Can a women lead a congregational prayer with men and women mixed behind her?
-
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
-
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.
Very glad that you ask this question. Your conclusion is great.
About that whole equality thing, after reading protocols of zion, I realized that the whole notion of it whether between men or women is too abstract and probably will never be achieved in any society ever. Not even socialism can achieve it. But I will always cling to the notion that before we are men and women, we are humans. Some divisions in roles are okay. Even US understands it. Military drafting is an example. By law, only the men must be sent to war. Similarly, there are jobs where women are allowed, but they cannot even imagine applying for them.
However, both men and women are great resources for the progress of the society because both are capable of being talented. In such situation, I do not believe in restricting women to just taking care of kids and homes. Of course, the option should remain open to them without making it look like a stigma.
peace
-
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.
A lot of men feel insecure in living in a world where a woman can look after herself. She can go out on her own, get a job, buy or rent her own home, pay her bills, go to the supermarket and buy some food and what not. The days where a man was there to go hunting for some food and the women having to rely on men for almost everything are gone. As you've mentioned, their unique selling point has been nullified. This in turn deprives them the ability to attract the women they fancy. They need an ego boost. They want to be the dominating figure in a relationship, and that is what religion has been there for, to feed their ego.
-
The Beast has a desire to dominate.
-
They need an ego boost. They want to be the dominating figure in a relationship, and that is what religion has been there for, to feed their ego.
That is what the worldly power has attempted to in order to corrupt men and as a colateral also women give them the idea that they are owed this and that because God made them "gods" to lesser beings...
The Qur'an on that count is quite sobering. But, to remedy that, the Qur'an is interpreted and twisted so that "the special relationship" of God with a particular people or a particular sex is made sacred.
And we are still fighting with that.
I reject that this question is turned into champioship of who is worse men or women. No sex is worse or better. People, each person, is worse or better.
That is not the problem, the pproblem are the de-structuring ideas and ideologies which corrupt people to make them think that just because they are male (right now, and for many centuries before, it has been because they are male) they have privileges and rights over other people, even people who have had them nine months win their own bodies, have brought them to the world and suckled them. If that is not perverse, then I do not know what is. And that for centuries has been put into laws which now would make us shiver.
It is not that anybody when she or he gets powerful can be bad. Nobody is disputing that, the discussion turns about whether we should hold on to beliefs and attitudes that put down a whole sex for the sake of not making upset some beings of the other sex that cry and sob because now they are not regarded as they hold God had promised them.
And those who cry and sob ARE NOT THE MEN.
Nobody is fighting against men. I would die for my father and there is no person I am more indebted to. Like himthere are many men. But those men are not delusional males wretches who think a woman is awful and envious (that one is very, very funny) of them if she does not give them their ego trip.
I do not accept that manliness is subverted to mean some weakling who if he does not gets his sweet gets angry, starts pounding onn women or those who do not agree with his whims which according to him will always be women and feminists, but which in fact are many men and women who are sensible.
So no problem there between men and women but the problem is in the corrupting doctrines which go against truth, reality and revelation.
There are of those doctrines made into religious truths that women are emotional, whereas men are above that, that they have weak memories, that their being mothers make them able to put up with anything, no matter how absurd. That they do not work... Whatever.
Women have always worked and I do not know of anybody who intends to turn women into lazy spoilt persons. But those who say they do not work mean they do not get paid or have been paid for their work, which is surely something quite different.
Many people who uphold womens subservience, usually depict a heavenly earth where women have led pampered and idle lives and are claiming rights out of sheer evil corrption and envy of men. Obviously that is a very tall lie. Civil and penal laws of many countries during many centuries, most of them I would say, bear witness that it is a lie, an insulting and insensitive lie. It is like denying that millions of blacks were enslaved and brought from Africa to other continents and treated like chattel and worse, and then we were told that the problem is they, those trafficked men and women, have nothing to complain about, they just plain envie the free men.
And again this lie about women's existence having been ideal is a lie that does not go only against women, but also against those men who hold women as their true comrades and partners in life and not like a useful accessory for their comfort an solace. It is because of those decent, good hearted men that humanity still exists and has not gone down with the predator kind. So, for God's sake, stop taking antiwomen men as if they were the representatives of menkind. They are not. They only represent themselves.
Salaam
-
Reel,
Your comments were very well balanced and intelligent, sister. I generally agree. Thank you for being level-headed and insightful in all of this.
Wakas,
giveup
I respect the wisdom of the books of the People of the Book/Torah, and I just use the Quran to correct them, not to change their morals and stories completely. I can even respect the wisdom that can be found in various hadeeth as long as they don't contradict the Quran and are not taken as religiously authoritative aside from the Qur'an.
I know that you know where the details of that story hail from. So I find your question amusing.
Salaam
-
More precisely, out of 1,000 people, 504 are men (50.4%) and 496 are women (49.6%). For every 100 girls, 107 boys are born, but males have a higher risk of dying than females, both in childhood and at adult ages
https//www.ined.fr/en/everything_about_population/demographic-facts-sheets/faq/more-men-or-more-women-in-the-world/
-
peace Anwar,
I respect the wisdom of the books of the People of the Book/Torah, and I just use the Quran to correct them, not to change their morals and stories completely. I can even respect the wisdom that can be found in various hadeeth as long as they don't contradict the Quran and are not taken as religiously authoritative aside from the Qur'an.
Quite simply, what you said is not in Quran, and actually contradicts it.
The following are mutually exclusive
- Eve to blame
- Adam to blame
- both to blame
- neither to blame
