Can A Woman Become A Head Of An Islamic State?

[Salafi_Online]

Salamu alaykum

I am not above taqleed. My knowledge is so restricted that I have no others means but to follow ahlul-dikr. You are free to disagree and address your reservations, but save me the abuse.

 

You write:

 

“As muslims, we have the right to disagree and agree with sheekhs no matter who they are. Each one of us is responsible for their own faith and Allah won't ask us/you about Bin Baaz or utheymiin in the day of judgement, so you will best serve these noble sheekhs if you stop using them for your end and stand by your misguided opinions if you can.â€

 

Ar-rahmaan said if you do not know refer to those who know,the scholars are the inheritors of the prophet. In fact Allah will question me about bin baaz and uthaymin or any scholars their teachings are means by which i understand and carry out the obligations of Allah and his messenger. I shall relinquish my misguided estimations if you clearly demonstrate the truth of the matter.

 

Aisha(ra) or any another women for that matter, can not islamicaly fulfil the position of waliyahul amr. Aisha(radiyalullahi canhuma) can not be a singular witness nor can she perform Salah and Siyam during her menstruation, such is her deficiency in deen and intellect.

[Xoogsade]

So Aisha just because she couldn't be a singular witness or needed/can't fulfill the role of waliyul-amr as you said, she must be intellectually inferior to you as a man?

 

As for you not being able to stand on your own and must follow blindly sheekhs, FINE. However, you should/must accept these same sheekhs or any otehr would be disagreed with when necessary and that there are no limitations in number about muslim scholars who had fulfilled the qualities of a salafi scholar, you can not impose on anyone the few sheekhs you favour out of the thousands of muslim scholars who had earned the respect. And the only man I will be asked whether I followed him or not is the messenger of God.

 

Again WAX SOO BARO.

 

Edited.

[Salafi_Online]

straw man argument arent worthy of attention.

[Xoogsade]

Well, salafi, although I don't care personally whether you replied or not(preferably your quiteness is more pleasant and less damaging in this thread than your twisted views), I would advise you to add to your signature collection the verse that says "And walk not on the earth with conceit and arrogance. Verily, you can neither rend nor penetrate the earth, nor can you attain a stature like the mountains in height." for being prideful.

 

If I were you, I would worry about me(and I do naturally).

[xiinfaniin]

Originally posted by Salafi da'wa:

Xin,

Yaa akhi

....................

The topic as it states, is whether a Muslimah can be the head of an Islamic state, to suggest a woman can be the guardian of men conflicts with the message of Islam.

They are not barred from the position due to their limit in intellect or deen

, except that her position and

responsibilities

in Islam prevents her from fulfilling the obligations of wiliyahul amr.

 

That's enough concession for me, yaa salafi. the rest does not warrant a response; it is a mixture of agreeable sophistry and irrelevant exposition.

[Nur]

Viking

 

You Write:

 

If we take the hadith in a literal sense, how come the countries that exclude women in contributing to the economy do much worse (economically) than those who include them? What is the "success" [the Prophet spoke of] based on? Is it in this world or the hereafter? We know from history that certain circumstances have made women leave their traditional roles and joined i.e. battles, factories etc. in order to help a nation survive. This was the case when the Muslims waged wars and used women as nurses and even swelled up numbers in order to intimidate the enemies. And in Europe during the world wars, the results would have been different if women hadn't been working 24 hours a day in bullet factories etc.

 

 

Answer:

 

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. We have a different philosophy of how to live, and as a result what will happen after we die, as such, they have their Deen ( way of life) and we have our deen, we have nothing in common except to live peacefully as fellow passengers on planet Earth.

 

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.

 

You can not start with a non Islamic dough to make an Islamic bread, the conditions that are prevalent today thatyou live under , have all emanated from a non islamic laws and norms, to build our system, we have to start from the foundations, structure of the family, the community and the nation in that order.

 

The success ( AFLAXA) that the prophet SAWS was talking was that of the faith and ethics, not material and money. 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"

 

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. To reap the islami fruits, we must grow seed on an Islmic soil, irrigated by an slamic water under and islamic sun.

 

 

Nur

[Xoogsade]

I see Nur redirected the topic to its origins, however, I have been looking for alternative interpretations of the Hadith Salafi presented for a meaning as correct interpretation. I didn't find any as of yet(except one article) due to time constraints. I will appreciate if others look for more interpretations and views about the Hadith quoted as proof of intellectual defficiencey.

 

I found some discussion in the form of question and answer regarding the topic and it left me wondering. It provides some considerable points of view/interpretations. I would like to see your views on it after you read if you may. Thank you. Here is it is:

 

 

Discussion Initiated by Anonymous from Pakistan on 29-Jun-2000.

 

Title:

Discussion on 'Are Women Deficient in Intelligence & Religion'

 

Question/Comments:

 

I am still bothered by this Hadith (Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301).

 

I can't imagine that a requirement of God (i.e. not praying during menstruation) can be interpreted as a deficiency in faith by the Prophet (pbuh) himself. Many women very well could pray during menses but do not because it is not allowed and they are good Muslims who follow their religion -- and this makes them deficient??? You said in your previous answer that it really means that women have reduced responsibility in matters of "practical wisdom and religion". Somehow I am not convinced that a woman can take the responsibility of being a good Muslim more casually than a man can (this may be a separate issue but let us assume you are correct in this case). What does this have to do with women being ungrateful wives? I don't think most women are ungrateful at all (do you?), and I especially don't think that not praying during menses/needing two witnesses is a factor in leading men astray from their righteous path. Why would the Prophet (pbuh) say that? Especially when you can blame no one but yourself for straying from religion (how can you say it is the wife's fault that the husband went bad?). I am sorry, but I am confused and extremely saddened by how this Hadith is currently interpreted by me and others. I know Islam is perfect and Allah sees man and woman as equal in religion.

 

Please help me understand.

 

Regards,

 

 

Answer:

 

Let us first try to understand the narrative.

 

According to the referred narrative, the Prophet (pbuh), in one his sermons addressed to women, is reported to have said that they should give a lot of charity to balance the mistakes that they (intentionally or unintentionally) commit. This is basically the central theme of the address. In this address the Prophet (pbuh) is also reported to have expressed his surprise over the influence that a wife naturally has over her husband in the following words:

 

I have not seen any one who has more influence on an intelligent and sensible man than you, although you are deficient in [responsibilities of] intellect and [those of] religion. A cautious, sensible man can easily be led astray by you.

 

The point that has been made in the above statement does not imply that when a woman entices a man to do something wrong, the responsibility of the wrong, if ultimately committed by the man, is solely upon the woman. It only means that because, in such a case, the man has committed a wrong after being lured by the woman into it, the burden is therefore shared by both, even though the wrong is actually committed by the man. Nevertheless, it is actually in this context of the expression of surprise, that the Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said the referred words.

 

You write:

 

I can't imagine that a requirement of God (i.e. not praying during menstruation) can be interpreted as a deficiency in faith by the Prophet (pbuh) himself.

 

The Prophet (pbuh) has not interpreted it as a 'deficiency in faith', on the contrary, it has been termed as a deficiency in the responsibility imposed on women in matters relating to religion. The two, as you can see, are not synonymous. The referred deficiency, because it is due to a natural phenomenon, is not condemned. It has only been referred to in the context of the expression of surprise, as explained earlier. Moreover, such a reduction in responsibilities due to natural or uncontrollable reasons, whether it relates to a woman, or a man has no effect on the rewards of the hereafter. Thus, the words ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh), if seen in their right context, imply: "It is surprising that a creature, who has been given lower responsibility due to its nature, has such a tremendous effect on a man".

 

You write:

 

I don't think most women are ungrateful at all (do you?), and I especially don't think that not praying during menses/needing two witnesses is a factor in leading men astray from their righteous path. Why would the Prophet (pbuh) say that?

 

I have already answered the latter part of your statement above. As far as the first part is concerned, it does not refer to ungratefulness in its ordinary connotation. It actually refers to the grievances that a wife may have from her husband, on account, generally, of the non-provision of worldly comforts. These grievances, as is generally the case, when they become vocal, are a major cause of domestic disturbances. In fact, it is the diplomatic and effective expression of these grievances which can influence and entice the man into doing wrong.

 

It should also be stressed that the statement ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) does not imply the universality of the problem or that every woman, without exception, possesses this feature. On the contrary, it is only a statement of admonition. The problem may actually have been present in only a few of the women who were present at the time. However, the Prophet (pbuh), very wisely, admonished all those who were present at the time, to increase the effectiveness of the admonition. This was the general style of the Prophet (pbuh) while admonishing others. He would normally avoid naming or singling out the particular person who was specifically being admonished. One of the biggest advantages of this style of general, rather than specific, admonition is that the particular person gets the message without becoming defensive or egotistic about it.

 

All your subsequent questions may be answered in the light of the preceding explanation.

 

Nevertheless, I would like to add here that all the above explanation is given with the presumption that the words of the referred narrative have been correctly ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh). It is, however, possible that there may have been a mistake in the ascription of these words to the Prophet (pbuh). If we look closely at the different versions of the referred narrative, we see that the chance of a mistake by one or more of the narratives cannot be ruled out. For instance, in the narrative reported in Bukhari (Kitaab al-Haydh), the Prophet (pbuh) delivered the complete sermon in a gathering of women[1]. In Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, however, the narrative has been reported in a slightly different manner[2]. According Musnad's reporting, the clarification of the statement ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) regarding women being deficient in responsibilities relating to religion and intellect was not sought by the women in the gathering. On the contrary, it was only the wife of Abd Allah ibn Masood (ra), who sought this clarification, sometime after the gathering had dispersed. In yet another reporting, as it appears in Daarmiy[3], the words relating to the deficiency in the two responsibilities were not even spoken by the Prophet (pbuh). They were spoken later, by Abd Allah ibn Masood (ra), without ascribing these words to the Prophet (pbuh). Thus, it seems quite possible, keeping the narrative of Daarmiy in perspective, that some of the later narrators may have ascribed the words actually spoken by Abdullah ibn Masood (ra) to the Prophet (pbuh) by mistake. If this be the case, then the Prophet (pbuh) did not even mention any reduction in the responsibilities of women.

 

30th June 2000

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[1] Including the part of the explanation of the "deficiency in intelligence and religion". That is, according to this narrative, when the Prophet (pbuh) said that 'women are deficient in matters relating to the responsibilities in religious as well as worldly matters', women asked for its clarification and the Prophet (pbuh) in response gave them the example of missing prayers in menstruation and that of the lower responsibility in the case of witness.

 

[2] Volume 2, Page 373.

 

[3] Kitaab al-Tahaarah.

 

 

 

The Question Under Discussion

Are Women Deficient in Intelligence and Religion? (4/10/1998) Hits: 5,498

[Naden]

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.

[Khayr]

Originally posted by naden:

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?'

Imam Fakhr al-Din al-Razi is another exegete who considers the relation of the verse "Men are caretakers of women" to other verses: Know that Allah Most High has said [two verses previously], ". . . and not to long for that with which Allah has preferred some of you above others" (Qur'an 4:32), a verse that we said was revealed because some women made remarks about Allah's favoring men over them in estate division inheritance [by certain male heirs receiving twice the share of their female counterparts]. So Allah mentions in this verse that He only favored men over women in estate division because men are the caretakers of women. For although both spouses enjoy the usufruct of each others person, Allah has ordered men to pay women their marriage portion, and to daily provide them with their support, so that the increase on one side is met with an increase on the other--and so it is as though there is no favoring at all. This clarifies the verses arrangement and order (Tafsir al-Fakhr al-Razi. 32 vols. Beirut 1401/1981. Reprint (32 vols. in 16). Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, 1405/1985, 10.90).

Finally, the more fiqh-oriented exegesis of al-Kaya al-Harrasi notes that while Allah has mentioned men's support of women in verses such as the one in surat al-Tahrim "Let him who possesses plenty spend of his plenty; and let him whose provision is straitened spend of what Allah has given him" (Qur'an 65:7), in this verse [Men are caretakers (qawwamuna) of women], He mentions the necessary cause (`illa) for this support, so scholars have naturally inferred from the two verses taken together that whenever a husband is unable to support his wife, he is no longer her caretaker: she is not obliged to remain at home [should he request it] in any school of jurisprudence, and according to the school of al-Shafi'i (Allah be well pleased with him), she is entitled to have the marriage annulled. He is no longer a caretaker or entitled to oblige her to remain at home because he has vitiated the objective of protecting her by marriage, for the aim of marriage is her security (Ahkam al-Qur'an. 4 vols. Cairo n.d. Reprint (4 vols. in 2). Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya, 1405/1985, 2.449).

 

Source

 

 

Why is Political participation for women, an important topic in the 20-21st century?

 

Most people that espouse for the that,also happen to champion Democracy as the ideal political system....hmmm, now why is that? :rolleyes:

[Nur]

Dear Naden

 

Baarkallah feek, I tha k you for taking the time for responding.

 

First of all my response was tailored for an old timer with whom I had numerous discussions across many topics for the past 5 years at Somalinet and Somaliaonline, so the choice of my words were tailored for him. we are like football players, we can find the ball without looking, so I apologise if my comments were not as apparent.

 

Walaal

 

You are always allowed to particpate, I am very pleased.

 

 

You write:

 

Contribution to economy and leadership in a society do not mix?

 

Answer:

 

I have to take you back, economic acheivement has never been a benchmark for selecting leadership in Islam, ( Highest office )men or women. Piety and decisivenes has been.

 

You write:

 

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.

 

 

Answer:

 

Yes, but lately, Koffe Anan's institution known for its corruption has been vocal in Muslim countries to enable women at the expense of men, to break the structure of the Muslim house in which the male was the bread winner, by creating single parent homes, missing the male figure, our house is in a mess.

 

 

You write:

 

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.

 

 

Answer:

 

Qiwaamah does among other meanings does include trusteeship, inshallah I will share with you later, again, not all men are trustee to all women, that is not a correct deduction, its only giving men an added responsibility to women, as you have noted to provide for them and protect them, in the social setting of a household. In the Military and Political setting, Qiwamah is again given for men over women, in jIhad, women were exempted from the duty, but those women who volunteered as nurses were accepted at times, in rare cases some Muslims women participated in Jihad. As for ploitical decision making, it has alwasy been customary and understood by all schools of thought that the Xaakim must be a male.

 

 

You write:

 

 

Participation in the economy is a reality for muslim women.

 

Answer:

 

Yes it is, unfortunately, the Islamic vision of participation is different that that current one. Allah provides Rizq, even if women stay home to care for the kids, men will be given a Rizq twice as he earned when his wife was working 9-5, 5 days a week, hardly having time to see her hubby or kids, Allah SWT says in Quraan : Wa mur ahlakja bissalaati wa astabir calayhaa, laa nas'aluka rizqaa, naxnu narzuquk, wal caaqibatu littaqwaa", meaning " Order your family members to perform regular prayers, (and when they resist) be patient and tolerant ( do not stop this activity for seeking money)we do not ask you to find your own RIZQ, we will provide (RIZQ) sustenance for you (and family) and at the end, those with TAQWA will have the (last laugh) (those who look things from Allah;s perspective and follow his commandments)

 

Rizq can be iman( Faith), wealth, friends, family, happiness, inspiration, education, children, anything that adds positive value to a person is a from of Rizq. Things for their sake we neglect our prayers.

 

Nur

[Naden]

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.

[Nur]

Naden

 

I really liked your analyses, and a lot of it makes a lot of sense, Wisdom, is the lost treasure of a Believer, and he (she) has the first right of refusal to claim it wherever its found ( Hadeeth) and in the context InshAllah I shall respond to your deductions in detail, The discussion is not as structured and defined as I would have liked, and to be comparable to your deductions, the good thing is that your participation will invariably raise the intellectual bar a bit higher for all of us.

 

Nur

[Johnny B]

Good Xiin , That the biggest ethical problem with our resident self-proclaimed "Mullahs" is hypocrisy is no secret, but your blind devotion to the intellectually abandoned hulk and it´s long buried superstitious saga comes off as a severe deficiency of sort, and self-disaffirmance at best.

 

It is a ride on a lunatic crusade against civilization , free-thought and human intellectuality to possitively affirm that "women are inferior to men intellectually and physically" ,simply to gloriously justify a grim sexism and bloster a deep cultural murky pit in the name of the good .

and no matter where of the intellectual fence such nonsense pops up, no matter how many less fortunate females that have subconsciously gluped it to their degradation due to fear ,dismay and what not, still, in my circles it falls way too short to be reffered to as an intellectually-stimulating and thought-provoking subject.

Good Xiin,The bright light of the self-fueling bonfire of "what is knowable" has gone way beyond what was cooked those dark desert nights, centuries ago , so fame ,as we know it, is the last thing to look for among triggrer-happy militant theocrats who´d do anything for the delayed , but promised gratifications. [deleted] romp of young virgins , rivers of wine and what you not kill for of sort.

 

To demand of me or anyone for that matter not to comment on the subject unless one has a so called "scholar" to quote is a plain protectionism and a futile attempt to discourage me from forwarding my thinking, and that reflects the fragility of the theocratic house ,so much for housekeeping as it were.

 

That i´m badly versed in the " Scholar Abu Ngonge RA said so " type of mantra is no secret ,neither it is my point of contention.here , sister Blessed has already pointed at that , but if you wanna capitalize on that be my guest , but count on me and my own ideas and thinking on this part of the fence of scholar JB has alot to say unlike many here who do a wonderful and brilliant quoting.

 

And Atheer as it originally were, metaphysics as it literally were, has wider range of grayzone to cover than you so wishfully limit it to.

 

As for the topic at hand , we´ve YET to even elementrily rationalize not spritualize the notion that women are deficient in such and such so if they lead that nation fails. needlessly to remiand you that this msg is supposed to be a convincing and self-explanatory about it´s correctness and genuinity.

 

I do understand and respect theistic life more than you credit me for, but i can live with that , as for the subject matter , you have to put up more than the merely applauding for bro Nur, either you clarify the creteria of acceptance for "hadiths" from companions who have bad criminal record or give in.

[xiinfaniin]

^^Fools, as the saying goes, rush in where angels fear to tread. Abu NGONGE ku lahaa! Are we to take that as a case of a Freudian slip? Or your contempt toward the sources of haddiith has no boundary to observe?

 

You see, ‘scholar JB’, no one is preventing you to participate and debate in any topic that you deem important. But the problem lies in your misconception that, in all threads, all roads lead to Rome. I am telling you that, in this particular thread, there is a minimum level of competence to meaningfully participate, and hence all roads do not lead to Rome. There is only one-way to go about challenging these ‘mullahs ’; have a proficiency in religion, saaxiib. Haddii kale iska aamu.

 

Iga qor xikmaddaa, adeer .

[Blessed]

JB,

I wasn’t questioning your lack of respect or knowledge of hadith literature or scholarly ijtihad (thought). I’ve had issues with you arrogance and condescending remarks on the issue of Muslim women when you lack awareness of details of the events you use to highlight your uninformed points. I’m not referring to your contribution to this thread only .

 

Secondly, there isn’t much of a difference between your attitude (as a liberator) and the ‘mullahs’ with regards to women. You both threat us as senseless creatures that need to be saved (liberated) or protected (preached to).

 

I also find it ironic that both you and the ‘mullahs’ agree on the notion that to speak of woman’s rights and to address the issue of oppression in the Muslim world is introduction of a foreign, western concept to Muslim thought. While some ‘mullahs’ misquote hadiths to support their chauvinist ideas, you hide behind the I love women bs.

 

Khayr,

As always, you’ve addressed the messenger but ignored the message.

 

I do accept that a woman cannot hold the position of khalif due to the fact that he has plays the role of spiritual guide of the Ummah – which a woman cannot hold… However, I stand by what I said with regards to women and political participation.

 

As for the presidency of Somali women, is Somalia not a doomed nation?

I remember Yusuf Estes touched on this hadith in a polygamy lecture and he said that the shame is not on the woman that leads this nation but the men who fail to fulfill their duties.

 

 

*My ADD has just kicked in, not interested in the topic anymore. Salaams.