Can a women lead a congregational prayer with men and women mixed behind her?

Man_of_Faith

I think researchers have indicated females are better at marksmanship. It is involved in hunting.

Be safe
Amenuel

Bender

Bender,

When did I ever say that it was okay for men to rape women or to even think about that? Never. I never even mentioned rape. That was NEVER a part of anything I said, I never condoned it and I never included the idea of rape in anything that I said. At least Es actually addressed what I actually said.

Salaam

Hi,

When did I ever say that you said, it was okay for men to rape women or to even think about that?
It was just an extreme example, to make clear that we (men or women) must blame our shortcomings on our self and not on others.

If I can not control myself when there are women in front of me (no matter how they are covered or even not covered) then that's my weakness and I should try to control my weakness instead of blaming it to them.
What if women start to say that men can not lead a prayer because they get to excited when they see men in front of them?
We can go even further then this, I want everyone who is richer then me not show his/her property or otherwise I will steel it and it's not my fault that I steel.
And so I can make an endless list were I impose others to behave exactly how I want it.

Salaam,
Bender

huruf

Salam Huruf,

There is no ayat stating woman's role as a homemaker. Both sex can be a home maker. Both can work and at the same time share the burden of home mgt. The traditional role of a man is to provide because of biology whilst the traditional role of women is to manage household because of biology BUT both can hunt and provide and manage the home. What does a woman do if she is married and not a bread winner, and the husband assumes the role of the breadwinner and provides for her?
Q434. Maybe the word 'status' as I used is too general. But I cannot be precise, my weakness. maybe obligation is better.
Man's status/obligation is higher because man is entrusted to look after women by way of providing for women, but once women starts to provide for men isn't the status/obligation becomes null? Definitely the two sex are equal right? Women can always replace men (and vice versa) no question about it. The issue is with reversal of roles or sharing of roles, obligations and commitments also shifts. Thus women can't complain of being burden more now because obviously they would due to motherhood (on top of that sharing the role of provider and home mgt), whilst men being men can always evade fatherhood because biologically they are not constrained - but this would be lousy/bad example of men. Yes??

peace.

I think You are missing the whole point of what the Qur'an does. And you are confusing being mother with being homemaker. Women are physiologically enabled to become pregnant, deliver creatures and suckle, me are not. Women are physiollogically enabled to wash dishes and pans and iron clothes and clean, but so are men. Men are not one bit less able than women to do any of that, and if the pans are heavy even better enabled than most women. And in fact, historically, men have done all household chores. Till not very long ago, men were domestic servants doing all that. When I was in Egypt in fact there were still many being domestic servants. The women = homemaker does not come from biology but from bourgoisie and bourgeois middle class. High bourgeois had domestic servants. For lesser middle class bourgeois they assigned the woman as the house servant with a level. First class house servant, the wife, or the mother or the daughter.
And with the industrial revolution, work, which was usually done by craftsmen or craftswomen in their houses or in shops adjacent to their houses or very close by, enabling the whole family and the whole neaighbourhood to lead a life in common, work then, what is called productive work, become suddenly, and I would say brutally, cut off from family and neighbourhood life, creating a chasm for the poorest classes of society.
That "productive" "environment" is the one that has been imposed since then on all societies, breaking up families, not because women go to work but becaause the structure of production and labour was changed so that anybody working would be broken up from his or her family. And it has been so effectively implanted in all collective minds that now that structure seems as the only one posible or admisible, as if it was God imposed. And we have to put up with a lot of nonsense on how women working (women have alway worked and many times very heavily, but they have not always being paid) has destroyed the family? But the family was very effectively destroyed with the industrial revolution where men (then also women and children) were taken off their families.
The talk about hunting is ridiculous. Hunting is and was not an everyday job, not by any long stretch, and propably neither all the men went hunting nor all the women did not hunt; and there were many other jobs like gathering vegetal food which were as far as it seems carried out by women and which was obviously not done within the home but rather anywhere ad any distance from the home; and there were other things, like makig tools. But never mind, because now we are so far from that life that it makes no sense for such a thing to be brought up.
So much for the home making.
Forcing on women the choice ?either you stay home and serve us men ?homemaking? or you put up with doing everything and paying for everything inn the home and outside the home and taking care of the children?. (Although we do not know whether such men who put that dainty choice to the women still insist on being fathers of the children or not it does seem that they simply become another child to be maintained and brought up by the woman (wife I suppose we should understand) like all her other kids. I suppose the woman?s reaction to that should be to cry ??Please don?t, please don?t, I will be good, I will be good!?)
In fact, without being given any choice at all either with gun or without it, many women have had to do that, for the father as well as for the children or just for the children and that has happened even when women did not have any legal right to practically anything and not by their choice but by being left without ay choice.
I find it ashtonishing that that way of life which is so much boasted about of being islam is so happy with adopting the worst moral debacle of a civilisation which was the industrial revolution which enslaved first the countries where it happenned and then all the others. ?Oh yes, the pinacle of family life and human liberation!
Eat pig or die. That is more or less the kind of thing that is offerd to women in the scheme put forth by hanslan.
So now we are in the clear men who uphold that social structure inherited from the industrial revolution do not care that they are cut from their family provided they get good service by the ?wife? or the idiotess of the moment. Family is just good for breaking women aspirations and putting them in their place but for us men, please leave us in peace with our industrial revolution working conditions and working hours and the hours back and forth from work and all the external obligations of work because we are prima and happy, completely happy, with not seeing that much of the family.
Never mind that women are not pregnant or deliver or suckle children their whole life or that if they do not want to suckle they can do so and that even if they do all that and while they do it, it has never prevented them from working, and even working very hard and has never prevented them either from being exploited against their will with no family loving men coming to their rescue.
And all along, in this scheme of things, it seems that that is the only choice posible Women, all women, if they are truthful or loyal, must, either choose to be homemakers and treat husbands as a big child competing with the other children for attention and service (is it husbands only or is it any man?) or otherwise they must accept to be exploited in the home (having children and washing dishes and cleaning floors being one and the same thing) and being also exploited outside the home, while men are treated as spoilt useless invalids who if they do not go hunting are good for nothing.
Some speak about realism bu then come up with improvements o actual tyrany that leave one wondering what else can be imagined in order to make things more complicated than they already are.

I have known plenty of men who have worked (price of living in this age) outside but who were great fathers, who did not exppect to be served but themselves were always ready to serve the women and the children and any family member or neighbour. For them there was not such a thing as putting a gun to any person, least of all a woman, and tell them ?choose between bad and worse?. That was why they (the men) were there, to prevent that in their presence any such thing as abusing women or children or anybody occurred. Those men, those who do not demand but give and protect, those are the qawwamun, those are the ones that deserve respect and that, when they are dead, are remembered with tears and prayers, because they indeed were a pre-sight of paradise and I am sure that even in the intimacy of God they continue to pray to Him for us whom they left in the earth.
Salaam

Zulf

that's deluding yourselves to the biology of humans

My response "Exactly!" to the message of MoF meant that I agreed with him that if someone has so strong urges and bodily desires that it affects his mind to the degree that he cannot focus on the sermon, but instead focusses on the women, then such people should perhaps consider doing some work on themselves to at least reduce the influence of the flesh on them.

Is such a stand point the same as being deluded to the biology of human beings?

But I guess I'm under-estimating the animal instincts in human beings in general. I was surpirsed thought at your reaction. Anyhow.

either way this just sounds like feminist chauvinism, when the second post in the thread already responded rightfully and beautifully

it looks more like empty rebelling than anything like we typically see in the usa like how feminists want to use "she" when talking about god as an example

that's an issue of the english language, but still it's easy to see when there's feminist chauvinism in play

Hmm...

Zulf

Our biology isn't too dissimilar from animals, but supposedly we are more complex creatures with more advanced faculties which we are, apparently, supposed to engage.

Exactly.

When we are totally ruled by the flesh, we are worse than animals. Yes, indeed we have an "animal" part... our biology. It serves a purpose and is all natural. But letting the carnal part of us take over, we neglect the spiritual part, and our intellect. Animals are animals, but when we act like animals, we are actually worse than animals. This is when we have stuff like rape. Not even animals do that. Animals properly follow their instincts, but we can fall down to a level where free will combined with instincts becomes something very ugly.

So yes, not engaging the more advanced faculties... is something unfortunate.

Zulf

Peace all,

I think women can lead prayer. Suppose she is moderatly dressed (which is a relative concept) then there should be no issue of men losing focus. Even today many people witin the Protestant Church are against women priests, and this has absolutely nothing to do with dress or such.
Women and men are of course equally good or bad.
When discussion injustice against women, we should not assume this has anything to do with dress or bodies or attraction. How about unequal salaries for the same job? How about being verbally abused just because you are a woman? Is it feminie chauvinism or envy to wish to be treated with plain and simple decency and fairness?
The question is are we supposed to let our body/biology and emotions overrule our intellect? We even have a mind that contains destructive thought patterns/habits, but we can still overcomes them. It's hard work. Are we just going to give up and blame it all on biology? Then we are both lost and doomed.

Bender

Peace all,

I think women can lead prayer. Suppose she is moderatly dressed (which is a relative concept) then there should be no issue of men losing focus.

Hi,

I think every praying house (or house in general) must have it's rules clear for everyone. The owners are free to set up their own rules even if they are discriminating.
If in that house women are forbidden then the women must accept that instead of being rebellious, if they want a praying house with their rules then they should build a building and set the rules they like.
I can not go in my underwear to my work, they will not let me in, and I have to respect that. Most disco's will not let me in here in Holland, I have to respect that. Millionaire party is also out of question for me, I have to respect that. And in my house you have to take off your shoes in the hallway otherwise you are not allowed to enter the living room.

But of course in general a woman can lead a prayer.

savage_carrot

Most disco's will not let me in here in Holland, I have to respect that.
Because you can't dance? I can respect that.

Yosemite

Peace all,

I think women can lead prayer. Suppose she is moderatly dressed (which is a relative concept) then there should be no issue of men losing focus. Even today many people witin the Protestant Church are against women priests, and this has absolutely nothing to do with dress or such.
Women and men are of course equally good or bad.
When discussion injustice against women, we should not assume this has anything to do with dress or bodies or attraction. How about unequal salaries for the same job? How about being verbally abused just because you are a woman? Is it feminie chauvinism or envy to wish to be treated with plain and simple decency and fairness?
The question is are we supposed to let our body/biology and emotions overrule our intellect? We even have a mind that contains destructive thought patterns/habits, but we can still overcomes them. It's hard work. Are we just going to give up and blame it all on biology? Then we are both lost and doomed.

.0

the quran already lays out the foundations concerning all of that, we dont need feminism

it says in the quran dont insult each other, dont be mean to one another
it says dress moderately
it says dont commit criminal acts, dont oppress
it says be fair

when we start having a gynocentric or a man centric view on issues, we just end up wasting time, because the issues we talk about are already taken care of in a 1400 years old book, some say older

now i see people complain they are not free because they cant roam around naked without being criticized
not here, but on the internet

whatever goes beyond the simple rules of the quran that applies to everyone (yes dressing modestly also applies to women and it is verily possible to gauge what modest clothing is - one just has to look at modern separate class experiment where all boys and all girl classes each perform better than mixed classes)

it's time we stopped viewing women as eternal victims especially because someone like me would tell a woman dressed half naked that she is not dressed modestly

if a handsome man dresses the same way women leer at him just as much
most men i see outside dress very modestly and loose, most women wear tight clothes

i keep seeing women complain about men having peeks, you cant expect to change the biology of men unless you pump them full of estrogens

Bender

Because you can't dance? I can respect that.

I never had the chance to show my moves >(

Bender