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

Study

Study,

You were within your rights to post that video. This is what many here want Islamic practice to look like. As long as they are wearing clothing somehow that is modest enough.

Salaam.

With full respect, I believe not.
One outward mistake does not mean that they are bad people, we may have tons of inward mistakes.
Who are we to point at others? I believe that criticism should occur through a mirror and not through a monocular.

I still use the term mistake because I find Man of Faith's "your soul is the real you" idea to be true. Our body is just a container. And these girls look like they've had operations to gain the look that they desire, which I find kills the real you (soul) by putting layers of lies over yourself.

Hi Study,

Even if you take sallaat= "contact prayer (traditional way)" then you still have to read the sentence as an enumeration.
2238.......AND..........AND..........
fearful to do a "contact prayer"???

I feel stupid for asking, but, what do you mean with enumeration?
And the fearful part, the way I understood means if you're being attacked or something alike. Hop on your horses and make a run for the threat ;D

For me that part shows that "usually" you don't walk/run while praying and thought that meant you have a certain action which you need to do.
But now that I think about it, it could also mean "usually" you sit, or stand, or lie, who knows, it simply excludes moving.

RED How does one clean himself spiritually for a contact prayer?

I meant
"O you who believe, when you rise to observe the Salat, you shall wash your faces and your arms to the elbows, and wipe your heads and your feet to the ankles." 56

It's often argued in mainstream islam that the purpose of wudu is cleansing oneself physically.
I believe it to be spiritually. In verse 56 "taharah" is used.

"The angels said, "O Mary, God has chosen you and 'tahharik', and He has chosen you over the women of all the people." 342
God didn't wash Mary. God purified her.

"Take from their money a charity to 'tuttaherahum' and sanctify them." 9103
Donation purifies the believers, it doesn't wash them.

"Those are the ones whose hearts God did not want to 'yuttahhir'. They shall have humiliation in this world, and in the Hereafter they shall have a great punishment." 541

So as a conclusion I take that the purpose of 56 (wudu) is spiritual cleansing.
Another argument being
"If you are ill or travelling, or if any of you has come from the toilet, or had sexual contact with the women, and you could not find water, you shall observe Tayammum by means of wiping your faces and hands with clean dry soil." 443

Doing so tests our will. Will we go through the trouble of doing something so basic or will we give in to our ego and be lazy.

For those who don't perform physical salat, my question is do they do 56 as well? And how would you call it if not spiritual cleansing?

BLUE no it does not say to "rise" to hold the sallaat but it says "IF YOU RISE to hold the sallaat."
Anyways, the verse begins like this (in your translation) "O you who believe, if you rise to hold the contact prayer, THEN ..."
aren't the actions what follow the things to do for sallaat? instead of doing them before the sallaat?

Good argument.

And if I have no legs?

Then you simply follow another religion

I thought that the "But if you are fearful, then you may do so while walking or riding" implies that God does not require us to do the movements, it's the intention that counts. God knows our intentions/what's in our hearts and holds us responsible therefore. 2225 463

RED The translation is already very questionable don't make it worse with extra brackets.
If you want my advice try to investigate the word sallaat again but this time without any fixed interpretation.
Salaam,
Bender

The extra brackets were to imply my understanding so that my intentions came across.
I agree when you say that I have to invest time in the word sallaat.
peace
Be well.

Yosemite

Hi,

Did your Islamic practice teach you to post a youtube film with a woman of whom you can see half of her nipples?

is a word worse than an actual act that happened? does talking about the action make someone worse than the person who actually performed the action?

when people say "modest clothing is subjective", the door is open to 100 interpretations
pretty much how sects in Islam sprung up, from people who thought the rules and system laid out in the quran were to be associated with the prophet through hadiths and what not

is there a hundred ways to shoot someone in the head with a gun other than pulling the trigger and aiming the gun at the head? or can we say this is subjective as well and cannot be deterministic?

As-Salaatayn

Bender,

It doesn't surprise me that this is the route you took. Of course I am to blame...of course. That's called trolling and it is pretty much the same logic you and other feminists here have been using. Have fun with that! nope SMH

Salam

reel

Umm, I forgot to mention that couple of weeks ago, I came across one FB post which had something serious to say about congressional prayer. It was from a Quran follower to a hadither. He pointed out that during such prayer, a person prostrates to the rear end of the person in front of him.

http//media.web.britannica.com/eb-media/02/92802-004-860DE3FD.jpg

Study

Umm, I forgot to mention that couple of weeks ago, I came across one FB post which had something serious to say about congressional prayer. It was from a Quran follower to a hadither. He pointed out that during such prayer, a person prostrates to the rear end of the person in front of him.

http//media.web.britannica.com/eb-media/02/92802-004-860DE3FD.jpg

Well, your signature is a lie. Incorrect is not your password. nope

If you take a look at the left side of that picture you can clearly see a person sitting in a wheelchair praying as well.
Even if I do end up not performing physical salat, (hopefully) I won't are judge other people.
I find it simply rude and offensive. Just imagine them turning out to be correct and them prostating being part of the salat.
How would I face God? I made fun of them for doing something which you ordered them to do?

Be well. peace

Bender

I feel stupid for asking, but, what do you mean with enumeration?

Hi,

Probably it's my fault, maybe I used the wrong English word.

The last part of the verse is not an inclusion of one of the 2 actions before it, it's also an action.

And the fearful part, the way I understood means if you're being attacked or something alike. Hop on your horses and make a run for the threat ;D

I am glad you see the humor in it, does it make any sense to you?

For me that part shows that "usually" you don't walk/run while praying and thought that meant you have a certain action which you need to do.
But now that I think about it, it could also mean "usually" you sit, or stand, or lie, who knows, it simply excludes moving.

RED Like what?
BLUE It could also mean something else.

I meant
"O you who believe, when you rise to observe the Salat, you shall wash your faces and your arms to the elbows, and wipe your heads and your feet to the ankles." 56

It's often argued in mainstream islam that the purpose of wudu is cleansing oneself physically.
I believe it to be spiritually. In verse 56 "taharah" is used.

"The angels said, "O Mary, God has chosen you and 'tahharik', and He has chosen you over the women of all the people." 342
God didn't wash Mary. God purified her.

I understood what you meant. But the question stays the same, how do I do a spiritual cleaning before the prayer. Remember I am not Mary, I have to do this myself, so how should I spiritually clean myself before I pray?

"Take from their money a charity to 'tuttaherahum' and sanctify them." 9103
Donation purifies the believers, it doesn't wash them.

I have to do a donation before I pray?

"Those are the ones whose hearts God did not want to 'yuttahhir'. They shall have humiliation in this world, and in the Hereafter they shall have a great punishment." 541

So as a conclusion I take that the purpose of 56 (wudu) is spiritual cleansing.

RED Why did you not follow my advice >( NEVER conclude something, just take it as the best option you have so far.

Another argument being
"If you are ill or travelling, or if any of you has come from the toilet, or had sexual contact with the women, and you could not find water, you shall observe Tayammum by means of wiping your faces and hands with clean dry soil." 443

Doing so tests our will. Will we go through the trouble of doing something so basic or will we give in to our ego and be lazy.

For those who don't perform physical salat, my question is do they do 56 as well?

Ever thought that maybe sallaat does not mean prayer?

I believe every mumeen who gives importance to sallaat does 56 by instinct even if he/she never read the quran.

And how would you call it if not spiritual cleansing?

I don't think there is any cleansing (spiritually or physically) in 56, so I can not really answer this question.

Good argument.
Then you simply follow another religion

Yes I follow my religion

I thought that the "But if you are fearful, then you may do so while walking or riding" implies that God does not require us to do the movements, it's the intention that counts. God knows our intentions/what's in our hearts and holds us responsible therefore. 2225 463

If God does not require the movements when we are fearfull then why does He require them when we are not fearful?

The extra brackets were to imply my understanding so that my intentions came across. I agree when you say that I have to invest time in the word sallaat.

Yes I know.
Just an advice, never read what is in the brackets of translations, it was not hard for the author of the quran to put brackets if he wanted it.

peace
Be well.

salaam,
Bender

Bender

is a word worse than an actual act that happened? does talking about the action make someone worse than the person who actually performed the action?

Hi,

It was not only talking. The act that happened is that he posted a youtube film of a woman of whom you can see half of her nipples.
Maybe I am a little bit old fashioned but I think it was not such a good idea.

when people say "modest clothing is subjective", the door is open to 100 interpretations

yes and it's not my business how one clothes him/herself.

pretty much how sects in Islam sprung up, from people who thought the rules and system laid out in the quran were to be associated with the prophet through hadiths and what not
is there a hundred ways to shoot someone in the head with a gun other than pulling the trigger and aiming the gun at the head? or can we say this is subjective as well and cannot be deterministic?

shooting some one in the head is totally different from shooting your own head.
Those who shoot themselves are shooting themselves, if you can not understand this then there is not much to discuss with me.
If they are are forcing you to dress beyond what you think is modest then that's a other thing, then you have the right to fight for your rights and I will offer you my help if I can help in some way.

Bender

Bender,

It doesn't surprise me that this is the route you took. Of course I am to blame...of course. That's called trolling and it is pretty much the same logic you and other feminists here have been using. Have fun with that! nope SMH

Salam

Hi,

I blame you only for posting nudity (of course my definition of nudity).

And I am not a feminist, so please do not call me that.

As-Salaatayn

Peace,

You tell me not to call you something, then you accuse me of posting nudity, according to "YOUR" standards of nudity. As if your couching changes your accusation. Aside from the fact that you are WAAY off topic and trying to pretend that my intention was to post nudity, now you resort to accusations instead of sticking to the topic. Is this a joke? Is this the type of people attracted to Quranism??...No wonder Quranists are in a state of disarray and have no sense of morality. No wonder Quranism attracts female chauvinists and libertines, linguistic liars and every class of libertine seeking liberal and intangible religion who seek to reinterpret an ancient book and hoodwink those who are unaware. I thought we would be the best of the best when I came to Quranism. Now, I am starting to see. The proof is always in the pudding. Jaa' al-haqqu wa zahaqal-baatila innal-baatila kaana zahooqan !!!

As much as I love the Quran and the idea of only following the Qur'an, I think the verdict is in. And it is apparent in ALL of the Quranic spaces I have been in. Quranism has no moral teeth and no ability to bring its own ummah together. Quranists have NO real commitment to studying, living and understanding the Quran and its language. They actually see religion as barbaric and backwards, which is quite ironic.

There is something in this way that causes severe weakness in faith. I think that through the rejection of all traditional islamic sciences, even those that are in line with the Quran, there is an indirect rejection of the prophet Muhammad (saas) while attempting to usurp the book that he gave us from God. It is an attempt to separate God from his messenger (saas). This is why Quranists hate to say Ash-hadu anna muhammadarrasoolullahi. This is why they hate to wish blessings and peace on Muhammad (saas) even when the Quran tells us to do this. This is obvious in the way Quranist go about all of this. They revel in the fact that the Quran associates this part of the shahaadah with the hypocrites and despise the fact that the Quran says that the believers bore witness that Muhammad (saas) was true! It is an attempt to disown all of his original and true followers and any knowledge that can be attributed to them.

I see Quranists as a demographic of people who try to take advantage of what they see as ambiguity in the Quran, and who even try to create ambiguity where there is none to please non-Muslims. I am not okay with this.

May Allah guide me to the right path. I am really wondering if Quranists are on the right path. I have been on this path for 15 years now and
I am seriously starting to doubt this path. May Allah guide those who seek Him.

Salaam

Study

There is no such a thing as a quranist's perspective. The Quran is nothing more than a book, even if send down by God. It's still a book. With sentences, words and letters. So obviously there are going to be many interpretations. It's up to you to choose what interpretation makes sense. If your choice is going to be influenced by your earthly desire then you will be held responsible for it yourself.
And just to make one thing clear. We are responsible for ourselves at the end. Every single person, as an individual. So why label people as a mass? Saying that "quranists" do/are x/y.

And with just a book I mean, it doesn't contain videos or any kind of magic power, it isn't going to shine and letters fly out of the book at night going into the heaven alongside stars shining brightly.

And I believe that prophet muhammad wrote the Quran himself, even if this is an unpopular opinion. And I still don't say his name when saying eshedu en la illaha illalahu.

If we want to imitate the prophet then why not imitate the way he did that as well. Or would do you believe that the prophet said
And I am his abduhu and rasullulah?

I believe there to be multiple ways into heaven Quran is just one of them.
The core message is one god.

Bender

Peace,

You tell me not to call you something,

Hi,

Yes please, I know what I am and I am not a feminist.
But if you insist calling me a feminist then go ahead, I will survive, it was just a kind request.

then you accuse me of posting nudity, according to "YOUR" standards of nudity.As if your couching changes your accusation.

Yes correct, to my standards.

Aside from the fact that you are WAAY off topic

yes correct, this will be my last off topic post in this topic.

and trying to pretend that my intention was to post nudity,

not true, I do not know what your intentions are but I know that you posted nudity (my definition of nudity).

now you resort to accusations instead of sticking to the topic.

Yes true, every now and when I see something that goes beyond my moralities then I can go off topic and sometimes I even accuse someone, it's in my nature.

Is this a joke? Is this the type of people attracted to Quranism??...No wonder Quranists are in a state of disarray and have no sense of morality. No wonder Quranism attracts female chauvinists and libertines, linguistic liars and every class of libertine seeking liberal and intangible religion who seek to reinterpret an ancient book and hoodwink those who are unaware.

I am not a quranist.

Blue who was the one who posted the youtube film, you or me?
So what should we do with you, how many slashes for posting nudity, I am almost sure that posting nudity in your religion is not done and deserves a punishment.

I thought we would be the best of the best when I came to Quranism. Now, I am starting to see. The proof is always in the pudding. Jaa' al-haqqu wa zahaqal-baatila innal-baatila kaana zahooqan !!!

No quranism is just a sect, probably one of the betters sects but still a sect

As much as I love the Quran and the idea of only following the Qur'an, I think the verdict is in. And it is apparent in ALL of the Quranic spaces I have been in. Quranism has no moral teeth and no ability to bring its own ummah together. Quranists have NO real commitment to studying, living and understanding the Quran and its language. They actually see religion as barbaric and backwards, which is quite ironic.

Green I do those things because it's one of my hobbies and because I think I can learn a lot from it, but you are correct that it's not a commitment for me.

There is something in this way that causes severe weakness in faith.

I think that through the rejection of all traditional islamic sciences, even those that are in line with the Quran, there is an indirect rejection of the prophet Muhammad (saas) while attempting to usurp the book that he gave us from God. It is an attempt to separate God from his messenger (saas).

Allah and His messenger are separated.

This is why Quranists hate to say Ash-hadu anna muhammadarrasoolullahi.
This is why they hate to wish blessings and peace on Muhammad (saas) even when the Quran tells us to do this.
This is obvious in the way Quranist go about all of this. They revel in the fact that the Quran associates this part of the shahaadah with the hypocrites and despise the fact that the Quran says that the believers bore witness that Muhammad (saas) was true! It is an attempt to disown all of his original and true followers and any knowledge that can be attributed to them.
I see Quranists as a demographic of people who try to take advantage of what they see as ambiguity in the Quran, and who even try to create ambiguity where there is none to please non-Muslims. I am not okay with this.

First thing I think of in the morning is what should I do today to please non-muslims. I feel always very bad when a day goes by and I did not please a non-muslim.

May Allah guide me to the right path. I am really wondering if Quranists are on the right path. I have been on this path for 15 years now and
I am seriously starting to doubt this path. May Allah guide those who seek Him.

Salaam

Salaam,
Bender

As-Salaatayn

Bender,

I do those things because it's one of my hobbies and because I think I can learn a lot from it, but you are correct that it's not a commitment for me.

Enough said. Thanks for clarifying in an honest way. I don't think you are the only one in Quranist circles who has no real commitment to the Quran and for whom its study is just a hobby, whether they admit to it honestly or not. Again, thanks for being honest. Peace.

Salaam

As-Salaatayn

https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-trNuWBJz0

reel

Well, your signature is a lie. Incorrect is not your password. nope

D

If you take a look at the left side of that picture you can clearly see a person sitting in a wheelchair praying as well.
Even if I do end up not performing physical salat, (hopefully) I won't are judge other people.
I find it simply rude and offensive. Just imagine them turning out to be correct and them prostating being part of the salat.
How would I face God? I made fun of them for doing something which you ordered them to do?

Be well. peace

Yes, the man is using the opinion of the scholar for it. I can imagine that intention is what gets counted.

Man_of_Faith

Al-salataayn,

Please prove to me about wishing some kind of blessing upon Muhammad. Do you think think he is not blessed and peaceful enough already?

I do not buy the translation using salawa so you have to linguistically prove to me how it can add up and that is indeed hard for you except echoing something someone else once claimed.

Now I understand why you are so hostile because you have the typical sectarian mind, a mind that cannot critically reflect upon anything due to a dogma about an individual called Satan and such doctrine. If you were able, then you would quite fast see the inconsistency with how the ancient Arabic was/is deciphered.

Zulf

Just to make sure I got this right, you're saying that the physical movements standing, bowing and prostrating. Are not Quranic?
Please explain, why does the Quran mention these movements? Metaphorical?

This is the wrong thread for that.

If insted of such long crusades for women clothing, menn who indulge in them did their "own" crusade for men's self-control they would be better served.

Indeed.

Also I would like to add The dress of women, and what's going on in the mind of men, are two different things.
This absolutely most important thing for anyone, is to manage ones own mind. If one let's ones own mind run amok, then this will often end up in bad things in many different ways. Negative thoughts, indulgent thoughts, angry thought, victimhood thoughts etc etc, are all detremental. If someone cannot avoid thinking about sex when seeing women, then that person has ALOT of work to do in regard to his/her thought habits. The worst situation one can be in is when you fail to prune and shape your mind. When you're slave to your mind, you're slave to advertisement, media, gossip, emotions, hormones, memories... and your life will be an unpleasant roller coaster. In a sense, you will be insane... in a very, very common way.

In any case, blaming one's ideas, thoughts and mental pictures on someone else is the same a purchasing victimhood and slavery wholesale. In fact, If we don't realize that we need to watch our mind, and regulate it, and also go to work on it, then we'll simply drift in any direction the winds will take us.

The mind is just like the body, a tool to be used properly. Just like we need to keep the body in shape, the SAME is true for the mind. We need to weed our mind from devilish crop ups! These things crop up all the time... because we are human beings!

If a man walks passed a half naked woman, the state of his mind dictates what he will think and imagine. Her body is NOT the thing that creates thoughts in his minds. We are all solely responsible for our own minds. IF you cannot help but to imagine certain things, well, that's mental weakness... you're slave to your own mind. But we have power over our minds IF WE CHOOSE to.

... anyhow

As-Salaatayn

Man of Faith,

In the end the Quran tells us that conjecture is not the same as knowledge. Your way is the way of conjecture. I sincerely advise you to come to knowledge and not conjecture.

As for you calling me sectarian. You have got to be kidding me. nope SMH, give me a break!

Salam

Yosemite

Hi,

It was not only talking. The act that happened is that he posted a youtube film of a woman of whom you can see half of her nipples.
Maybe I am a little bit old fashioned but I think it was not such a good idea.
yes and it's not my business how one clothes him/herself.
shooting some one in the head is totally different from shooting your own head.
Those who shoot themselves are shooting themselves, if you can not understand this then there is not much to discuss with me.
If they are are forcing you to dress beyond what you think is modest then that's a other thing, then you have the right to fight for your rights and I will offer you my help if I can help in some way.

we build a society together, as a community, not as individuals

individuals form families and families form communities, i believe we can't remain silent if someone is trying to cause trouble in the lands, the mischief makers have to be kicked out remember? it's in the quran

i consider groups like femen, satanists, CIA and USAID and other such agencies, institutions like holywood, to be mischief makers

hanslan

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

Salam Huruf, I think you have mistook or expanded whatever I've written into something you believe I meant. I do believe biological constraints and inherent strengths in sexes leads to natural roles meant to be assumed, but whether it is equitably played out depends on the individuals. I also dislike the idea of taking men/women to be in-house servants in a private household because its like keeping slaves despite paying them as in most cases these people cannot have private lives.

My main point remains women can lead a congregational prayer - Quran does not prohibit it. I also believe due to sectarian tendencies, a woman led formal prayer will just be another sect among the many out there.

BUT to make it very clear, I do not believe in a formal congregational prayer currently practiced in the mosque especially Fridays thus this issue becomes irrelevant to me. I personally do not find supporting guidance from the Quran.

Nonetheless, a simple prayer saying thanks, requesting fortune and general protection in a private or public gathering/seminar/classroom/stadium/dining room/ restaurant/ etc led by anyone is fine.

Peace.

huruf

Salaam Hanslan,

You say

Salam Huruf, I think you have mistook or expanded whatever I've written into something you believe I meant. I do believe biological constraints and, but whether it is equitably played out depends on the individuals. I also dislike the idea of taking men/women to be in-house servants in a private household because its like keeping slaves despite paying them as in most cases these people cannot have private lives.

I still do not agree with "natural roles meant to be assumed" if you expand it beyond what is biologically determined or beyond what the Qur'an itself states.

As it is, the Qur'an does something marvellous from the point of view of human kind and is that it gives complete freedom to arrange the own lives with the least number of constraints possible. Any constraint imposed by men (or women) beyond what the Qur'an provides is overstepping God limits, God Who has so wisely formulated everything concerning us in such a way that we have a very wide room to lead fruitful lives, diverse lives, and enables each personn to become whatever her or his faculties and apsirations allow. Giving "roles" beyond what God provides is constraining people, an unwarranted tyrany. I do not think that God will not also ask us whether we did not act as tyrants to our fellow human beings.

As to the domestic servants, no, they ar not slaves, they carry out a job as decent and respectable as any other job. I am surprised that you come up with such a thing and at the same time do not realise that you yourelf sort of attach such a condition as God given to the women without any salary and without any qualms, or what again is a homemaker?

How well treated are domesstic servants of course depends on the moral condition of the employer and on the social conditions reigning in the society at the moment. If there is scarcity of domestic servants there is not much likelyhood that they will be abused, all they have to do is go out the door and to another house where they will be treated better. And if there are too many of them and people who emloy them have no morals very likely they will be abused. But if the employer has moral, the most likely thing is that they will be just another family member. What you say about living-in, that does not have to be so. Along history there have been the two kinds, linving-in and not living in. And it continues so today. If some are living in, it is because it is more convenient for them, they spare housing, and meals, have company... If they want to live on their own or with their own family, then they may do it with the same employer or changing employer. That would be a question of the labour market. Domestic service today is well protected by laws. Certainly no reason for them to be abused or treated like slaves... -or like a 24-7 homemaker.

You said

I think you have mistook or expanded whatever I've written into something you believe I meant.

No, I do not believe you meant that, I do not think you mean any at all of the bad things I have mentionned in answer to your post. In fact I believe the opposite, I believe that you are a considerate person and that you mean no abuse at all.

Also domestic service does not have to be a luxury. There are many instances where it is needed an not for luxury but for a quite normal modest life, or where it is the best choice for family or individual problems or situations.

BUT I also think that you do not realise the full import of what you say. You have an ideal in your head, but then what comes out written does not seem to match it and I am not making a criticism of you but of what may be understood from what you say.

There are already enough militants of the "keep women in their place and men with their privileges" doctrines that they should get reinforcements from other sides who may not want to do that but who might do it as "collateral".

Salaam