FrontPageMagazine.com: Islam and Gender Appartheid?

[MGB8]

Symposium: Gender Apartheid and Islam

By Jamie Glazov
December 31, 2004

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=16440

Does Islam have the keys within itself to liberate women within Muslim social structures? To discuss this issue with us today, Frontpage Symposium has assembled a distinguished panel. On the side of the possibility of a feminist Islam, joining us today are:

Mohamed El-Mallah, a board member of Al-Ittihad Mosque in Vista, former board member of Islamic Center of San Diego, and an associate member of the Muslim American Society. A native of Egypt who migrated to the U.S. seven years ago, he is an activist in the Muslim Community of San Diego who has given many series of presentations on Islamic History,

and

Julia Roach, a UCSD student currently pursuing a bachelor's in literatures of the world, specializing in gender issues and women in literature. She converted to Islam in 2003.

On the side of Islam being mutually exclusive with women’s rights, we are joined by:

Ali Sina, the founder of Faith Freedom International (www.faithfreedom.org), a movement of ex-Muslims created to provide support for those who want to leave Islam and give factual information about Islam for others,

and

Robert Spencer, the director of Jihad Watch and the author of Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West (Regnery Publishing), and Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World’s Fastest Growing Faith (Encounter Books).

FP: Mr. El-Mallah, Robert Spencer, Julia Roach and Ali Sina, welcome to Frontpage Symposium.

Mr. El-Mallah, let me begin with you. Can Islam liberate women and give them equality? Or is Islam and women’s rights mutually exclusive?

El-Mallah: Thanks for inviting me Jamie.

I will go back 1425 lunar years to answer your question. A woman came to the Prophet (PBUH) and asked him: “Why women are not mentioned (in Islamic sources: Quran and Hadith) as much as men?” Do you know how the Prophet (PBUH) answered? He answered her publicly, he went directly to the Masjid, and asked all the people to gather and from the pulpit he addressed the people by reciting the verse Q33:35 that says: “For Muslim men and women, for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are patient and constant, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in charity, for men and women who fast (and deny themselves), for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in Allah's praise, for them has Allah prepared forgiveness and great reward.” This verse clarifies that the rule is whenever the pronoun “He” is used, it can be substituted by the noun “She” with few exception, which are clearly explained in other verses of Quran and sayings of the Prophet (PBUH).

I would like to point out that the first to accept Islam was a woman, the first martyr in Islam was a woman, one of the longest chapters in Quran is named “The Women,” another chapter is named “Mariam”. We need to separate between what some of the Muslims practice, and what Islam is ordering us to do. We cannot put Islam on a trial because of wrongs that are done by people who have been living in countries that teach them nothing about Islam. Most of the wrongs that you see done by some Muslims, are done because the lack of good Islamic understanding.

Giving the above, we can categorize the reasons behind any misconceptions about women in Islam into two: The lack of knowledge of Islamic teachings and the ill-intentions of Islam bashers.

FP: Ms. Roach?

Roach: First I would like to preface my comments with a sad fact that exists within the current state of the Ummah or worldwide Islamic community: it is unfortunate that Islam is not practiced in all parts of the world by all Muslims to the standard prescribed by Allah in the Qur’an and exemplified by the blessed prophet Mohamed (peace and blessing of Allah be upon him.)

Nor is Christianity or Buddhism always practiced by all practitioners as it supposed to be. However, when we examine the conduct of those Muslims striving to seek knowledge as they have been commanded by their Lord we find that those people are practicing the deen of Islam in light of its sacred texts and the traditions of the prophets (may the blessings of Allah be upon them all) which do contain proof that women's equality and Islam are not mutually exclusive.

The first and perhaps foremost important aspect of this is spiritual or religious equality: Women's souls have equal value to those of Men's as proved by numerous verses in the Qur’an in which Allah references the believing men and the believing women with equal importance and responsibility in terms of religious obligations such as charity, fasting, prayer, humility etc. Unlike the tradition practiced by some Christians in which the woman submits to her husband who then in turn submits to God, Muslim women are to submit to the Lord of the worlds Allah first and foremost, they do not need an emissary to answer for them.

Muslim women can pray by themselves or in a group in which no male need be present to worship their lord and that worship will be accepted as much as any other person's worship (in sha Allah, If God wills). Similarly a woman's sin is counted as much as a man's too! A woman's rights are protected, such as the right to life, which women could not be guaranteed in the pre-Islamic Arabian period (many female infants were murdered because boy children were preferred, Islam abolished this practice and Allah mentions the testimony of the murdered female child as being one characteristic of the day of Judgment). What right could be more serious than to be able to fight and die in battle?

Muslim women have had the right and opportunity to fight and die in battle for the past 1400 years, a right which was just recently bequeathed to American women, and the death of a female in battle counts just as much as a man's death: she is still a martyr and merits paradise (in sha Allah).The first martyr in Islam was a woman, women fought alongside the Prophet (pbuh) in numerous battles, some sustaining serious injuries. Muslim women have always had the right to vote and their vote has always equalled a man's, the right to own and dispose of property without having to obtain permission from male kin, the right to work outside the home, the right to equal work for equal pay, the right to keep her hard earned money for herself, the right to marry whom they wish and deny whom they wish, the right to sexual satisfaction within her marriage, (if a woman is unsatisfied she can obtain a divorce) etc. etc. etc.

I will not burden you with too much more (yes there is more!) It is unfortunate that more people do not get beyond their conception of the headscarf and ask us why we are proud to wear it...because we are Muslims and we are happy with our Lord and our lives, we are not being smashed by gender inequalities when we stand up for our own rights. Oh, one more thing, Muslim women are required to educate themselves about their deen and are urged to receive a formal education of some sort, putting them on the intellectually equal playing field as well.

FP: Ok Mr. Spencer, would you like to respond? A lot of this is about our definitions of “equality” and “freedom” isn’t it? What we think women’s “liberty” means is not necessarily what many Muslims take it to mean. Right?

Spencer: You are right Jamie. The nomenclature problem is akin to that over the word “terrorism”: some Muslims today denounce terrorism but don’t consider suicide attacks in Israel or even 9/11 to be terrorism at all. And speaking of names, it really makes no difference that “one of the longest chapters in Qur’an is named The Women, another chapter is named Mariam,” as Mr. El-Mallah points out (as do many other Islamic apologists). There are also chapters of the Qur’an entitled “Spoils of War” (8), “Haggling” (64), “Divorce” (65), “Soul-Snatchers” (79), “The Cheats” (83), “The Earthquake” (99), “The Calamity” (101), “The Traducer” (104), and “The Disbelievers” (109). That’s not to say that the Qur’an regards women as on the level of a calamity or an earthquake, but only that to bear the name of a sura of the Qur’an is not automatically a sign of approval.

And while it is true that, as Mr. El-Mallah says, “We need to separate between what some of the Muslims practice, and what Islam is ordering us to do,” I wish he had chosen to explore more of what Islam teaches about women. After all, the question before us is “Does Islam contain within itself the keys to liberate women within contemporary Islamic societies?” In order to consider this question fully, the obstacles to such liberation must be addressed: Qur’anic verses such as 4:34 (which enjoins wife-beating) and those that make a woman’s testimony (2:282) and inheritance (4:11) worth half of a man’s do indeed involve Islamic teachings, not just cultural practices. There are also numerous ahadith that reflect poorly on women, including one in which Muhammad declares that most of hell’s population is female and that women are deficient in intelligence and piety (Bukhari, I:6:304).

Sura 4:34, which has recently been advanced as a valid principle for conduct by Muslim spokesmen in Turkey, Spain, and elsewhere, makes for an atmosphere in which abuse of women is epidemic. The Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences, for example, has determined that over nine out of ten Pakistani wives have been struck, beaten, or abused sexually for offenses on the order of cooking an unsatisfactory meal. It is the Qur’anic mandate for this abuse that makes it hard for me to accept Mr. El-Mallah’s contention that where women suffer in the Islamic world, it is because of a “lack of good Islamic understanding.”

[MGB8]

Question: We always hear the Hadith, "Women have a shortcoming in understanding and religion." Some of the men state it to insult women. We would like you to explain to us the meaning of that Hadith.

Response: The Prophet's words and their explanation is as follows:

"I have seen none having more of a shortcoming in reasoning and religion yet, at the same time, robbing the wisdom of the wisest men than you." They said, "O Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) what is the shortcoming in our reasoning?" He said "Is it not the case that the testimony of two women is equivalent to that of one man" They said, "O Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), what is the shortcoming in our religion" He said, "Is it not the case that when you have your menses you neither pray or fast?''1

The Prophet (peace be upon him) explained that their shortcoming in reasoning is found in the fact that their memory is weak and that their witness is in need of another woman to corroborate it….This also does not mean that she is less than men in every matter or that men are superior to her in every aspect. Yes, as a class, men are superior to women in general. This is true for a number of reasons, as Allah has stated,

"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend [to support them] from their means" (al-Nisa 34).

However, she may excel him in many matters. How many women are greater than many men with respect to their intelligence, religion and proficiency. It has been narrated from the Prophet (peace be upon him) that women as a species or class are less than men in understanding and religion from the point of view of the matters that the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself explained….Shaikh ibn Baz

I suppose Sheikh ibn Baz and Muhammad himself hate Muslims too? Or is it just I who must hate Muslims because I dare to quote them? Ms. Roach is dealing in a patent absurdity. This is a symposium about women’s rights in Islam, but instead of forthrightly acknowledging the obstacles and difficulties women face in Islamic lands and offering positive solutions, Mr. El-Mallah and Ms. Roach have denied, obfuscated, distorted, smeared Mr. Sina and me, and tried to deflect attention to Christianity. If this is what we can expect from Islamic “moderates,” the future for women in Islam looks bleak indeed.

As for the scholars Mr. Sina and I quoted who, according to Ms. Roach, “DO NOT REPRESENT ISLAM,” it’s an interesting phenomenon: I have been studying Islam in depth since 1980, and yet every single Islamic authority I have ever quoted is someone that no Muslim has ever heard of or pays any attention to at least according to the Muslims I have debated. When I quoted Al-Azhar’s Sheikh Tantawi endorsing suicide bombing, As`ad AbuKhalil told me that every Muslim actually laughs at Al-Azhar and holds it in contempt. (Hussein Ibish trotted out another well-worn dodge, asserting that Tantawi’s words were mistranslated.) Yet you can ask virtually anyone, and they’ll tell you that Al-Azhar University in Cairo is revered and influential throughout the Islamic world. Maybe Ms. Roach has indeed never heard of Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir, which Mr. Sina quotes, but to millions of Muslims worldwide, it is justly dubbed by its publisher “the most renowned and accepted explanation of the Qur’an in the entire world.”

Nor did Mr. Sina or I, or Ms. Roach’s other bogeymen the “American media and government,” compose Qur’an 4:34 or its common understanding in the Islamic world. Mr. El-Mallah’s high-sounding explanation of all the many safeguards that women in Islamic lands possess likewise founders on reality. If any reader actually takes her up on her invitation to learn about Islam from Muslims, once he or she gets beyond the distortions and apologetics, the nefarious uses of 4:34 will be clear as they are to any objective observer of the Islamic world. They are inescapable.

Mr. El-Mallah adduces Sura 24:33, “But force not your maids to prostitution (when they desire chastity)” to establish that slave girls are not to be raped. But alas, this verse does not accomplish what he wants it to. The Qur’an in Sura 33:50 grants men the right to use slave girls sexually. 24:33 is simply not on topic: a man having sex with his slave girl is not making her a prostitute especially when he is explicitly allowed to do so by the Qur’an. Mr. El-Mallah still has not established, and cannot establish, that any consent on the girl’s part is required. The Hadith he quotes, unfortunately, does not establish a general principle as is illustrated by many other ahadith that do not even consider the woman’s consent as a concept. One was quoted above by Mr. Sina: a notorious incident in which Muhammad clearly permits his men to have sex with captive women without a word about consent being uttered. Another is Sunan Abu Dawud 11:2153, which stipulates that “it is not lawful for a man who believes in Allah and the Last Day to have intercourse with a captive woman till she is free from a menstrual course.” It doesn’t say that it is not lawful for a Muslim to have intercourse with a captive woman unless she consents. Nor does any other hadith.

Mr. El-Mallah also provides some dubious references in support of his contention that Muhammad directed his followers to beat their wives with nothing larger than a toothbrush. This tradition does not appear in any of the Hadith collections considered most reliable by Muslims. Mr. El-Mallah cites “Sahih Muslim, Ketab AlHajj, no. 2137.” The word miswak (tooth stick) does not appear in Kitab Al-Hajj of Sahih Muslim; nor does it appear in Sahih Muslim 2137. I challenge Mr. El-Mallah or anyone to produce this tradition of Muhammad recommending toothbrushes for beating women from Sahih Muslim or any of the other hadith collections Muslims value as most reliable: the Sahih Sittah.

As for his material about the abuse of women in the U.S., once again he is trying to deflect attention away from the topic of the Symposium, which is the status of women in Islam. As long as he and others like him continue to play dodge ball instead of confronting the uncomfortable facts, Muslim women will continue to suffer.

FP: Mr. El-Mallah, Robert Spencer, Julia Roach and Ali Sina, our time is up. Thank you for such an informative discussion. We hope to see you again soon.

[KettleWhistle]

I liked this little tidbit:

From news article:

It is unfortunate that more people do not get beyond their conception of the headscarf and ask us why we are proud to wear it...

I don't care why they are proud to wear it, but I wonder why those who don't want to wear it aren't allowed to do that.

[MGB8]

I think both groups are being slightly disingenous. Religion does not have one "right" interpretation, it is a set of instructions that is often used by imperfect people as a tool for their ends, good or bad.

Islam was created as a societal system for the 7th century. As such, it is limited by the times - both economic and political/philosophical.

Islam is certainly a misogynistic religion, particularly when taking into account the examples given by Muhammed into what is acceptable and what is not.

However this is not so much different from early Christianity and Judaism, except in one large degree, in that we do not take as definative examples & precedent the lives of any single person, with the exception of Jesus to Christians. Jesus committed no acts of misogyny, while Jews have not much in terms of examples to justify mistreatment of women - particularly anything with the authority of the life and words of Muhamed.

What does this mean? It means that "literalist" Jews and Christians have a much easier time reconciling their teachings with gender equality than does Islam - Islam is a much more specific and all encompassing and rigid societal system.

In other words, Islam will have a much more difficult time becoming "liberal" or "modernized", and has much more for those who want to use it to opress women to justify their behavoir with - some things which are quite difficult to contest. It is the same with Jihad and Islamic Imperialism. It is not hopeless, but it is much more difficult.

[andak01]

I don't have any problem with this article, but you could post some pieces of it along with a link as per board rules. Thank you.

[andak01]

This appears to be a moderated discussion, with two speakers (El Mellah and Roach) pro-Islam, and two (Spencer and Ali) anti. But a glance at the article and the use of a word counter shows that Spencer and Ali take up a full 69% of the discussion with no allowance for rebuttal.

I hope that I, miserable excuse for a scholar that I am, have an opportunity to speak to the talking points of this article. I have already addressed some of them in previous posts.

I say pro and anti-Islam above, not pro and anti-women, because the point of the article isn't to protect women, but rather to distroy Islam. The point is to prove that some core tenets of the religion point to behaviors that will be illegal or unacceptable in the new world secular free market society. That is the point of Spencer's vitriolic work. In this case, he allows Ali to do the heavy lifting.

[MGB8]

The point is to discuss Islam, and to discuss it frankly. I do think that some of the points comparing to Christianity, if they had focused more on THE BIBLE, would have been worthwhile, considering that then you can ask, well, if Christianity is the comparison point, and you have all this anti-woman scripture that is supposed to be the literal truth from G-d, how can Islam be any worse. And then you would get to comparisons of relative verses.

However, that is not the comparison that was made - She used the language from scholars, but not prophets - not holy words.

The discussion was not about 'destroying Islam', but understanding it - both as it is practiced and its theoretical core.

Of course, maybe it does destroy the idea of a pro-woman or equal-woman "literalist" Islam, fundamentalist Islam....but is anyone really arguing that a religion that was designed in the 7th century is going to include gender equality as we understand it today?

The problem with Islam is that it is supposed to be perfect, beyond human, and it is so darn all-encompasing and specific. It gives no wiggle room, no room to manuever, to adapt with the times.

Compare to more vague stories in the Bible, Jewish and Christian, as well as TRADITIONS, as opposed to "G-d's truth" handed down via the talmud - things with less authority.

The article is not "Islam-bashing" - it is pure and simple analysis.

You must accept that Islam may be inherently anti-feminist, anti-gender equality, or have a greater propensity to be used in that matter. It is a real possiblity, especially given the history of the practice, especially the correlation between more fundamentalist and literalist regimes and opression of women.

Judaism and Christianity have evolved since the middle ages. Its time for Islam to begin doing the same. The question is, given its structure, CAN IT?

[MGB8]

Oh, and the "pro-Islam" (Islam is gender-equal) people DID have a rebuttal to the arguments of their conterparts. Anyone who reads the artcile will see this. Their counterparts, did, however, have the last word, but the "pro" people had the first word, so...

And where in the world did "69%" come from?

[andak01]

The discussion was not about 'destroying Islam', but understanding it - both as it is practiced and its theoretical core.

It may sound like I am coming off too hard, but I am enough familiar with Spencer's work to know what a danger he poses to any kind of interfaith conversation. His basic tenet that Islam is about nothing but warfare has been well enough received that I here him quoted wherever Muslims are hated.

The problem with Islam is that it is supposed to be perfect, beyond human, and it is so darn all-encompasing and specific. It gives no wiggle room, no room to manuever, to adapt with the times.

I would disagree with that, but that doesn't mean that some people don't interpret it that way. Interpretation is key, because if we are told that it isn't possible to interpret, then interpretation itself becomes a form of apostacy.

Compare to more vague stories in the Bible, Jewish and Christian, as well as TRADITIONS, as opposed to "G-d's truth" handed down via the talmud - things with less authority.

I couldn't say for sure, but I doubt it.

The article is not "Islam-bashing" - it is pure and simple analysis.

I'd like to go back to it, and focus on what Ali had to say. His was the longest statement, the most negative, from my own point of view, and the one that I think most deserves a response. In it he quotes a number of sources. I propose to itemize those and take them one at a time.

You must accept that Islam may be inherently anti-feminist, anti-gender equality, or have a greater propensity to be used in that matter. It is a real possiblity, especially given the history of the practice, especially the correlation between more fundamentalist and literalist regimes and opression of women.

Let's make something clear. I don't deny that women are oppressed in Islamic society, or Hindu society or in the third world in general. And, though conditions are very different in the West, they are exploited here as well. I hope we can all agree that women have a hard lot in the world, all too hard.

Judaism and Christianity have evolved since the middle ages. Its time for Islam to begin doing the same. The question is, given its structure, CAN IT?

Islam also evolved at about the same time. Unfortunately, I think the Mongol invasion caused a drastic split among Muslims and an evolution towards xenophobia and intolerance. The Ottomans were a very different flavor of Muslims from the Ummayids. Ibn Taymiya was the Muslim Martin Luther, a great scholar against the practice of Saint worship. But, just as Luther, though honestly well intentioned, spawned generations of bloody rebellions and even Nazi supporters, so Tamiya's message has been twisted and distorted beyond recognition. So we see several moments in history, the Almoravids, the Wahabbis, the Dobandis of Pakistan and the Taliban who have gone extreme with the Tauhid movement, which; in its less extreme form is a rather beautiful philosophy, as I'm sure Lutheranism is as well.

[MGB8]

The issue, however, is not of varied metaphorical interpretations.

It is about the actual texts and the authority that is given to those texts.

Islam, like traditional Judaism, is very specific in terms of examples and how to live your life. It is a living system.

However, Islam's instructions, coming from the mouth or example of the claimed most holy man in history according to Islam, who's word and actions are unimpeachable. Given this level of authority, it is very easy, natural, and logically accurate to interpret Islam to require a 7th century-esque treatment of women, and that deviations from that treatment are apostacy.

Islam needs to do as Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and Judaism have done over time.... tacitly admit that they are not "perfect", at least not if you interpret things literally, and thus be able to adjust to advancing human understandings of philosophy, morality and general wisdom.

It is said that Human scientific knowledge, raw intelligence, has far outpaced the development of human wisdom. If Islam and other relgions fix human wisdom to our understandings and world view move than a millenia ago...what would you expect.

[Emunah]

Andak, is there any equivelent form of reasoning in Islam that follows the likes of:

Allah sent many prophets and each had his culture to contend with. Each prophet was speaking in a different time and each revealed a different message based on the evolution of thought. That Islam should evolve with the times and not try to live every word of the Quran as if it were made, or spoken, for today?

It seems that all religions have done this at some point and as the struggle to keep the West out of the Muslim world is very likely to fail, it would seem that something like this will have to happen.

[andak01]

Andak, is there any equivelent form of reasoning in Islam that follows the likes of:

Allah sent many prophets and each had his culture to contend with. Each prophet was speaking in a different time and each revealed a different message based on the evolution of thought.

This part is totally part of Islamic teaching. In fact, we learn that there were thousands of prophets that we don't even know the names of. Perhaps Buddha or some Navaho were also prophets. However, we don't take any prophet after Muhammad. It could be argued however, that the other prophets are embodied within the Quran, for there are whole Suras devoted to Moses, Abraham, Noah and to Mary, mother of Jesus. We normally wish each of these prophets peace and blessings each time we utter their names (PBUH) or (SAW).

That Islam should evolve with the times and not try to live every word of the Quran as if it were made, or spoken, for today?

The Quran is written in a way that does allow it to be interpreted for today. The very summit that an Islamic scholar can achieve is to write a Tafsir, or interpretation of the Quran. But we don't need a new Quran for that. The core of Islamic principals are totaly practicable without offending anyone. Those pillars, as they are known are declaration of faith, charity, prayer, fasting and pilgrimage.

It seems that all religions have done this at some point and as the struggle to keep the West out of the Muslim world is very likely to fail, it would seem that something like this will have to happen.

I don't see that the most Orthodox adherrents of any major religion have changed their stance vis a vis women. It's just that there aren't so many theocracies outside of the Muslim world and Vatican City. But seriously, are we about to have a woman Pope? A woman Cardinal? A woman Patriarch in Eastern Orthodoxy? A woman rimpoche? A woman heading a Rabbinical society?

[Emunah]

Yes I think we will soon have a women running a Rabbinical society. The first female "Rabbi" was Asereth Barzani in Erbil Kurdistan. Or, at least that's the first I know of. Judaism has the benefit of having many powerful women written into it. I was reading yesterday that the Orthodox are likely to allow female Rabbis' in the next ten years.

In Christianity, they have Mary, and I think that is far from liberating women, but it has given women more respect.

Then, there's always Joan of Arc.

This women, won my correspondent in Iran's "Imam of the Year" award:
The Imam of the Year Award
To the Bahraini woman who disguised herself as a bearded Shaikh to lead a friday prayer but was caught before she reached the pulpit.
http://www.hajirstony.blogspot.com/

This kind of story is at once sad, and happy: http://www.womenforwomen.org/Project...rt/dmlltr2.htm
******************************************
also wanted to share with you a story recently published in Women for Women International’s newsletter, Outreach. It tells the story of Nadia, an 18 year-old women who has graduated from Women for Women International’s program in Afghanistan. I think it tells so much more about the situations that women in Afghanistan face:

Nadia is an 18 year-old girl from Afghanistan, who has been living as a man for the last two years. Everyone who knows her assumes she is a man. Only her family and one of her teachers know her true identity. Nadia was confidentially referred to Women for Women International, and it is only at our Kabul offices that Nadia feels she can safely ba a woman and engage with other women. We are keeping her secret.

Nadia is living as a man out of necessity. She must support her family. Her father is mentally ill and partially paralyzed, and her brother died in battle. There are no other men to support and provide for her and her family. Nadia is also disfigured. After a rocket struck her home, she lost as ear. As a woman, she has virtually no access to work or any way to legally earn a living. Yet, she will not consider publicly living as a woman and returning to her normal life, until her father’s paralysis improves , and he is better able to support the family. She argues that she has a moral responsibility to step in as her family’s caregiver and provider.

Nadia’s spirit is remarkably strong, given the horrible situation she and others like her, fin hemselves in today in all too many places. Most striking si the fact that what may seem like an overwhelming burden to many, is not insurmountable to Nadia. Today, Nadia is working, going to school and attending Women for Women Internatioanl’s rights awareness and leadership education classes. She also is attending vocational skills training where she is learning how to cut semi-precious stones into beads for jewelry. This gives Nadia a highly marketable skill in Afghanistan that she can use to support her family. Nadia’s resilience stands as a testament to her courage and fortitude and reflects what is at the heart of Women of Women International – facilitating the path from victim to survivor to self-reliance.

Recently, I received another update on Nadia. She excelled in her bead-making class, and was hired by her instructor to be a jewelry trainer’s assistant. Now Nadia is able to work during the day to support her family and continue her education at night. She has even gained enough confidence from the program to want to once again live and dress as a woman and as herself.
******************************************

I think most mainstream churches are also elevating the status of women, though I simply can't get past "Paul" and roll my eyes at his "epistles". Hatred of women, is just NOT a religious value.

Funny thing is, the in Psychology training, one of the things I remember distinctly is a study that showed when Muslim men are asked "If a boat capsized and your child and wife and mother were on the boat, but you could only save one, who would you save? The Muslim almost always answers the Mother, because you can get another wife and have another child, but not another mother. The western religions studied answered child or wife much more often. I think Motherhood, may be one starting point for this reformation, if it is to take place. Maybe the Mothers' of the world have more "clout".

I go to school with plenty of female Muslims, and they don't seem to have any inequality with regard to their male counterparts. Perhaps that is just the way the university class level acts as opposed to villagers.

There are plenty of crazies on all sides of the religious spectrum, but it does concern me when the population of Muslims is growing exponentially and fast, that without a reformation of some kind, it's likely to be rough going between Judeo-Christian and Muslim orthodoxy.

I only hope that the people that I speak with represent a larger segment of opinion than the Salafists.

Tell me, I know it's hotly debated, but Ishmeali's are Muslims right? They do not seem to be quite so tradition bound. The the Sufis', are they considered Muslim? I guess it depends on who you ask, but they seem to have "evolved" their thought a bit.

[andak01]

Yes I think we will soon have a women running a Rabbinical society. The first female "Rabbi" was Asereth Barzani in Erbil Kurdistan. Or, at least that's the first I know of. Judaism has the benefit of having many powerful women written into it. I was reading yesterday that the Orthodox are likely to allow female Rabbis' in the next ten years.

But not today. There have also been many powerful women in Islam. Kadijah was the very first convert and Aisha related over 1000 ahadith, making her one of the greatest scholars of her day by any measure. Ibn Taymiyah himself had at least two women teachers. Every women can be an Imam for other women, but the position of prayer would have women posing prostrate in front of a room of men with her derriere pointed at their faces. That in itself makes a woman imam impractical in a mixed environment.

In Christianity, they have Mary, and I think that is far from liberating women, but it has given women more respect.

We have an entire surah devoted to the same Mary.

Surah Mary
19:18
She said: "I seek refuge from thee to (Allah) Most Gracious: (come not near) if thou dost fear Allah."

19:19
He said: "Nay, I am only a messenger from thy Lord, (to announce) to thee the gift of a holy son.

19:20
She said: "How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?"

19:21
He said: "So (it will be): Thy Lord saith, 'that is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us':It is a matter (so) decreed."

19:22
So she conceived him, and she retired with him to a remote place.

Maybe the Mothers' of the world have more "clout".

Book 032, Number 6180:
Abu Huraira reported that a person came to Allah, 's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Who among the people is most deserving of a fine treatment from my hand? He said: Your mother. He again said: Then who (is the next one)? He said: Again it is your mother (who deserves the best treatment from you). He said: Then who (is the next one)? He (the Holy Prophet) said: Again, it is your mother. He (again) said: Then who? Thereupon he said: Then it is your father. In the hadith transmitted on the authority of Qutalba, there is no mention of the word" the people".

Tell me, I know it's hotly debated, but Ishmeali's are Muslims right? They do not seem to be quite so tradition bound. The the Sufis', are they considered Muslim? I guess it depends on who you ask, but they seem to have "evolved" their thought a bit.

I don't want to get into that topic in this thread. Just as various Christian sects quibble, so do we. But let's stick to the subject of women here.

[Emunah]

Well...that explains the "mother" thing, but perhaps that's where the real movement might begin.

Just a thought. I do try to understand, and I wish Elaph had more English because I have read some translations from there that seem to be moving in the right direction.

All I can do to help is talk it out whenever I can find someone willing to engage in open dialogue. It may sound idealistic, but it's better than doing nothing. It's easy to demonize those you do not know, but much harder to hate those you do know. I try to make myself "knowable" to those who do the same. One by one, I will never change anything, but we all have to start somewhere.

A few years ago, any symposia of women's rights in Islam would not really have been publizised, so that, in and of itself, is an improvment.