can a woman be a leader according to quran?
-
The Holy Quran Concept of leadership with regard to gender
Any discussion of an Islamic point-of-view on a matter begins with a study of relevant verses (if any) from the Quran. Most Muslims consider the Quran the unaltered word of God as revealed to Prophet Mohammed in the seventh century of the Common Era. It is the primary source of Islamic jurisprudence, followed by the Prophet?s example or sunnah (a combination of biographies and compilations of records of his sayings and actions), the consensus of scholars, and derivation of law through analogy. Unlike the last two sources of jurisprudence, Quranic ordinances are binding on all Muslims, as is the Prophet?s Sunnah. We will therefore confine our discussion of the scriptural treatment of female leadership to the Quran and Sunnah.
Does the Quran designate women as the unconditional followers of men within the family and/or within society? Two Quranic verses seem to acknowledge men?s leadership over women
-
Men are in charge of women, because God has made some excel (faddala) some of the others .
-
And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness, and men are a degree above them .
Conservative Muslims frequently quote these verse to promulgate the view that a man is the head of the Muslim family and that a woman may never take charge of men. Syed Abul a?la Maududi, for example, extended the role of man as leader and woman as follower within the family to the public sphere. He upheld the translation ?Men are the managers of the affairs of women because God has made the one superior to the other? (cited in Wadud 71).
According to Amina Wadud, ?an individual scholar who considers faddala an unconditional preference of males over females does not restrict qiwamah to the family relationship but applies it to society at large. Men, the superior beings, are qawwamuna ala women, the dependent, inferior beings? (72). This view opposes any possibility of female leadership as it claims the Quran prefers men as leaders both within the family and within society.
On the other hand, fundamentalists such as Sayyid Qutb restrict the applicability of the verses to the family. Qutb upholds that as men provide for women, they earn the privilege of being in charge of women within the conjugal relationship. Even some modernists, such as Rafiq Zakaria, concede that men are the leaders within the family even though they argue women can be leaders at the same time. Scholars such as Qutb and Zakaria restrict the privilege of men over women to within the family as the preceding and following verses deal with conjugal relations and not with the status of each sex in society at large.
At the opposite end of the spectrum from Maududi, Amina Wadud rejects the idea that the Quran relegates women to an inferior position within the family or society in Quran and Woman. She analyzes the first verse as follows ?Men are women of what God has (faddala) some of them over others, and of what they spend of their property (for the support of women)? . She defines the more ?what? God has given to men as inheritance, the only thing of which God gives more to men in the Quran; she therefore interprets the verse to mean men must use their inheritance and earnings to tend to the needs of women as females play an indispensable and arduous role in assuring the continuation of the human species
The childbearing responsibility is of grave importance human existence depends upon it. This responsibility requires a great deal of physical strength, stamina, intelligence, and deep personal commitment. Yet, while this responsibility is so obvious and important, what is the responsibility of the male in this family and society at large? For simple balance and justice in creation, and to avoid oppression, his responsibility must be equally significant to the continuation of the human race. The Quran establishes his responsibility as qiwamah seeing to it that the woman is not burdened with additional responsibilities which jeopardize that primary demanding responsibility that only she can fulfil. Ideally, everything she needs to fulfil her primary responsibility comfortably should be supplied in society, by the male this means physical protection as well as material sustenance (73).
Therefore, the verse, according to Wadud, does not establish women as inferior to men or that men are the divinely designated leaders of women. It ordains men to fulfil responsibilities toward women who bear children and thereby should not be expected to work and support the family as well.
With regard to verse 2228, Wadud restricts it to the matter of divorce. The Quran allows men to divorce their wives without having to go to court whereas women have to seek the assistance of a judge. According to Wadud, this is necessary so that the judge can make sure the husband accepts the termination of the marriage without abusing the wife. Men therefore have to fulfill a greater financial responsibility toward women in return for the ease of initiating the divorce; they have a higher degree of financial responsibility toward women whereas a woman does not have to compensate a man if she initiates the divorce. For modernists such as Wadud, as women are not confined to being followers within the family, there is no prohibition against their assuming leadership roles within society.
Another verse occasionally used by conservatives warns against entrusting money to the ?foolish? which many companions of the Prophet interpreted as a reference to women as well as children ?Give not unto the foolish (what is in) your (keeping of their wealth), which Allah has given you to maintain? . If God has forbidden men to entrust their money to women, how can they even think of entrusting all of society to them? Al-Tabari, however, says that had God wished to denote women by ?foolish? he would have used the feminine plural form of foolish instead of the masculine or gender-neutral one (Mernissi 96). The use of this verse to prohibit female leadership exemplifies the range of evidence both sides bring to support their views.
With regard to such verses, the decision on whether or not women may lead men and women depends on whether a nation accepts the fundamentalist or modernist interpretation. Through present day, the conservative view has generally received wider acceptance. Given the possible limitation of verses 43 and 2228 to the conjugal relationship, does the Quran make any specific references to female leadership within society or a ?nation??
http//www.irfi.org/articles/articles_401_450/female_leadership_in_islam.htm
-
-
OK, now that I had my third cup of coffee, I took a look at the article you linked. http//www.smiliemania.de/smilie.php?smile_ID=3894
Wow ... what a collection of rubbish, lies and utterly mysogyinstic thinking.
There is a very clear implication in the divine choice of men, 124,000 times in all, and never even once a woman, as divinely-appointed Prophets and Messengers. This implication is further confirmed in the divine choice of the masculine gender (and not feminine) for pronouns that refer to ?Him?, even though ?He?, Allah, is neither male nor female. The names of angels are all masculine, even though they are neither male nor female.
http//img199.imageshack.us/img199/3949/scratching.gif
Why, we may ask ourselves, did Allah Most High choose only men as His Prophets and Messengers?
He writes a lot about this point in a desparate attempt to prove that their has never been a female prophet. But fact is, God says in the Qur'an that he sent messengers whose names we know and many whose names we don't know. So it is impossible to say whether they were all males or not.
Actually, even scholars differ on this issue. Many say that there has never been a female prophet, but there are also some who regard it as possible. Al-Andaluci wrote an interesting text about "nubuwa (prophethood) of women" more than 1000 years ago.
And why did Prophet Muhammad ordain two animals be sacrificed as thanksgiving for the birth of a baby boy, while only one was to be slaughtered for the birth of a baby girl.
This sounds like a pre-Islamic custom which found its way into hadith literature, rather than an order from the prophet.
Also, why did the Prophet order men occupy the front rows of the Masjid, while women were to occupy the back rows of the Masjid behind the men, hence making it impossible for a woman to ever lead the men in prayer?
I fail to see any logic behind this statement. Women praying in the back rows makes it impossible for women to lead men in prayer? How so?
The author seems to imply that the fact that women prayed in the back rows in the prophet's mosque means that men are not allowed to see a woman during their prayer because that will create fitna. This is a mysogynistic and perverted way of thinking, often used by traditionalists in order to justify banning women from doing all sorts of things. If we follow this thought further, the logical conclusion would be to tell women to cover themselves from head to toe with just one eye showing and not leave the house unless absolutely necessary. Which is exactly what the extremists have been doing.
http//img337.imageshack.us/img337/3135/iconconfused.gifLet us first dismiss the notion that men are intellectually, morally or spiritually superior to women.
Oh, wow, nice to read that after he's done his best to establish the supposed superiority of men over women. http//www.imagebanana.com/img/wg5lygwz/00008242.gif
Indeed he recognized the status of ?mother? to be thrice superior to that of ?father?, and declared that ?paradise lies beneath your mother?s feet?.
Ah, what a lovely hadith. And how nicely it reminds us of a Muslim woman's divinely ordained duty ? being a mother, and only a mother. Nurturing kids and taking care of the home and the family is the only thing a woman should strive to excel in. That's what she's been created for; while the men have been created to be leaders and go outside in order to earn money, do politics, make decisions etc.
Being a mother is the most important thing in a woman's life, and should she have other plans and aspirations, she is clearly misguided and the subject of influence by Western feminists and misguided ideas. A woman's place is in the home, and that's what she will earn respect and rewards for.
I love it how in pamphlets about "Islam and Women", they always stress how "women are respected as mothers, daughters, sisters, wifes", thus displaying a very strange attitude ? that a woman is only defined by those terms, always in relation to a man or family. Having aspirations outside of the domestic realm or striving for individuality, responsibility and power is not included in this definition.
Sure enough, in another article from the "women in Islam" section on the same site, we read
Since women have a basic function of bearing and rearing children it was necessary that they be freed of an obligation to earn their livelihood. Thus the Qur?an obliged men to maintain, as well as to guard and protect them, and, in turn, obliged a woman to be obedient to her husband or guardian.
...The Prophet prophesied 1400 years ago that women would ?? dress like men?. This is already manifesting in the modern feminist revolution. He also prophesied, ?? women would be dressed and yet be naked?, indicating that the feminist revolution would spawn a sexual revolution that would culminate with people committing ?? sexual intercourse in public like donkeys.
...?The sun rising from the West?, which is a major sign of the Last Day, appears to represent modern Western civilization's ?upside down? world in which, among many other things, women abandon their primary responsibility of rearing children in order to dress like men and go out to work full-time the way men do.
and here
When this philosophy of gender was applied to Muslim society the ?night? never attempted to become ?day?. Rather ?night? and ?day? eternally longed for each other. And so we were never subjected to the abominable phenomenon (that European civilization is now exporting to the rest of the world) of the ?day? mating with ?day? and vice-versa. Women in such a society not only fulfilled all their sacred functional duties as wives and as mothers, and thus contributed in a significant way to preservation of the health, strength and stability of the family, but, in addition, they preserved both their femininity as well as their fertility. And so the Muslim woman remained truly and enchantingly a woman! An age that produced the celibate priest had obstinately insisted that one had to turn away from woman in order to turn to God. Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah Most High be upon him) responded by declaring ?Three things have been made dear to me in this world of yours ? perfume, women and prayer.? And so Islam rejected both celibacy and the ?object? while recognizing woman, like prayer, to be a medium through which a man might journey to paradise.
Rather, the implication is clearly recorded in the declaration of Prophet Muhammad himself (peace and blessings of Allah Most High be upon him) when he learnt that the Persian people had chosen their Emperor?s as their new ruler. He declared ?No people would ever be successful who choose a woman to rule over them? (Bukhari, Nisai, Tirmidhi and Ahmad).
Ah, and of course here we have it ? the famous hadith. http//www.imagebanana.com/img/wg5lygwz/00008242.gif
-
peace abd,
I have no idea what you're referring to. The word is MLK which primarily means to control, and of course, control can imply a degree of mastery or ownership but that is an inference. What else have you got that substantiates this view? The rest of the story implies otherwise.
-
thanks for the replies!
leyna, good read - i'm just going through all the articles right now. i agree that imran hosein's "conclusion" in the originally posted article is baseless at best as it is preposterous to assume that solomon, a man of great wisdom, would wage war based on GENDER of a nation's leader. since hosein has nothing to support his claim with he resorts to adding his ideas in the brackets
(Solomon) said We shall see whether you speak the truth (concerning the rule of a woman over Saba, and their worship of the sun) or whether you are a liar.
i did my best writing as neutral OP as i could, but in reality this article got me boiling from the beginning voodoo ;D
-
leyna, good read - i'm just going through all the articles right now.
Hope I didn't spam your thread too much. peace But you caught me on a subject I've done a lot of thinking about. I've collected those texts over time since I find the texts that are usually found in mainstream literature about the subject quite frustrating.
since hosein has nothing to support his claim with he resorts to adding his ideas in the brackets
I noticed that too. )
This dude is lacking in logic, caught up in his narrow-minded view of the world, and he seems to hate people standing up for women's rights with a vengeance.
I love how he links "the feminist revolution" to people committing "sexual intercourse in public like donkeys."
http//www.imagebanana.com/img/wg5lygwz/00008242.gif http//www.imagebanana.com/img/wg5lygwz/00008242.gif http//www.imagebanana.com/img/wg5lygwz/00008242.gif
-
India?s largest and most influential madrasa recently issued a fatwa declaring that appointing a woman as a judge is near haram.
is there any such thing as 'near Haraam'?
-
Peace,
Respect.In UK, today, the prime minister is the leader and many other countries and the Queen here almost ha sno authority, I hear from people telling me that she is only a sa symbol and nothing else. I wonder hoe the message got lost. Queeen should be in charge, yes? Not Prime minister.
God know sbest.
Peace. -
Peace,
Respect.In UK, today, the prime minister is the leader and many other countries and the Queen here almost ha sno authority, I hear from people telling me that she is only a sa symbol and nothing else. I wonder hoe the message got lost. Queeen should be in charge, yes? Not Prime minister.
God know sbest.
Peace.In a constutional Monarchy the prime minister is in charge. EG- Thatcher
-
Peace,
Respect.In UK, today, the prime minister is the leader and many other countries and the Queen here almost ha sno authority, I hear from people telling me that she is only a sa symbol and nothing else. I wonder hoe the message got lost. Queeen should be in charge, yes? Not Prime minister.
God know sbest.
Peace.the Queen has no authority, years of inbreeding leading her to be born of royal blood isnt enough to give her right to rule, i'd say the same when/if prince charles becomes king too.
but as for women leading im all for it, i remember at my college islamic society women werent even allowed to talk, even if it was to ask a question let alone have any leading roles. how lame.
-
Goodmorning all
Forgive my ignorance, but is this the consensus of mainstream muslims? A woman cannot rule? I know female imams are like totally impossible it seems, but political rulers? Honest question here.
Because are they not putting themselves in a real pickle? hypothetical scenario; A muslim living in a secular state goes to vote in the election. He sees the Social Democrats want a system that looks after the sick and weak and not let a few get rich. The social democrats believe that, as a muslim, he has the right to practice his religion, they want to help minorities, they believe in equality etc. etc.
A lot of the social democratic philosophy is pretty much close to what he believes in as a muslim. So he wants to vote for them, but he can't....because the leader of the Social Democrat party is a WOMAN.
What is the scholaric ruling on that? Is he supposed to withdraw from the rest of society and not vote? What happens if the Social Democrats win the election? Is he supposed to just ignore the new political ruling because the leader is female, even though he agrees with what she is saying?
-
Emil he would be a fool if he voted against his beliefs.
Once upon a time women ruled in the Maldives..
Tell me something I don't know ;D
The question is hypothetical. Does mr Imram Hosein, born in Trinidad, object to the Prime Minister of Trinidad because she is a woman, even though he might believe she is good for his country? Does mr Imram Hosein's view of female leadership mirror the belief of mainstream muslims? I don't know, because I have never talked politics with a muslim before, hence my question.
-
Goodmorning all
Forgive my ignorance, but is this the consensus of mainstream muslims? A woman cannot rule? I know female imams are like totally impossible it seems, but political rulers? Honest question here.
Because are they not putting themselves in a real pickle? hypothetical scenario; A muslim living in a secular state goes to vote in the election. He sees the Social Democrats want a system that looks after the sick and weak and not let a few get rich. The social democrats believe that, as a muslim, he has the right to practice his religion, they want to help minorities, they believe in equality etc. etc.
A lot of the social democratic philosophy is pretty much close to what he believes in as a muslim. So he wants to vote for them, but he can't....because the leader of the Social Democrat party is a WOMAN.
What is the scholaric ruling on that? Is he supposed to withdraw from the rest of society and not vote? What happens if the Social Democrats win the election? Is he supposed to just ignore the new political ruling because the leader is female, even though he agrees with what she is saying?
Once upon a time I saw a imam riding a jenny
-
Tell me something I don't know ;D
The question is hypothetical. Does mr Imram Hosein, born in Trinidad, object to the Prime Minister of Trinidad because she is a woman, even though he might believe she is good for his country? Does mr Imram Hosein's view of female leadership mirror the belief of mainstream muslims? I don't know, because I have never talked politics with a muslim before, hence my question.
TBH only the Prime Minister of Trinidad could answer that. people can be prejudice which can cause them to be unjust but not necessarily it's all individual. You might do something that you hate for the benefit of others, or do something you love for your own selfishness. it depends on peoples values/beliefs and how strongly they hold to them.
Sorry I don't have the answer you want but to assume that no one will be bias and unjust is wrong and to assume that because a mainstream may prefer a male he won't vote for a women is also wrong. it's all individual and we'd be speculating if we had a concrete answer, unless of course they openly say so.
Aisha supposedly led an army regretfully, if people listened to her i'm sure women had some sort of power
Peace
-
As a side note, many people in the UK are under the mistaken impression that the Queen has no power.
Whilst this is true for the most part, what many do not know is that in rare cases when the prime minister or ministers want to push through controversial decrees they use archaic/ancient/royal law, "signed off" by the Queen, so they do not need to go through parliament and have an open discussion about it.
As unjust and undemocratic as that seems, it is 100% true and those educated about it know. The most despicable example of this in action is when they used it to throw people out of their homes/land in Chagos (now known as Diego Garcia) to make way for a US military base, see here
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order-in-Council
http//links.org.au/node/746If you live in the UK and this is the first time you are hearing about this, it's ok, many are unaware these archaic laws exist.
-
TBH only the Prime Minister of Trinidad could answer that. people can be prejudice which can cause them to be unjust but not necessarily it's all individual. You might do something that you hate for the benefit of others, or do something you love for your own selfishness. it depends on peoples values/beliefs and how strongly they hold to them.
Sorry I don't have the answer you want but to assume that no one will be bias and unjust is wrong and to assume that because a mainstream may prefer a male he won't vote for a women is also wrong. it's all individual and we'd be speculating if we had a concrete answer, unless of course they openly say so.
Aisha supposedly led an army regretfully, if people listened to her i'm sure women had some sort of power
Peace
I agree...It just baffled me. I always thought that non-fundamentalist countries see politics and religion as somewhat separate, otherwise women like Tansu ?iller, Benazir Bhutto and Megawati Sukarnoputri could never have been allowed to lead. I always thought that, according to mainstream muslims, a woman is not allowed in religious leadership, hence the very limitied amount of female imams. I thought this was a sure thing, but apparentaly it also extends to other kinds of leadership according to Imram Hosein. He may be very alone in his thoughts, but like I said, didn't know it existed at all outside the fundamentalist ways.
BTW, I cannot find anything in the Quran about women not allowed to lead, in any kind or sort. And using the queen of Sheeba as argument against female leadership is just tooo easy to rebute. Mr Hosein, nice try but sorry, I don't buy it.
