Can a women lead a congregational prayer with men and women mixed behind her?
-
Topic Can a women lead a congregational prayer with men and women mixed behind her?
Good questionWe cannot forbid what Allah has not forbidden. If something is explicitly forbidden
the Quran would state so. Therefore as per my understanding and to never have
found such a prohibition, a woman can lead the prayer and the congregation
can be mixed. We should not confuse culture and tradition with Islam.peace
-
I am not a sexist. However, I agree with you As-Salaatayn......NO OFFENCE SISTERS... ;D
Q;0343 - O Maryam, be devoutly obedient to your LORD and PROSTRATE and KNEEL WITH THOSE WHO KNEEL.
Was Maryam told to prostrate and kneel with those who lead the congregational prayer or was she told to lead the congregational prayer with men and women mixed behind her?
If it was the latter than why is she not leading the Israelites but her son considering the fact that she receives the message and not her son?
The Quran confirms....Salam
She wasn't told perform any gymnastics to begin with. It defies logic that being "obedient" to the Rabb means to perform repetitive physical movements. With that illogical interpretation, paralyzed and physically deformed individuals are the most disobedient to the Rabb since they do not perform those physical movements.
-
peace all,
Anwar,
I like to prove things as per Quran, hence my queries. My preference is to consider all options then opt for the strongest, based on the evidence. Not claim (or imply) there is only possible answer without citing any evidence.Huruf,
Thanks for the example of 421. I think that does show "ba3dh" could refer to female only.It seems to me it is a phrase which simply means "one/some over another", and it sometimes can refer to one or two distinct groups, but always a subsection of whomever is being discussed. In some examples in Quran, it does seem difficult to translate "ba3dh" as "each one" hence in the phrase "each one over another" as "each one" implies all of that group. It just doesn't fit. In fact when "ba3dh" is used on its own it frequently means "part", i.e. some.
Thus, the theoretical possibilities seem to be
434
"... some (of) them (men) over another (men)..."
"... some (of) them (men) over another (men/women)..."
"... each (of) them (men) over another (women)..."But I guess it doesn't really matter which one we choose, as Quran clarifies the scope of the "qawwamoon" (supporter/maintainer) role.
-
Peace,
It is good that we have gone through this but I would still like to know why the question of leading prayer is even relevant, when the Quran DOES NOT state that prayer should be led in the first place! Once we know that, we know that the question hides true intent! A hunger for power and prestige, and envy of men.
Salaam.
-
, and envy of men.
... or perhaps it is about being fed up with men systematically subduing and trodding on women.
Rather, men are unconsciously feeling insecure and therefore have to push women down.
Claiming women are envious just indicates ignorance about reality.And this is not just about religion.
Cheers
-
... or perhaps it is about being fed up with men systematically subduing and trodding on women.
Rather, men are unconsciously feeling insecure and therefore have to push women down.
Claiming women are envious just indicates ignorance about reality.And this is not just about religion.
Cheers
You got it.
Salaam
-
... or perhaps it is about being fed up with men systematically subduing and trodding on women.
Rather, men are unconsciously feeling insecure and therefore have to push women down.
Claiming women are envious just indicates ignorance about reality.And this is not just about religion.
Cheers
Uh...some men ) but I get your point handshake
-
Uh...some men but I get your point handshake
Yes, Hawk, some men. And it is sad, because rather than envy
that type of men evoke pity for being so childish that they need to be alloted some "protagonism" in order to feel ackknowledged. There was a time when that kind of thing was accepted and women were ready to feign that acknowledgement, since anyway women were disadvantaged before the law and feigninnggave them fewer problems than not faeigning and they could manage the men better that way.Today however it is different and I personally find that faking and acknowledgement you do not feel is rather insulting for the person being humoured that way.
I would not like to be given that treatment.
Salaam
-
She wasn't told perform any gymnastics to begin with. It defies logic that being "obedient" to the Rabb means to perform repetitive physical movements.
What repetitive movement? Its a continuous movement - KNEEL AND THAN PROSTRATE AND THATS IT, crosse reference with 04102
With that illogical interpretation, paralyzed and physically deformed individuals are the most disobedient to the Rabb since they do not perform those physical movements.
So what is the correct interpretation? Enlighten me please.
-
Too many, too easily...
True, One of the major problems among our ummah is the oppression
of women, the seriousness of this crime cannot be overstated. We
will not receive the blessings from Allah as a community until we cease
subjugating the believers (women) because oppression is worst than death.Our problem (men) is far more serious than any individual because we suffer
yes suffer from a collective cultural traditionalist revolt again Quran Kareem
Where Allah has not instructed our misogynistic behavior but we cling to "our
fathers did it this way" way of thinking. Not intending to be redundant@ Bender
Heartwarming and encouraging thanks
peace
-
nope
The Eve inclination is real and so is White-knighting. Adam fell because he willfully and gladly went along with Eve. So, both fell and continue to fall. None of you will change the fact of this. You can only realize your roles and play them as best as you can.
Salaam.
-
I think this is my last post in this thread and this what I have to say
Women are a protected class in all societies. The fact that women without family ties and familial protections are taken advantage of as equally as vulnerable men and that people see that as oppression of women while ignoring the plight of males proves that.
There is an important fact that you guys can double check, and then I will do my best to cease this futile conversation. More males are born in the world than females, yet there are more females in the world alive than males. Why? Because men bear the brunt of oppression, dangerous lives, deep poverty and economic exploitation to protect the women in their lives. Hence, they die at a much higher rate than women despite being born more. And women expect us to bend over backwards for them in all ways and we gladly do it in spite of reality and even what God wants from us. And this attitude continues even among the males in forums like these who, through studying Allah's word and being thinking beings, should know better. I'm done. For me, they can take that bottomless pit of ambition and envy of what they see as the strength and power of men with their simultaneous cries of being protected at all costs somewhere else. Maybe if I were 16 and hadn't lived life I would believe it. In fact, I did believe it at one time. Now, that I know better what I do know is that we all have roles to play, as genders and as individuals, to serve Allah and better humanity, let's play them with humility and sacrifice.
Sorry for the harsh dose of what I see as reality. If i am mistaken may Allah guide me and forgive me.
Salaam -
In fact the birth ratio male versus female is quite even, al-salataayn.
And both have their strengths and weaknesses and it is best that man and woman get together and become as one body. It is wisest to have two leaders; one man and one woman for every position, one king and one queen, so to say. Women can come with input which men have difficulty to bring forth and the same with men.
If it is not like this then the society is either patriarchal or matriarchal. It is usually patriarchal as men can easily oppress. But this is not beneficial to them. It will hamper spiritual development.
The bodily programming may be aligned so that the male is dominant, but this is misleading and he must follow his spiritual calling. It is a matter of not being the beast.
Be safe
Amenuel -
, let's play them with humility and sacrifice.
The problem is when the roles include misogynism and bullying. This is what we are getting at. I don't understand why some men start bringing up "different roles" when women complain about being bullied. Of course men and women have different roles. But if someone thinks that the role of women includes being bullied, then think again. It is typically religious people who assume a defensive position when this topic comes up. Actually, such men have nothing to add, and are usually weaker in society than most women. Therefor they insist the women should be kept under lock and key, bullied, and stripped of any fair opportunities to serve society... and under the excuse of "different roles". Well, this is not at all about different roles. Let's not change the topic.
-
Regarding different roles.
It seems that men generally have had external roles. Kill the deer. Fetch the fish. Defend against intruder.
All due to physical strength.Women are able to give birth. In this ability lies tremendous value. For a man to be valuable, he must do all sorts of material and external things.
To feel of value, women only need to give birth and raise the children. This is of utmost importance to society. To feel of value, men on the other hand, have to work, since there is no other way to serve.
One can imagine that when men see that women start taking on duties that men traditionally did, they start feeling insecure (unconsciously ofcourse). Perhaps they feel they've lost their Unique Selling Point. Hence the defensive and conservative attitude. This is also when Holy Books are brought into the picture to justify conservative practices. No, God didn't instruct us that women should be bullied and given less salary for the same job.
-
The Qur'an does not give roles to any body save for the function-role of men to take care and suport women as a balance for a free-of the-burden-of-reproduction existence that they have.
The Qur'an is that marvelous revelation where there is a gift given to men and women equally, which is freedom, freedom from roles (save for the natural reroductive function of women and the natural in the fitra and as comand given to men of support and care for women. Other than that every person, man or woman is free to live her or his live as he or she chooses. If a man wants to take care of children, he is free to do so, damned what others may think. In fact many of us have very dear memories of being pampered by a father or a grand father who enjoyed taking care of children and taking them places and making a joyous world for them. If a woman wants to pursue any interests whatever, she is free to do so. All are free, and all are free to arrange their family life as best suit them. They owe no explanation nor lip service or other service to custom or prejudice.
Women's work is no novelty. Women have always worked, the point was that they were kept in those jobs which were not "important" or well paid and were forbidden by law or custom to do most or all well paid jobs.
The question is not who works as what, but the freedom and the justice. It is obscene when all the world is open to the males without question while traps and obstacles and prohibitions are branded out generously on women as if they were the collective property of the male predator State or the male predator family. And I say redor because the good me would have no part in such violence against their partners in humanity.
No decent and self-respected men I know have ever wanted to curtail women's freedom or to make them subservient to any other human being, least of all themselves. They would cringe at such a thing. That is the chivalrous fitra which one may see in many men of any social class, who willingly and seemingly without effort are ever ready to help women, for goodness sake without wanting reward.
The trouble is that it has not been those men, good men, the ones who have had the laws and the power at their service but rather the unmanly predator kind. And it is so even today, where nt goodness but worldly success and power is worshipped above all, success and power which tramples on whoever and whatever that is today the measure of everything. That is the moral enemy of human kind today not feminism or the women and men being free.
It is disgusting and a slander that when speaking about men, some men (and women) make a block of them as if all men were equal. They are not. I will say it again, there have always been men, very decent men, who have not exacted payment from women or from anybody for being generous and good, who have respected and supported their women and the women in general without pretending to dictate to them or to receive obedience from them. I think we all know of people of every social class where couples are in a cordial and spontaneous relationship, where they joke, work together joyfully and even dispute without qualms or fear of breaking anything, when they feel like it.
There is plenty of literature that reflects that kind of comradeship without delusions or complications that is typical of popular classes when they are good people. That is what I have known as a child and what there is still amongst, I would say, most people.
Yes, I resent very much that some men (and women) come around picturing men as if they were a block that is threatened by women or feminism or whatever. There is no such a thing. There are men who are so low on self-esteem that their egos get undone if they do not get themselves some higher up position than others, half humanity, for istance, like women, or get the allegiance of other men by pandering to their lack of self-esteem propounding ideologies that suppress women's fredom. In fact that suppress also their own freedom,but since they have somebody underneath the feel compensated.
I pity those men, and I find it difficult to respect them as such men. I respect them as I respect any person no matter what, but as men I cannot. I have seen too many good, unassuming and self-assured men in my life to be doped with pretenders.
Salaam
-
Peace all,
After reading most of the inputs in this thread, I feel that the scope of the original question could be narrowed to "Can a woman LEAD a community of men and women?", in order to make the discussion easier.
Historically, most of the leaders were men (or males) simply because of their physical advantage over the other men firstly, and over the women by default. It is the rule of the jungle, where the stronger dominates the weaker.
Then with the advance of language and knowledge, the rules of the game changed a little bit, as also the smarter, even if weaker physically than others, could make a room for himself in this power game; the smarter (think of chamans, priests, magicians, scientists...) could make the stronger work for his own benefit, abusing the weakers and making them their subservient unjustly.
Then with material wealth, the rules of the game changed again as the wealthier could overcome the stronger and the smarter in the attempt to dominate the community.
Most of Men and Women can be equally victims when facing an unjust person, at the condition that this unjust person can effectively harm either physically or by other means the victim. Generally, the victims are weaker than the offenders.
All the above is to say that I think that the matter is not about genders, but it is more about caring about the weakers in the community and not abusing them because of their weaknesses, be them children, oldies, men, women, sick people...
A men abusing his wife will not see any problem abusing any other weaker person, male or female, that he feels he can overcome. The same can be said regarding A woman abusing her husband or any other weaker person.
Now to the question of LEADING, or being a Leader, I think that this position has to be earned in some way so that the community can have such a trust (or fear) as to appoint the wanna-be-leader as a leader, be it male or female. In history and even nowadays, some women could also impose respect and even fear among their communities, due to their wealth, affiliation, smartness... (physical power ? muscle hmm ).
On the other hand, we feel almost no remorse when we are restricting the freedom of our children with the justification that we fear for them that they may be harmed; this is accepted generally, but it is true until what point? Until WE feel as parents that the kids can handle it by their own. But, the same can be said regarding leaders when they make laws restricting freedoms of the population, or when a husband is restricting the freedoms of his wife or family, in order to protect them of a bigger harm. It all comes to the intentions and not being tempted to take advantage from this leading position. Also in some cases, it can be imposed on us by the circumstances that we have to take the role of the leader, like when a father dies and the older kid gets on himself/herself to help the mother to care about the youngers. It is not always easy when you are a leader; Even a dictator cannot have an easy life as he is always trying to forcefully defend this position in order that he may keep it, until he gets overthrown or dead.
Balance is a key. But as long as the feeling of "I am better than him/her" exists, there will always be abusers and victims, both males and females.
Salam
