Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What is YOUR standard?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What is YOUR standard?

    A Woman’s Reflection on Leading Prayer

    by Yasmin Mogahed


    On March 18, 2005, Amina Wadud led the first female-led jum`ah (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—except 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.

    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 ﷺ have asked Ayesha or Khadija, or Fatima—the greatest women of all time—to lead? These women were promised heaven—and yet they never led 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 ﷺ 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 ﷺ replied, “Your mother” three times before saying “your father” only once.
    Is 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 selfless compassion (considered feminine), rationality reigns supreme.

    As soon as we accept that everything a man has and does is better, all that follows is 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 at 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.


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

    I've had many thoughts regarding feminism and the sorts, all the ruckus about women's rights and equality but I haven't found an article such as this that displays my thoughts in such a clear manner. Hats off to the author!

    To some the standards are God-given, to others these standards are man-made western ones that are forever changing. What is YOUR standard?
    I desire that which is Just - House of Dukemina.

  • #2
    Thanks for sharing this, it was a really good read and I agree completely with the article.

    It gives so many good points of women these days striving to be like men, and like the articel says I think with that they are only helping in making the men the superior gender.

    Being sensitive is an insult, becoming a mother—a degradation.
    This is so true. Whenever I tell someone that I insha'Allah want to be a stay-at-home mom one day, all I get in return are weird looks and questions like ''Are you serious?''.
    One of my female teachers even said to me that I'm ''too smart'' to be just that, as if being a stay-at-home mom doesn't require any intelligence.

    Comment


    • #3
      Ah this is absolutely brilliant Dukes!

      Originally posted by Dukemina View Post
      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—except 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.
      So true.

      Comment


      • #4
        MY standard? Why, I'm SO glad you asked us that, Dukes!

        'Cause I completely disagree with the article.

        And thank God someone finally opened a topic of women's leading prayer!

        But before I explain why I disagree with her (like more than strongly), it seems that we're more for CHOICE, right? As in, if a woman doesn't wanna "be like a man" (lol?), then she doesn't have to lead men in prayers, right? But if she wants to (lol?), then she can? (Um... no, I don't think that to lead someone in prayer or in any other way is to be like a man -- to me, THAT shows that we subconsciously see men as better leaders than women by nature. And I don't think men are better leaders than women naturally; it varies from person to person. Khair, since this is about prayers only, I'll try to stay on topic.)

        As I said, I completely disagree with this author. It’s the typical perspective, which most Muslims hold, so nothing new there, really. I wish men and women who are against female imams would come up with more creative reasons and explanations, since this is getting just too redundant and I don't find it cogent at ALL.

        Allow me to explain.... oh wait. Before that, I'd like to make a couple of requests Thanks for the permission. And my advance apologies for my prolixity! What else would y'all expect from Qrratugai, lol.

        1. PLEASE, guys, NO pasting anyone else's articles to me and explaining to me why it's only "logical" and "natural" that women NOT lead men in prayers, k? I won't read it. I need YOUR perspectives, YOUR reasoning, YOUR refutation to my claims.

        2. Do NOT just read the parts where I said I disagree with the article and that I find Amina Wadud a very honorable and great Muslim, leader, and role model. Consider my reasoning behind these "radical" statements. This is basically to tell you that if you give an explanation for your view point that I've already addressed in my response, I will not reply 'cause I'm absolutely tired of repeating myself in almost every thread. If you do not understand my point, which is understandable because I may have not made my point clearly enough, just let me know and I'll try to explain it better in different words from a different angle. But if you say ask a question I've already answered in here, I'll either paste to you that part of the post (like literally paste) or then just not reply I'm sure we all agree that there's a limit to repeating yourself, so I hope this is not taken in offensively.

        3. If anyone replies with things like "IT IS NOT ISLAMIC!!!! You heretic! You kafir!" etc., etc., I won't bother replying or even reading the rest of your posts here because I've tried to make my stance very clear on this. Refute my *justifications*, not my conclusion.

        Sorry if that seems like tooo much to ask, but I'm really sick of the sort of things people will say when discussing Islam. Their arguments are rarely convincing for everyone else, but just because THEY are convinced that Islam = strictness in every single ruling, everyone else should be convinced as well. Well, sorry to remind you, but everyone's mind works differently -- appreciate the diversity. Neither am I impressed with the whole name-calling thing and the *fact* that we can almost NEVER defend our beliefs :S It's always, "Scholars say so." Well, now you know that if you're going to expect Qrratugai to respond to you, that's not going to work.
        Now ... we can move on to the good stuff


        Clearly, author Yasmin believes that the ONLY people who can have “equal rights” are those who *look* the same, are born the same. This, too, is a typical perspective; nothing new. But why do we have to define equality to mean sameness? (This reminds me of a discussion I had with a professor recently on the doctrine of tauheed in Islam and how Oneness = Sameness to so many Muslims that tauheed is limited to only certain things. Okay, okay, I won't get into that now.) But this notion of equal = same, I disagree there because, um, we don't have to LOOK the same to have the same rights. Besides, whereas all men have the same reproductive parts, they do not have the same rights; similarly, while all women have the same parts, they do not have the same rights -- it all depends mostly on her social standing, practically speaking.

        Certainly, we all agree that there are basic rights that ALL humans should have, regardless of their gender and class, right? Those might include the right to education and the right to work if one wants and the right for one to choose one's partner and so on. The problem is, who defines “basic” rights? Who said working falls under "basic" rights? Who said education has to fall under “basic rights”? And what law is there that says leading doesn’t fall under it? What if, to me and millions of others, being able to lead men in prayer should be a basic rights *available* to women? (And, no, not just leading children and other women but leading men as well. If men can lead women in prayers, what is it ABOUT women that says they should not or cannot?)


        Also, I don't think that doing things that men do (if women are just as capable of doing them as men are) should mean that women want to be like men, or that they see men as superior. I think it's when we start looking like men, look-wise, that we start seeing them as better than ourselves. It's just like when you really admire someone, you want to talk like them, be like them, look like them, and so on. But I don't see how seeking your right to lead prayers and asking how it is un-Islamic to DO it is implying than men really are superior to you.

        Anyway, I don’t understand why Amina Wadud’s leading men and women in prayer was un-Islamic. What was/is so un-Islamic about it?

        Something else I’d like to know is … what IS it about women that screams, “I am not allowed to lead prayers *because* I am a woman”?

        And what does this have to do with westernization? I mean, did you guys know that in 1991, a British priest denied his position – as respected as he was all over Britain – because, he said, “I fear that women are now denying God’s commands, which clearly state that women may NOT become priests. I cannot lead such a corrupt society.” (I read this in one of Karen Armstrong’s books; don’t remember the title of the book, though, sorry.) So, really, it has nothing to do with the west, because even the west is still against it.

        By the way, Amina Wadud doesn’t classify herself as a feminist. In the introduction of her book Quran and Woman: Re-reading the Sacred Text from a Woman’s Perspective, she mentions that people have called her a heretic, a kafir, a feminist, and an “Americanized” Muslim, but she says that she never herself called her a feminist – although she also says she has no problem with it. (Why would she? She knows what feminism is, and it’s an honor to be acknowledged as a feminist, not an insult.)

        QUOTING the author above: “For 1400 years there has been a consensus of the scholars that men are to lead prayer.”

        So? She forgets that this “consensus” was done by a group of CERTAIN men *who mattered* In other words, the only jurists/scholars’ whose opinion counts in Islamic scholarship are those who are orthodox-minded, extreeeeeeeeeemely literalist at times even, and who agree on everything. So if you got someone in the circle who wants to say, “Wait, wait, why shouldn’t women be allowed to lead men in prayer again?” he’s kicked out of the circle. (No, I’m not kidding. I’m currently studying the whole scholarship deal in Islam in some of my classes, and it’s very depressing at times but intriguing and fascinating at others.)

        At leas the author realizes that there’s nothing WITHIN Islam that says women can’t lead prayers; it’s the interpretations of scholars, and not just any scholars but male scholars. No, I do not deny the scholarship of the male scholars like Abu Hanifa by any means, but I’m only trying to remind us that women were never allowed to present THEIR stance on ANY issue in Islamic thought. I find that rather unfair.

        Also, the scholars may agree on it, but that doesn’t make it 100% Islamic or correct necessarily.

        Besides, can we say that the REASON they denied women the right to lead men in prayers is that it was absolutely forbidden in practically all religions and cultures? Women just weren’t allowed.

        We’re forgetting that our scholars, as knowledgeable and brilliant as many of them have been, were products of their society. This doesn’t mean they were wrong; it means that there was only so much they could say that would be against the norms of the societies that bred them.

        The author above also seems to think that only men can join army. Umm… she must know that Aisha led the Battle of Camel (against Ali). What do we call that? Not just JOINING the army: even leading it, too!


        She says, “The one who leads prayer is not spiritually superior in any way.” But, oh, I disagree – I think the one who leads the prayer IS considered spiritually superior. Think about it: Will we pick just ANYONE form the street and ask him to be our imam? No, we’re going to choose someone whom we KNOW to be a righteous, good practicing Muslim. That, to me, shows that the person has to be (outwardly) better spiritually in the community.

        And just because the Prophet didn’t ask Khadija or Aisha to lead prayer doesn’t mean it’s forbidden. Not a good argument to tell me why a woman shouldn't lead prayers. It's all contextual. Perhaps it has to do with the social norms of a time (not that I believe that breaking a norm is un-Islamic at all, though, but just saying that the Prophet's not saying women CAN lead men in prayers doesn't mean they can't). You see, there's nothing in the Quran that tells us that women can't marry Christians or Jews; the Quran is silent on women's marrying men from the people of the book -- it says MEN can, but it doesn't say women can't. Does that mean women can't?

        Again, there’s nothing inherent about a woman that denies her the position of leading prayer – but there’s everything inherent about a woman that gives her the position of motherhood. So when the dear author above says that women are honored with the position of motherhood, it doesn't tell me ANYTHING about why a woman/mother can't lead prayers. The Great Amina Wadud doesn’t deny her motherhood; on the contrary, she is a loving mother of several children (yes, I know her and have written extensively about her works, read two of her books and some of her articles, and she's on my FB friends list, so we talk! :D).

        But just because the woman goes through monthly pain of menstruation and the extreme pains of labor during birth doesn’t mean she can’t lead men in prayer. I guess what I'm asking for is ... biological proof that the woman should not lead men in prayers. (I'll explain the whole feminine figure thingie and a woman's voice being "naturally hotter, sexier, more seductive" than men's later.)

        And there’s also nothing inherent about a man that MAKES him a leader, be it a leader of a congregational prayer or of a household or of a country or of a community. So when this author says, “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,” it seems to me that she's saying that men are NATURALLY better leaders that women are. And, of course, being Qrratugai, I wholeheartedly disagree. I would respond to her by saying with:


        How is leading people in prayer being man-like? Aren’t you giving a man the honorable position of leading while utterly forbidding it on the woman?

        QUOTING the author: “Then, after working, we were expected to be superhuman—the perfect mother, the perfect wife, the perfect homemaker—and have the perfect career.”

        Okay, so don’t work. Why do people make it seem like feminism demands that all women work? Not at all. Feminism demands that women be given choices, that they be allowed to speak for their own selves and make their own decisions when they want. It doesn’t say that any woman who doesn’t work is oppressed or uneducated or illiterate. Feminism says that just give her the RIGHT to work, not make it an obligation upon her to work. There's a difference. In the same way, (some Muslim) women want to be ALLOWED to lead prayers if they want to do it; they are not saying that we should be obligated to do it.

        (This brings me to comment on Only Human khorey's post about how her female professor made it seem like housewives aren't intelligent. You should've told her off, khorey. If a woman wants to be a housewife, she can and should be by all means -- when she WANTS to be a housewife and just stay at home and all and is not allowed by husband, society, family, whoever, she's being oppressed.... JUST as when a woman WANTS to work but is not allowed by society, religion, culture, family, husband, etc.)

        Back to feminism :D Feminism doesn’t say that women should be the perfect homemaker and perfect housewives: in fact, it is completely against the idea of reducing women to domestic life. Feminism honors the woman by saying, “Woman, you have SO much more to offer this world; not only do you have the natural ability to give birth, but you also have the intellect to excel in business, commerce, scholarship, the arts, the sciences, and so on. Why not discover your skills and put them to use if you want?”

        No woman should feel obligated to work – but my belief is that no man should either. We need to stop with our double-standards; they make Qrratugai sick :D Aaaannnd ... why is it that the woman is always compared to a “pearl”? (You know how they have these little posts here and there that "if you had a pearl, wher would you hide it? You find pearls deep inside the oceans, not out in the open! Women are the same way." Well, I'd say, why is she seen as a delicate “object” and not a strong *subject*?)

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

        Aaaannd … exactly what privilege would that be? And what if I disagree that it’s a “privilege” to be at home all day long (especially if you don’t want your life that way)? What if you WAN T to lead men in prayer but are forbidden so by a select group of people (by people, I mean men)? Also ... there's a HUGE difference between a "mother" and a "wife" (or just a woman in general). You can't compare wife to mother, really. We all know that Islam highly respects mothers, even hadiths respect them and all scholars agree on the position of *mothers* in Islam -- but it's the position of wives that they do not agree on. So, for the author to say, "God has honored the woman by making her a mother" is not a good enough argument because just as a woman can be a mother, a man can be a father. So, what about men (who can be fathers) says that they can lead women in prayers while women (who can be mothers) can't lead men in prayers?

        I could go on and on with the millions of holes I find in this author’s arguments against feminism and women leading prayers, but I don’t have time right now to discuss the other points.


        But basically, yeah, my position on this whole issue is quite contrary to this woman’s. I honestly don’t think she has ANY clue what feminism is – or even hat her own rights within Islam are. She obviously has read only one interpretation of Islam and I guarantee you she doesn’t know that Abu Hanifa, the same scholar we CHOOSE to follow in SOME instances but not in others, has said that women become independent when they reach the age of 18 (or is it 21?), that they can travel on their own without having a male chaperon, AND that they can marry anyone they want WITHOUT having a walee (male guardian).

        That’s right. These are includes in the many rights of women in Islam, according to him and some scholars who follow him (certainly not all). I would focus on other scholars as well, but since my senior thesis is mostly on his works, I can’t help but mention him everywhere.

        One thing though … if someone wants to argue that the reason women shouldn’t lead men in prayer is that when they bend down for ruku and sajda, their backs show, I must ask … but men’s backs show as well; what are women supposed to do then? And if it’s her voice, what about the man’s voice? I am sure most girls are likely to say, “No, no, men’s voices aren’t THAT hot! Who gets turned on by them?!” Well, I disagree: Many orators of the Quran have voices that have the power to KILL a woman because they’re so damn hot that one could listen to it alllllllllll day long. If you find this disgusting, then allow me to say: I find it disgusting that women are not allowed to lead prayers just because their voices are SOMEHOW ‘naturally hotter’ than men’s, OR that the reason we don’t have any female orators is that men might get turned on by their voice. That’s not disgusting?

        And what DO we make of the woman when we deny her these positions of leadership just because of her shape? Sorry, but I find that degrading because it reduces the woman to a sexual object. (I’ve explained this point in another thread somewhere in here; will have to search for it, but can’t right now.)

        I’ll share more thoughts later on this, ka khairee. Have to run now.

        EDIT: Forgive the many spelling errors and other typos in here! This was written in a rush. I know, even I am amazed at how long it got even while being written in a hurry. God, I feel sick to my ear.:S
        Last edited by Guest; 04-15-2010, 06:44 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by rihana
          Girlfriend!

          I have so much to say can you post your reply to her though.
          Reply to whom? Me? If so, guley, why wait for someone else to put words in your mouth? Why not reply to me yourself? She can reply herself when she wants, but you should say what's on your mind as well because what you have to say cannot be said better by anyone else.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Afghanprincess
            welcome here.

            what was your response to her?
            Thanks!

            I told her that being a stay-at-home mom requires the same intelligence and effort as it does for a woman who is working.

            Qrratugai - First of all I have to admit that my knowledge on this subject is very minimal, therefore I can't really say what is right or wrong. I've never really educated myself regarding this matter, since I was taught that women aren't allowed to lead men in prayer, and I just believed that.

            If my assumption is wrong though, then I wouldn't have a problem with women choosing to do it.

            I also have to say that my previous comment about ''women these days striving to be like men'' probably wasn't worded very well. I don't judge any women that want to make a career for themselves, I just choose another path for myself, or at least that's what I plan on doing once I get married and have kids, insha'Allah.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by rihana
              Qrratugai
              please don't quote me out of context.
              I was not talking about you.

              I was asking onlyhuman to post her response that she gave to the person in real life who had told her stayhome wife are etcetcetc.

              I wanted to know her response to the person who had told her that.
              In that case, Rihana, I'm very sorry. That's why I asked (in the beginning, lol) if you were asking her to reply to me or what.

              No worries.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by only|human View Post
                Qrratugai - First of all I have to admit that my knowledge on this subject is very minimal, therefore I can't really say what is right or wrong. I've never really educated myself regarding this matter, since I was taught that women aren't allowed to lead men in prayer, and I just believed that.
                I'm SO glad you said the part I have marked in bold Thanks! There are many, many other things we're taught and we often end up believing them without thinking about them. Until about 2 years or so, I used to believe that women shouldn't lead either -- lead ANYTHING, let alone men in prayer. So I totally understand what you mean.

                Comment

                Working...
                X