How America wants to change Islam :- Woman leads U

[maruf]

How America wants to change Islam :- Woman leads US Muslims to prayer

A professor in the US is thought to have become one of the first Muslim women to lead mixed Friday prayers.

More than 100 men and women attended the service and sermon given by Amina Wadud, professor of Islamic studies at Virginia Commonwealth University.

The location was moved to an Anglican Church building in New York after mosques refused to host the event.

The service has been criticised by a number of Muslim leaders, who say it goes against Islamic doctrine.

"The issue of gender equality is a very important one in Islam, and Muslims have unfortunately used highly restrictive interpretations of history to move backward," Ms Wadud said before the service started.

"With this prayer service we are moving forward. This single act is symbolic of the possibilities within Islam."

Those who attended were said to be evenly divided between men and women. Most women wore the traditional Muslim headscarf and robes.

Some 15 protesters gathered outside the Synod House of the Cathedral of St John the Divine, where the prayers took place. One carried a placard calling for Allah's curse to be upon one of the event's organisers.

"She is tarnishing the whole Islamic faith. If this was an Islamic state, this woman would be hanged," one man, Nussrah, told the Associated Press.

The BBC Middle East correspondent says the controversy has meant Ms Wadud is getting prominent coverage on Arabic television networks.

'Second class'

The service was organised by a group of activists, journalists and scholars who hoped to encourage discussion about the centuries-old tradition of separating men and women during congregational prayer, and reserving the role of prayer leader, or imam, for men.

One organiser, Asra Q Nomani, said they would challenge the "second-class" status of women in Muslim spiritual life.

"We are taking actions that no-one else would have dared to think about before," she told The New York Times. "Nobody cared that we didn't have a place in the faith."

However, the sheik of Cairo's Al-Azhar mosque, one of the world's top Islamic institutions, said Islam did not allow for women to preach to men.

"When she leads men in prayer... it's not proper for them to look at the woman whose body is in front of them," Sayed Tantawi wrote in a column for the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram.

In New York, Aisha al-Adawiya, head of Women in Islam, said she feared a "backlash".

The prayer service was moved after it was rejected by three mosques and an art gallery venue received a bomb threat, the AP reported.


Source: BBC News

[Islamic Revival]

a related article...


A Woman's Reflection on Leading Prayer
by Yasmin Mogahed
(Friday 25 March 2005)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Given my privilege as a woman, I only degrade myself by trying to be something I’m not--and in all honesty--don’t want to be: a man. As women, we will never reach true liberation until we stop trying to mimic men, and value the beauty in our own God-given distinctiveness."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


On March 18, 2005 Amina Wadud led the first female-led Jumuah (Friday) prayer. On that day women took a huge step towards being more like men. But, did we come closer to actualizing our God-given liberation?

I don’t think so.

What we so often forget is that God has honored the woman by giving her value in relation to God—not in relation to men. But as western feminism erases God from the scene, there is no standard left—but men. As a result the western feminist is forced to find her value in relation to a man. And in so doing she has accepted a faulty assumption. She has accepted that man is the standard, and thus a woman can never be a full human being until she becomes just like a man—the standard.

When a man cut his hair short, she wanted to cut her hair short. When a man joined the army, she wanted to join the army. She wanted these things for no other reason than because the “standard” had it.

What she didn’t recognize was that God dignifies both men and women in their distinctiveness--not their sameness. And on March 18, Muslim women made the very same mistake.

For 1400 years there has been a consensus of the scholars that men are to lead prayer. As a Muslim woman, why does this matter? The one who leads prayer is not spiritually superior in any way. Something is not better just because a man does it. And leading prayer is not better, just because it’s leading. Had it been the role of women or had it been more divine, why wouldn’t the Prophet have asked Ayesha or Khadija, or Fatima—the greatest women of all time—to lead? These women were promised heaven—and yet they never lead prayer.

But now for the first time in 1400 years, we look at a man leading prayer and we think, “That’s not fair.” We think so although God has given no special privilege to the one who leads. The imam is no higher in the eyes of God than the one who prays behind.

On the other hand, only a woman can be a mother. And God has given special privilege to a mother. The Prophet taught us that heaven lies at the feet of mothers. But no matter what a man does he can never be a mother. So why is that not unfair?

When asked who is most deserving of our kind treatment? The Prophet replied ‘your mother’ three times before saying ‘your father’ only once. Isn’t that sexist? No matter what a man does he will never be able to have the status of a mother.

And yet even when God honors us with something uniquely feminine, we are too busy trying to find our worth in reference to men, to value it—or even notice. We too have accepted men as the standard; so anything uniquely feminine is, by definition, inferior. Being sensitive is an insult, becoming a mother—a degradation. In the battle between stoic rationality (considered masculine) and self-less compassion (considered feminine), rationality reigns supreme.

As soon as we accept that everything a man has and does is better, all that follows is just a knee jerk reaction: if men have it—we want it too. If men pray in the front rows, we assume this is better, so we want to pray in the front rows too. If men lead prayer, we assume the imam is closer to God, so we want to lead prayer too. Somewhere along the line we’ve accepted the notion that having a position of worldly leadership is some indication of one’s position with God.

A Muslim woman does not need to degrade herself in this way. She has God as a standard. She has God to give her value; she doesn’t need a man.

In fact, in our crusade to follow men, we, as women, never even stopped to examine the possibility that what we have is better for us. In some cases we even gave up what was higher only to be like men.

Fifty years ago, society told us that men were superior because they left the home to work in factories. We were mothers. And yet, we were told that it was women’s liberation to abandon the raising of another human being in order to work on a machine. We accepted that working in a factory was superior to raising the foundation of society—just because a man did it.

Then after working, we were expected to be superhuman—the perfect mother, the perfect wife, the perfect homemaker—and have the perfect career. And while there is nothing wrong, by definition, with a woman having a career, we soon came to realize what we had sacrificed by blindly mimicking men. We watched as our children became strangers and soon recognized the privilege we’d given up.

And so only now—given the choice—women in the West are choosing to stay home to raise their children. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, only 31 percent of mothers with babies, and 18 percent of mothers with two or more children, are working full-time. And of those working mothers, a survey conducted by Parenting Magazine in 2000, found that 93% of them say they would rather be home with their kids, but are compelled to work due to 'financial obligations'. These ‘obligations’ are imposed on women by the gender sameness of the modern West, and removed from women by the gender distinctiveness of Islam.

It took women in the West almost a century of experimentation to realize a privilege given to Muslim women 1400 years ago.

Given my privilege as a woman, I only degrade myself by trying to be something I’m not--and in all honesty--don’t want to be: a man. As women, we will never reach true liberation until we stop trying to mimic men, and value the beauty in our own God-given distinctiveness.

If given a choice between stoic justice and compassion, I choose compassion. And if given a choice between worldly leadership and heaven at my feet—I choose heaven.


Source:



by courtesy & © 2005 Yasmin Mogahed

[Islamic Revival]

Idiocy of Gender Equality: The Case of the Woman Imam

by Yamin Zakaria
(Wednesday March 23 2005)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The moderate brigade constantly shout about Women’s rights in Islam as a means to deflect criticisms emanating from the secular camp without once thinking about the credentials of those who are dispensing the criticisms. Do the critics have the right? To answer this question we need to examine their track record against what they preach. If they pass the test only then it makes sense to entertain their charges. Otherwise it is a pointless exercise to entertain the words of hypocrites."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


With the exception of the very few Prophetesses mentioned in the Old Testament, all the messengers of God mentioned in the Abrahamic religious (Islam, Christianity and Judaism) texts are male. Islam does not even make any references to any Prophetess. Furthermore, the founders and the early pioneers of all the other major religions are also predominantly male. If there is such a thing as gender equality then why would a just God deprive womankind of their share of Prophethood?

Therefore, those who have their faith in gender equality that is rooted in feminism which forms part of the current secular values would naturally conclude that religions are man-made: synthetic. But this conclusion also in turn raises another question, why men have been so successful in dominating women, shaping history, society and civilisations? So, one may argue that known human history actually demonstrates the non-existence of gender equality. It is a recent invention by some idealists; in contrast, religions have always existed throughout human history as if it is an essential part of human nature.

Gender equality is the equality of sexes on every aspect to the point that the gender differences should become totally immaterial in determining the laws and values. It implies that the concept of moms and dads, brothers and sisters, husbands and wives etc. should cease to have any meaning with time. Similarly, the distinction between homosexual and heterosexual relationship would also vanish. In the name of gender equality should we reach a point where the only distinction remaining would be the bodily organs? And it is for the advocates of gender equality to clarify the limits to which this should be allowed and pursued.

For those who have conviction in religion there is little scope to deny the role of gender in determining values, rights and responsibilities that are often diametrically at odds with the idea of gender equality. Male dominated Prophethood was one example, another one is: polygyny. It is clearly permitted in Islam and also found in the Biblical texts (Prophet Solomon and David). This phenomenon can also be seen in the animal kingdom, where the male species are the ones usually spreading their seeds. In contrast, women have not been given similar right to acquire multiple husbands (polyandry) and also human history shows polyandry to be of rare occurrences.

Final example of crucifixion is a reminder to those Christians that have taken up the fashionable trend of Islam-bashing using secular notions of gender equality and feminism. If you believe in gender equality can you explain why God almighty sacrificed his only begotten son in order to redeem the sins of mankind? Should He not have sacrificed a male and a female? More fundamentally, why God almighty did not even have a begotten daughter in the first place to sacrifice?

Yet, paradoxically, religious movements within the Abrahamic religions have sought to reinterpret religious texts in order to accommodate the idea of gender equality. In fact, they take so much pride in this activity that they call themselves a modernising ‘progressive’ force. But why should this be a one-way lane where religious values that are divine, reinterpreted to comply with man-made secular values? This means that the ‘progressive’ ‘religious’ movements are using secular values as the ultimate arbiter: clearly they are a fraudulent religious movement. Their activity is undermining the divine text from within that makes them more dangerous than the clearly visible belligerent apostates and infidels.

Christian and Jews have officially succumbed to the secular-feminist agenda of gender equality as they have started to allow female priests and Rabbis to conduct services and this is just the beginning. Note, it may well be argued their respective religious texts do allow for female, priests and Rabbis but the point is, the impetus for these changes has come from outside. The forces of secularism in the driving seat dictating compliance to gender equality.

In copycat style manner, following the footsteps of female priests and rabbis, Amina Abdul Wadud led a mix congregation of male and female Muslims in a Friday (Jumma) prayer for the first time in the 1500 years of Islamic history. Again the impetus for such acts emanates from the hostile secular environment. After the prayer, she are her clique stated that they were instilling gender equality and women’s rights. Ironically, Amina Abdul Wadud did that whilst wearing the Islamic headscarf (Hijab) which is considered by many to be at odds with gender equality and a symbol of the oppression of women!

Her claims of reinterpreting the text to establish ‘justice’ for women displays her arrogance. Let us put aside the ‘evil’ and impartial men. At the very beginnings of Islam there were the wives of the Prophet (SAW) with many other female personalities, followed by the successive generation of women scholars for centuries. Do we assume that they have all failed in their fundamental duty and hence overlooked their legitimate right to lead the Friday prayer of mix congregation? To the contrary segregation of prayers was established from the onset, as women were instructed to pray behind the men. If that is the case then how women can lead the men in prayer while the rest of the women are behind the men in the first place.

In any case, justice for Amina Abdul Wadud is not from within Islam but a reformed version that is in compliance to her preconceived secular values like gender equality; - the real arbiter. And not surprisingly she also favour homosexual marriages and detests the clear cut penal codes in the Quran. A clear act of apostasy!

Gender equality is only an example of the general drive by the moderate brigades to constantly prove the compatibility of Islam with secular values. If Islam is proven to be compatible to secular notions, what reasons remain than for adhering to Islam? Why not simply adopt the original yard stick of secularism instead of clinging on to the secular-compatible ‘Islam’. The exercise is very much an own goal scoring and completely folly. Given the choice between a genuine Rolls Royce and a close imitation it is well-known what most rational people would opt for.

The moderate brigade constantly shout about Women’s rights in Islam as a means to deflect criticisms emanating from the secular camp without once thinking about the credentials of those who are dispensing the criticisms. Do the critics have the right? To answer this question we need to examine their track record against what they preach. If they pass the test only then it makes sense to entertain their charges. Otherwise it is a pointless exercise to entertain the words of hypocrites.

As an example, the critics say polygyny as prescribed by Islam is wrong. Those who pose the questions do not officially practice polygyny but are virtually in a permanent state of polygamous relationships and even more given the level of infidelity, moral decay and a rejection of the traditional marriage that are often replaced with the so-called open relationships. In reality, the least monogamous societies are those who advocate and pretend to be one. Also, ironically, it is the Muslim societies driven by a strict moral code exhibits greater levels of successful monogamous relationship, despite being given the right to commit polygyny.

One cannot establish equality to any level without establishing genuine mutual respect from the heart. Waving the flag of women’s rights, wanting to be seen politically correct is simply pretentious. To illustrate the point, just ask the liberated women would they would feel safer in a lonely place with a group of devout Muslim men or a group of rowdy young men coming back from a party! If the men are drunk, they often lose their inhibitions and their inner traits surfaces. Their language and behaviour gets coloured by their sexual appetites. Iraq is another example, how many of the captured women were killed, raped and abused like it was done in Abu-Ghraib and other places by the flag bearers of women’s rights! In contrast, Jessica Lynch to the recent Italian journalists was released unharmed, treated well by their own words.

Finally, gender equality does not automatically result in tranquillity, harmony and a happier society. Self evident from the constant rise in divorce rates, single parents, drug dependencies, climbing suicide rates, sexual abuse etc. Relationship between the two sexes is not just a matter of treating them identically in every aspect. It must take everything into account and who better can answer that except the creator Himself. Alternatively we can choose to use our minds to determine the relationship. But that is simply guess work as nobody knows precisely what the rights and responsibilities should be, between the sexes so that a stable relationship is acquired with tranquillity.


Source:



by courtesy & © 2005 Yamin Zakaria