. They ignored the failed prophecies, suppressed the dissonance between prophecy and reality, and merrily went about observing their alien-inspired practices with gusto. “A man with a conviction is a hard man to change†observed Festinger, especially when the “person has some investment in his belief.†Cataclysms and aliens aside, I’ve been thinking about 2 hadiths discussed in another subforum in regards to women and leadership. Both are apparently verified and widely accepted by many scholars although if you look hard enough, you might hear a grumbling or two. The first hadith is understood to place a limit on how high a woman can go in a leadership position in a muslim state. It is also interpreted, when desired, to mean any position where a woman is in charge of a man. The second hadith refers to a speech given by prophet Mohamed (pbuh) to a group of women whereby he describes them as ناقصات عقل ودىن , deficient in intellect and religious practice. For the actual hadiths, here’s a link to a good site: Source. Let me preface with this: prophet Mohamed’s (pbuh) morals and manners were exceptionally high or else he would not be entrusted with the holy message. Unfortunately, these 2 hadiths don’t agree with my beliefs in the equality of people as espoused in the Quran. They just don’t, so dissonance is inevitable and something has got to give. Hence the following neural firings (umm...thoughts ): Random neural firing #1 The first hadith raises a couple of questions: In what context did the rasuul (csw) make this utterance? What scant criticism available hints at its informative (as opposed to normative) nature. Thus, its interpretation/application may be limited in time and space to this female ruler of Persia and her failing kingdom. We may never know. We do know this: the Quran does not limit leadership/rule to men. Is the hadith contradicting fundamental principles of equality in the book? More learned people are debating this and will continue to do so. What I am certain of is that I have an interest AND an investment in the belief that my equal rights as a human being are granted/protected by God. I am also of the understanding that some men, including many muslim scholars/jurists who are interested in positions of power, whether domestic, social, economic or political would be in strong support of as wide an application as possible of this hadith and using it as a basis for a law. A view that women have no place leading them might make these interests materialize; in this sense, female limitation leads to direct male advantages. Wrapping these interests in the clothes of Islam makes anyone who questions their legitimacy seem as though they are questioning Islam. No less motivated by interests, I often wonder if I would be equally bothered if the prophet (csw) was quoted as saying that no nation would prosper that is led by a left-handed Abyssinian born to a one-legged woman. It would be tragic for all the left-handed Abyssinians with one-legged mothers but would I be bothered? Probably yes. It is unacceptable and wrong that one (or 2 or 3?) hadith can be the basis for the exclusion of women from any type of decision-making position in the public domain, even in the hypothetical highest leadership. In my view, it contradicts the basic principles of Islam of equality and accountability. Random neural firing #2 The second hadith poses a smaller but not less significant dilemma. Simply examining the hadith with a most untrained eye leads to the following observations: 1. Similar to the first hadith, equal responsibility and accountability of women and men in the Quran leads one to believe that they are considered equal in intellect. Of course, some interpretations quickly point that prophet Mohamed (scw) was merely talking about an extraordinary (and hell-leading) ability of women to lead men astray despite their limited intellect and religious practice and not necessarily singling them out but I’m not convinced. 2. Women are commanded not to fast or pray when menstruating (out of compassion, no doubt) but would adherence to that command lead them to be labeled as deficient in practice? If anything, obeying god is the opposite of that label. Similarly, the command of 2 women in the place of one man’s testimony in commercial transactions (the only exception to equal weight of witness testimony, mind you) is from god. How can this be held against them and their intellect? Creative interpretations are abound but most can’t ignore that big, fat elephant in the room: a deficiency in reasoning (not to mention understanding, reflection, obedience, imaan, and many others) are human qualities as described in the Quran. Again, is the hadith contradicting fundamental principles of equality (even in deficiencies) of genders in the book? Random neural firing #3 Just a couple of final thoughts: 1. To reconcile my belief that the equality of people is protected in the irrefutable Quran with the belief that prophet Mohamed (pbuh) would not contradict god, I am led to suspect one of 2 things: a) the hadiths ascribed to him have somehow misconstrued his words or taken them out of context. b) there are hundreds of thousands of ahadiths rejected/labelled as weak -- perhaps there need to be hundreds of thousands plus 2. 2. Personal and ideological interests are sometimes protected at all costs, and motivate these discussions on religion and equality. They dictate which convictions we vigorously and repetitively defend and which ones we gently observe or treat with respectful indifference. (I just missed an episode of Law & Order writing this )

Brother Nur, Thank you for the welcome and the response. Just a few comments on your reply and I will withdraw from your exchange with Viking. I am not certain what position a Xakiim occupies in a today's political decision-making but I think that this entire discussion's definition of a leader has oscillated between this highest Islamic figure to the everyday decision-maker. No objection to the former being limited to a male and serious reservations about the latter excluding women in the name of Islam. Leadership that stems from economic participation, in my earlier post, referred to positions such as heads of universities, ministries and companies. We must be very cautious in extending the interpretation of the Aya to domains outside of the interpersonal (father/daughter, brother/sister, husband/wife and so on). In numerous occasions in the good book, muslims are reminded that both men and women are responsible for what they earn, believe, do, and practice. If men are trustees of women in a decision-making sphere, among the implications are guardianship and deferment of responsibility, not dissimilar to those between parent/child and slave/owner. The regulatory purpose of this Aya, as I understand it, must be examined in the context of every muslim being responsible for their deeds; responsibility which denotes that we are accountable for the consequences of our decisions.

Brother Nur, With all due respect, I'm not really certain about what you're arguing for here. If I may interject for a moment in your exchange with brother Viking. Let us no mix contribution to economy with womens leadership in a society, if we mumble jumble things, we can quickly run out of reason. Womens participation in our society shouldnt be something that Kofi Anan imposes on us, only mosquitoes in africa should take him for serious, no else does. Contribution to economy and leadership in a society do not mix? If by leadership you mean that the highest position of ameer or khalifa or whatever that position may be called when an islamic state is built, then I could understand that and could care less if it is reserved for a man. A man of conscience, knowledge and humility is the best protector of the rights of all people. Certainly not everyone who contributes to an economy whether they are farmers, scientists, teachers or even artists can lead a nation. I'm not certain what Kofi Annan has to do with women's participation in a society, muslim or otherwise. Muslim women (and men) contribute and work within their societies. They teach, they grow food, they tend to the sick, and they trade. It's not a foreign/UN imposed decree but a way of life fundamental to the survival of communities. The issue at hand is that in the Quraan Allah gave the Muslim Male trusteeship over Muslima women, this is called QIWAAMAH, and its no hadeeth, its geuine Quraan. That Qiwqaamah overrides all other previllages. From my understanding, qiwaamah does not mean trusteeship in the legal/present sense but maintenance/responsibility for in the sense of supporting in interpersonal relationships. My neighbour's muslim father/husband does not have qiwaamah over me. My father when I was a child and my husband if I am not working have qiwaamah and are entrusted to support me with what they have been favoured by God and what they spend of their rizk. I'm not certain what privileges you think this Aya overrides but if those privileges are only suspended when a woman seeks a political position and not when spending 12 hours farming or selling goods, then I'm afraid I disagree with you. If I understand it correctly, the Aya seeks to regulate interpersonal relationships and to extrapolate that to the public sphere must be done with extreme caution given that women in muslim societies take an equal (if not more) share of work, unpaid or otherwise. To me, the issue is how women (and men) can have greater say in policies that affect their lives and the work that they do. If it means political participation at all levels, so be it. That is a reality, unlike the hypothetical 'Who will have his finger on the red button when the Islamic Caliphate is finally realized?' We all know that Nafertiti ruled Egypt, the most advanced civilization we know, and so was Queen Sheba of Yemen mentioned in Quran who surrendered to prophet Solomon as a Muslima, Shebas success was that she never reached a decision without her advisors ( Maa kuntu qaadicatan amran xataa tash-haduun) meaninh " I was not about to make a decision without conferring with you" Indeed. All leaders seek the counsel of their advisors; the prophet (csw) sought the counsel of his companions and his wives (both Khadija and Aisha, may God be pleased with them) as well. As for womens particpation in economy, again, we must compare apples to apples, to live in the west, a complete different way of life than islam's, in which the system was built on a denial of a God has any authority on peoples lives, and then to borrow certain aspects of that system to apply on islam is going to be funny. Participation in the economy is a reality for muslim women. I was raised in both Somalia and a muslim/arab country and women worked in all fields, learned most trades and professions and participated in the armed forces. Not sure what the West has to do with this living reality. A necessity by all measures. If you mean that political participation of women is a western influence alien to Islam, I must disagree. It is a natural extension of the grassroots work that they do. In any case, I've shared my view that higher politics is often denied both men and women in muslim societies by corrupt elites/business people. What I think is of relevance to the individual muslim family or community is their ability to have a say in policies that directly and indirectly affect their lives.

Originally posted by Khayr: The hubris is fed over and over...and over again.......Why? It is because that would require Submission to something that is impertial to our Hubris/nafuus. Waterlilly and Naden Why do you as a women need to aspire to be a member of parliament or anywomen for that matter? Are women incomplete until they were pants? :rolleyes: [/QB] Commitment to hubris, good Khayr, is an equal opportunity offence. In the presence of a functioning islamic state and the need for a singular head, I am accepting of keeping that position for men. But what would that mean for muslim men and women? Nothing much, I'm afraid. I believe that such a position will be propped up and supported by interests of the elites of society and business. I do, however, see no logical reason to exclude a competent, experienced woman from a decision-making position. In general and despite my limited knowledge, my take on politics is this: 1. Politics, in general, is the playground for idle minds and people/groups so power hungry and motivated by self-promotion. In many corners of the world, it attracts people of porous morality; people who have been so indoctrinated and prepared for these symbolic positions that gender (or education or social background or faith) mean little. 2. Most men AND women are excluded from decision-making processes in muslim societies (and many others - just look at voter malaise in North America). Political democracy is a ruse in most places with a few people controlling our collective interests. There are hopeful signs that it works every once in a while; I am especially happy to see the work of unions, advocacy groups and cooperatives. In the case of some muslim societies in the West and muslim world, men sometimes feel emasculated by poverty and the sense that they have little control over the affairs of their families and societies. We should all be sensitive to this and understand that the health of our communities depends on the full participation of men and women. This discussion has gone as low as it possibly could and has unearthed some unpalatable, frankly laughable thoughts about the intelligence of women. What a shame.

Head of a state? I gather that position is political rather than religious. I remember a conversation I had with a friend after returning from a city that shall remain unnamed in Somalia. This city of about 30,000 residents had the typical arrangement of a Somali town in that region. Walking through the commercial road, vendors spread every type of goods you could imagine. From about 6 a.m. or so till sunset, these vendors sold food, clothes, even cell phones/cards. A most curious observation. The people sitting on the ground are about 80% women. A quick look at small (unfortunately, now a little struggling) farms showed most of the work being done by women. A glance at the hospital and a few schools showed a 90% and about 50% woman employees respectively. I must admit, the only spots that men had the clear domination were two: the police station (about 15 young and middle-aged men) and the cafes/majlis. My take on a leadership/head of state position is this: it tends to be a ceremonial position propped and supported in most places in the world by group affiliations and influenced heavily by business/industry. The real influence lies and has always in the hands of people who move the trade/business world. From this admittedly small sample, the affairs of this Somali city are run by mostly women who buy and sell, teach and raise children, and grow food. The adversarial and hostile tone of the hadith in contention surprises me a little. Prophet Mohamed's (pbuh) life from working for his first wife Khadija (may god be pleased with her) and helping manage her affairs to entrusting Aisha (may god be pleased with her as well) with the instruction of muslims speak of respect and appreciation of women in a leadership position (economic/religious). In any case, I don't really think it poses a real dilemma for women in muslim societies. What matters, I believe, is their involvement in legislative/policy positions at levels lower than this ceremonial highest position of power. Those are the ones that usually matter in the day to day survival of a family. Seeing from this Somali city and many other Muslim states, women teachers, farmers, doctors, ministers, researchers are already participating and will probably do so more in the future.

Well, as alarmist pieces go, this one is very impressive. Where to begin? The author contends that ‘the meteoric rise of this new generation of 'go-getting women' who want high-powered, well-paid jobs has dire consequences for society’ without really explaining why a small minority of women (and probably all professionals) will do that. She does say the following: It has diverted the most talented away from the caring professions such as teaching No explanation or proof that this is the case unless the author equates ambition with talent. She also offers no proof that these ‘high powered’ women would want to become teachers or would become exceptional teachers if they do become one. How do you describe teaching as a ‘caring’ profession? This must be built on the ludicrous myth that men enter teaching to teach subjects while women do so to nurture and raise children. Women do give birth and breastfeed their children but not all want to shove their heaving bossom in the faces of children sent to school to learn. Nurturing behaviour is limited and not exclusive to women. Men can be and are just as attentive and ‘caring’ of the young, old and infirm as women. If anything, teaching is a profession in dire need of men as they represent less than 25% of the 3 million American teachers. I am convinced that men have a great deal to offer as teachers and a number of British parents hold similar views Source. They offer strong role models for boys and provide alternate discipline. Some have even suggested that there would be fewer boys diagnosed with ADHD if more men were elementary school teachers as the latter are more tolerant of activities that are play-based and do not involve sitting still for hours. stopped them volunteering, is in danger of ending the notion of 'female altruism', has turned many women off having children - and has effectively killed off feminism. Female altruism? :rolleyes: The last time I looked altruism was a human quality and not a ‘female’ quality. How in the world has feminism suffered with the success of these women? I was under the impression that feminism was to give women equal access to education and employment. What is the story behind the 'death of sisterhood'? Was there ever a time when women of all classes shared the same 'major life experiences'? Never mind that most women will work for a living and raise families and care for elderly parents and parents-in-law. Those are not shared life experiences? Or does sisterhood apply only when rights are lacking and most women share the burden of unpaid work? :rolleyes: Does she have the same concern about women who work long hours in low-paying jobs and give 100% or is she limited to pontificating about equally privileged women earning large sums of money? 'The repercussions for our future are enormous, and we should at least recognise the fact.' The growth, Wolf argues, of the 'because I'm worth it' generation has led to the end of 'female altruism', where women would see the caring part of their life as normal. It sure does pay nowadays to say whatever that is seen as controversial and get your 15 minutes in the limelight. In this future envisioned by the author, do men (educated or otherwise) have any role in the care of the old and sick? Do they have a role in volunteering and giving back to the community? Well, of course they do! This author couldn’t be bothered to do some elementary research (or hire a lowly intern to do it). Of the elderly and infirm parents in the US taken care of by children, a little less than a third were cared for by a son. The remaining 70% were cared for by daughters who have families and careers. Many abandon their difficult and consuming career to care for their parents (New York Times, Nov.11/2005). Not to forget ‘altruism’, 25% of men and 34% of women did volunteer work last year (Bureau of Labor Statistics). The author writes from a British perspective but the stats are comparable Source. Despite longer work hours and busier lives, these figures show that women are still giving of themselves. No proof why that will be different in the future. Wolf insisted her argument was not that the workplace revolution had been a 'terrible mistake' and admitted she had gained from it herself.........I am just saying there have been consequences.' Ahhhh, the rise and fall of academic discourse. Her argument is a non-argument and her conclusion is that there are consequences to changing life/work dynamics. Women (AND men) of most walks of life are struggling with career and childcare. Nothing new is given and few of the issues that affect these families are addressed.

Along with fresh thinking, some strong and accountable leadership is sorely needed in the Black community. However, racism is so entrenched in American institutions that many will find it difficult to lift themselves out of poverty for a long time. The issue of records is raised before, with young men unable to get nothing but the lousiest of jobs when they have a record, never mind the application processes that are part of apartment renting, car leasing, and even college admission. Not to excuse criminal behaviour but the system is largely set up to discourage second chances. Then there is the issue of collective punishment with young black men with no records of any sort being shut out of so many jobs.

Noticed some sparks flying off the windshield of the guy driving behind me. I giggled (I know, a little evil), thinking the poor bas****'s car was going to go up in flames any minute now. Only he switches lanes and the sparks are now in the air. Guess who's exhaust pipe is dragging on the ground and about to fall off? Dropped off the car at a shop near the office, ran like a madwoman and was frazzled the entire morning. Life just sucks :rolleyes: .