On the face of it, the recent brochure (.pdf) about women's rights in the mosque has caused much excitement, particularly among those who have been pushing for years for increased equity in mosque operations and facilities. The call for women to be in the main prayer hall along with men, backed by major Muslim organizations, seems to be a difficult pill for many conservative mosques to swallow. However, a closer read of the document shows that there is a great deal of wiggle room that allows male-run mosques to obey the letter of the law without ceding much control or significantly improving the situation of women in North American mosques today.

Women's speech at the mosque?

The document addresses the near-total absence of women's voices in the mosque by calling for the inviting of women scholars to hold seminars, which on the face of it seems to be a good thing. But the intention of this document becomes clearer with the subsequent call for women to "introduce speakers, offer opening and closing dua or prayer during educational programs, moderate panels, and direct question and answer sessions" - in short, do everything but address the combined body of the mosque in an authoritative manner. But what about the call for women scholars to hold seminars in the mosque? Seminars, by definition, are optional affairs that are attended only by those who wish to participate. In a more conservative mosque, this means that women scholars will come and give a seminar to the women of the mosque - hardly a dramatic change from the situation today. And in a collective, "non-seminar" setting, the best that Muslim women can hope for is to introduce the main (male) speaker.

Appointed or elected?

A Response To Comments On The "Women-Friendly Mosques" Brochure - I very much appreciate your positive responses to the mosque access brochure, and for highlighting its positive potential to play a transformative role, insha Allah. Also, I am grateful for your support on this issue of women's inclusion. Below is some additional background information about brochure that I think important for you to know. (Read more...)

A discussion of mosque governance that does not use the word "elect" and "women" in the same sentence cannot be taken seriously. Sure, the document calls for women to be "represented on governing boards" with "at least two seats... designated to be held for women." But which women? Is it for people to be elected fairly by the mosque population, even if it makes the men of the Board uncomfortable? Or - as this document suggests - it is for the men to appoint those women who agree with their style of leadership and will preserve the status quo? The situation at conservative mosques suggests that this is the path that will be taken, absolving the board of any accusation of bias because they are following the letter of the "women-friendly mosques" declaration. Where does this leave women? Free to use "suggestion boxes" and "bulletin boards" to appeal to the mosque leadership, with no guarantee of change.

Separate and unequal?

The issue of women's space in the mosque is probably the most sensitive point for pro-women activists, and has most visibly illustrated the problem of gender inequity. This document, while allowing for women to co-exist in the main hall with men, leaves many unanswered questions. Can women enter through the main entrance? It appears not, as the document calls for a safe (presumably separate, not necessarily equal) entrance exclusively for women. It allows for women to be in the same musalla as men, yet says nothing about barriers that can be erected between the genders. Of course, conservative mosques will erect a floor-to-wall barrier within the main room, and declare with great satisfaction that they have complied with the "women-friendly mosques" document, when in fact they have created yet another separate space, only this one isn't in the basement anymore.

This document is worded in such a careful way as to allow current ultraconservative mosques to operate as-is, with only minor changes. Unless our institutions are willing to come clean, with clear, unambigious language that leaves no room for opponents of change to wiggle free, documents such as this will only serve to clear the conscience of those troubled by accusations of inequity, without changing anything on the ground.

>>Likewise, where does God allow women to serve in non-profits?

Roomih, you've admitted Islam does not forbid it; a basic Islamic principle is that you cannot forbid what Allah has not forbidden. And yes, I teach Classical Arabic and have read the Quran in its original languages several times cover-to-cover. Your fascism in the name of Allah is truly disturbing. There's no need for you to show me the error of myways, for I am confortably "cavalier" that its the right way of being Muslim for me, and I don't need no ijazah or clergy to tell me. Aren't you afraid that you're imitating the Jews and Christians by taking humans as clergy and go-betweens between you and Allah?

And DrivingDude, look who's hiding behind a false name! People know who I am...go back to waxing the floors in that hospital you supposedly work in, pffff.

Oh, and your ignorance is compunded, stoning was only prescribed for married adulterors, not for the unmarried... you got a way to go before you can top me..

>>And DrivingDude, look who's hiding behind a false name! People know who I am...go back to waxing the floors in that hospital you supposedly work in, pffff.<<

Talk about lame. Actually I would rather wax floors at the hospital than be a joe sixpack cretin who kills for others. See, at the hospital we're interested in saving lives not taking them.

With someone as dumb as you, malpractice must be killing your employer!

>>With someone as dumb as you, malpractice must be killing your employer!<<

What a beautiful piece of 4th of July wisdom. Stick and stones GI Jane. I expected better but considering that we're talking about cannon fodder here its to be expected.
Seriously though I think your inability to make your case is the source of your immature frustation.

You expected better but you never gave any better in civilized discussion than you're getting now. You refused to be civilized and respectful in discussing this, so now I'm gonna treat you the way you treat people here you disagree with; I've seen you do it to too many others on other threads. You can call a truce if you can learn to follow the posting rules here...http://www.altmuslim.com/am_netiquette.php

>>Seriously though I think your inability to make your case is the source of your immature frustation.

You're pretty good at projecting your own faults on others! I can only wonder what Muslim community you're a part of and how many people there are as sick of you as I am.

>>You expected better but you never gave any better in civilized discussion than you're getting now. You refused to be civilized and respectful in discussing this, so now I'm gonna treat you the way you treat people here you disagree with<<

Bit of a revisonist historian arent we ? The comments are there for everyone to see and its clear for that you attacked me for bringing up masjid security and dismissed the issue totally. I must say your comments are disingenous and devoid of facts, and thats painfully apparent. As I stated earliar this often happens to people who rebel against an orthodoxy: they go in the extreme opposite direction and wind up becoming a caricature of themselves. You've become rather spoiled hanging out with the marxist thugs from mwu, doesnt work that way here. If you find that the comments of others are too much for your fragile psyche, slither back to mwu.

>>You can call a truce if you can learn to follow the posting rules here...http://www.altmuslim.com/am_netiquette.php<<

I've got a better idea, how about you read the rules and refrain from using lines about talking from sewers, saddam baiting etc. The choice is clearly yours. Dont tell others to follow netiquette when you cant yourself.

>>You're pretty good at projecting your own faults on others!<<

Quite the opposite. I make my points and stand by them as best as I can, and I question motivations and intentions of those who are more enamored by Das Kapital than the Quran and Sunnah. Sounds more like petty insecurity on your part.

>>I can only wonder what Muslim community you're a part of and how many people there are as sick of you as I am.<<

More doltish immaturity on display here. And you talk of truce...now that is truly entertaining. What the Muslim community is sick of is lies. Lies about Iraq, lies about masjids, lies about muslimahs, things like that. I'm particularly sick of your phony posturing and inability to answer intelligently on these issues.

OmarG,
DrDriveBy is correct when he asserts you have yet to make a case. It is apparent to that you have yet to present any justification of any of your views. Your arguments generally fall on "nana nana naaa naaa ...you cant get me". You seem to think that by sheer repetition your ideas will somehow become justified. Is your blog not enough of an outlet?
Regardless, it is apparent that the ideology you follow, no doubt, stems from your indoctrination at the hands of PMU, MWU, et. al. Yes, yes we know, you are not part of them, but realize that if it acts like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, then, well, itÌs a duck. (In your case we can substitute the U for I.)

To summarize your views: (source of these concepts remain elusive)
1. Women MUST serve in non-profits.
2. The Quran and Sunnah are incomplete and have ÏgapsÓ in their guidance.
3. We must fill these ÏgapsÓ with our own decisions (i.e. desires)
4. ÏTraditional IslamÓ is mostly Îlayers of cultureÌ added by wacko sheikhs.
5. The ÏtrueÓ role of Islam is limited only to prayer.
6. Culture can be adopted as a way of life, even when it supercedes Islam.
7. ÏtraditionalistsÓ are fascists.

If and when you can supply sources that justify the above concepts, we can continue. Note that your personal beliefs are not considered a source.

DrDriveBy,
I think this guy has been on one too many ÎmissionsÌ. Perhaps some mental evaluations are in order, with all the ÎsyndromesÌ the GIs are always coming back with.

It is more saddening than anything else to see that Muslims with little guidance are falling prey to the secular/humanist movement that seek limit Islam to a private, individual act of prayer. Well, I say movement, but we all know the forces behind the movement÷÷

Its so easy for you to dismiss people who disagree with you as needing help; so typical. Now listen, child: The Quran was sent to tell humanity about Allah and to lay down principles for right behavior. It was not meant as a crutch for people unwilling to think for themselves. That's why your sheikhs have to create fiqhi methods such as ijma to find *legal* answers to questions put forth by everyday Muslims, because there is often nothing explicit in the Quran about what they are asking. So, they use these moral principles to answer things just like anyone can. Take for instance, the time when Salman suggested making a ditch. The prophet approved, but ditch making isn't mentioned as a method for defensive warfare in the Quran; Salman mentioned explicitly it was something his people, the Persians do in warfare; i.e it was a feature of Persian military culture and not Arab as is evident from the narrations. Culture was used. Also note the story when the Prophet (S) mentioned to farmers not to pollinate thier crops. They later complained and he told them that he wasn't sent for that and reversed himself, that it was simply his personal opinion.

>>Note that your personal beliefs are not considered a source.

Spoken like a truly spiritually bankrupt traditionalist mired in legalism. I'm suprised you can think for yourself given this statement. You must stop writing unless you are parroting your shiekh. Have you gone the final step and started to ask your sheikh to intercede for you? Got a statue of him (obviously not a her!)?

>>>Its so easy for you to dismiss people who disagree with you as needing help; so typical. Now listen, child:<<<

ho hum÷.more juvenile mudslinging÷ your lack of ability to provide any substance on this thread is what is causing people to dismiss you.

>>>The Quran was sent to tell humanity about Allah and to lay down principles for right behavior. It was not meant as a crutch for people unwilling to think for themselves. That's why your sheikhs have to create fiqhi methods such as ijma to find *legal* answers to questions put forth by everyday Muslims, because there is often nothing explicit in the Quran about what they are asking.<<<<

more baseless assumptions, no proof, no logic, keep the Bush Inc. propaganda coming÷. If only you had intelligence instead of inanity you would know that there are NO rulings that rely on anything other than Quran and Sunnah.

>>>. Take for instance, the time when Salman suggested making a ditch. The prophet approved, but ditch making isn't mentioned as a method for defensive warfare in the Quran; Salman mentioned explicitly it was something his people, the Persians do in warfare; i.e it was a feature of Persian military culture and not Arab as is evident from the narrations. Culture was used..<<<<

There are a few problems in your examples buddy. First of, your example is from the early days of Islam so it donÌt apply. The reason it doesnÌt apply is because Islam was still being perfected for us. It is when the Prophet (SAAS) said that Ïtoday I have perfected your religion for youÓ that Islam became complete. If you were more knowledgeable about Islamic history, you would know that there were certain things that were that were allowed, but as Islam became developed, these things were abrogated. So, your methodology is incorrect, because ONE example from EARLY Islam cannot be used to create a ruling.
What you are trying to do is drive a car with two wheels. You have wait until the car is assembled COMPLETELY before you can drive it. No wonder, you think the car drives really bad÷

Secondly, lets just assume your flawed methodology validates the example. Then what? All your example shows is the equivalent of being allowed the use of hammers and screwdrivers to construct a building. The tools used to achieve a goal are not being discussed. If you can snap out of your ranting, you would realize that it is the GOAL that we are discussing, i.e. women must serve on non-profits. We were NOT discussing HOW they were going to serve, but if they can or canÌt. The goal in your example was holy war, which is EXPLICIT in the Quran and Sunnah as a command. So where does the GOAL of Ïwomen must serve in non-profitÓ come from? Where does Quran or Sunnah mandate womenÌs service in non-profits? (still waiting for this answer)

I am glad, at least you made an attempt to use your intelligence, rather than propaganda, although your example is totally inappropriate and irrelevant to the discussion.

>>>Spoken like a truly spiritually bankrupt traditionalist mired in legalism. I'm suprised you can think for yourself given this statement. You must stop writing unless you are parroting your shiekh. Have you gone the final step and started to ask your sheikh to intercede for you? Got a statue of him (obviously not a her!)?<<<

Yawn....DrDriveBy said it best: ÏMore doltish immaturity on display hereÓ

>>>Also note the story when the Prophet (S) mentioned to farmers not to pollinate thier crops. They later complained and he told them that he wasn't sent for that and reversed himself, that it was simply his personal opinion<<<

Ahhh÷ and here it is that we find the root of your problems:÷.(nba) the ever-mistaken, bumbling, devil-inspired, pedophile prophet (SAAS)÷÷somehow I knew that I would find this eventually÷. DoesnÌt the mind-numbing propaganda ever tire you out? It must be a satisfying task that you have been assigned, to deconstruct Islam from within, first by trying to limit it to a ÏstyleÓ of prayer; second by undermining the credibility of the Prophet (SAAS).

Just to remind you, try to focus on the discussion or try to address the seven points (just in case you fire off more immature and substance-less comments)

>>First of, your example is from the early days of Islam so it donÌt apply.

Ohhhh that's a big one! So now you're saying Allah and his messenger didn't get it right at the beginning?? The Meccan Surahs were revealed at this time, too, and many Hadith date from this period as well! Shall we throw it all away?! Truly bizzare! You *cannot* apply naasikh-mansuukh to everything you don't like! Truly, I've never heard a Muslim dismiss the Sirah of the early years like this before, truly an innovation from Shaytan!

>>to deconstruct Islam from within, first by trying to limit it to a ÏstyleÓ of prayer; second by undermining the credibility of the Prophet

You are afraid of Islam and Muslims not being the way you want us to be and so you attribute the most outlandish things from other people to me. Indeed, you make the mistake of deifying prophets and sheikhs like the people of the Ashab al-Kahf and Nuh... BTW, can you read and speak in Fushaa as you asked me?

>> try to focus on the discussion or try to address the seven points

A poor attempt to deflect the discussion on your terms, sorry, no joy. Your seven points aren't in the Quran, so you ahve no authority to ask them, isn't that right?? ;-)

Do you have some sort of reading disorder?
What does this sentence mean to you:
Ïyour methodology is incorrect, because ONE example from EARLY Islam cannot be used to create a rulingÓ Go back and read the entire paragraph instead of firing from the hip cowboy.

The seven points are actually summaries of YOUR views, not mine÷÷÷÷(??)

It is obvious that you are incapable of doing anything other than ranting and blathering on and on. Faced with logic/rationale/Islamic knowledge all you do is the same old Ïnana nana naa naa÷.Ó routine÷typical for somebody with limited knowledge and heavy propaganda indoctrination÷÷

Are you lazy?! You want me to disprove my own points so you don't have to do it yourself? ...and using your own perversion of a methodology? Come on, let's hear something intellectual from you, eh? What kind of game are you playing where you label everything I say instead of advancing rational arguments? Admit it, you don't women to have a public role, and you're using our religion to try to convince others. And anyway, women MUST have the choice to have a public role, not compelled to as you misrepresented my previous assertion.

>>Ïyour methodology is incorrect, because ONE example from EARLY Islam cannot be used to create a rulingÓ

Actually the battle of the Khandaq was not early, it was actually fairly late in the game compared to the first revelations? And so then, do tell us at what point do events become "correct" and not *too early*. I want a date and time! Anyway, who told you that!?

you are one confused wackjob omarg:

>>>Your seven points aren't in the Quran, so you ahve no authority to ask them<<<
>>>You want me to disprove my own points so you don't have to do it yourself<<<

You donÌt seem to be making any sense. These are your theories, why donÌt you try making arguments? Making an argument entails presenting your theory with supporting evidence. All we see are your theories over and over again. As I said before, you can not prove anything by sheer repetition. Lets see some evidence.

>>>Actually the battle of the Khandaq was not early, it was actually fairly late in the game compared to the first revelations<<<

again÷.go back and read the paragraph that states: ÏSecondly, lets just assume your flawed methodology validates the example÷.Ó I have already nullified your example, EVEN if we accept your example÷÷why are you still hung up on it? Either refute what I said with stronger, overriding evidence or present something new.

Go to school, get some education and learn to have conversation where you actually make coherent dialogue instead parroting propaganda.

>>I have already nullified your example

How?? Simply by saying that it is from early Islam and it is only one example?? You dismiss it on spurious grounds. As for having to prove my statements, the proof is actually on you. You want to create a restriction. I am affirming a standing permision The rule is that everything in muamalat is permissible except for what is explicitly forbidden. Therefore, it is upon you to show where women serving public roles is explicitly forbiden. Saying that Arab women of Quraish didn't take public roles (which is doubtful; many Arab women were very forceful in advancing thier own or thier clan's interest, aka Khadijah among MANY) does not suffice, since an absence of an action cannot serve as a basis for tahrim.

>>Go to school, get some education and learn to have conversation where you actually make coherent dialogue instead parroting propaganda.

Really, it seems to me dialogue in your mind is simply agreeing with you... Do tell, what level are you at in a Classical Islamic *legal* education if you so haughtily want to dismiss me? And, you still didn't answer me: from where did you learn that early Islam is not a basis for principles of Islamic life? And, in your estimation, what date is considered the cutoff? In case you forgot, you DID make this statement: "First of, your example is from the early days of Islam so it donÌt apply." Explain it or retract it!

If RasoolAllah (SAW) allowed our brothers and sisters to perform salaah in the same space in a masjid and further the choice and preference to read at home, then masjid boards should provide valid resons to their current situations as to why not to make such accomodations available. The precedent is set in Sunnah and the exceptions should be justified - not vice versa.

I see the irony of it in my daily life - muslim women travelling, working ,being educated and participating freely in all aspects of daily life and contributing in every part of societies development, BUT not being enabled in the Ummah because access to the masjid is severely restricted. The one place where everybodies sincere effort is desperately needed - we can't afford to NOT allow muslim women to enter the masjid. Its shouldn't even be a masjid governors pregrogative to make that decision. We can not afford to loose our brightest and most educated womenfolk to their lifestyles because some men believe that its is their prerogative to be making decisions.

The peace and spiritual fortification that comes from performing salaah in a masjid separated from the business of the daily world should be available to everyone.

DrDriveby and OmarG-
No matter what your intentions you've done a mighty fine job of taking over the comments section and loosing the point of the article in wasted insults and wayward complaints.

This is about a womans equality in Islam...or should I say Hislam?
Look we woman do a hell of a lot for the Muslim community and we have been doing so for thousands of years and all we're asking to do is be let in the front door (gasp!) and have an decent place to worship. Not in a musty basement, not behind the feet of men, not on a linty dirty floor covered with a screen where we can't see or hear the imam...but in a good solid holy place. This is all we want. Why is it so damn hard for you men to understand? And this is not a feminist issue and Asra Nomani is not some raving psycho. This is a human issue. If black Muslims where made to worship seperate from Arab Muslims I would have a problem with that too. If Asian Muslims where made to walk in the back door while White Muslims could walk in the front door...I'd have a problem with THAT TOO!
You silly boys don't even get it do you?
We do so much for the community and all you can come up with is "woman don't even HAVE to go to masjid". Screw that we WANT to go to masjid and that should be reason enough.

Why on earth would you deny us the right to worship in a clean, bright, holy space? Would the Prophet (pbuh) do that? I doubt it.

Grow up and learn to worship Islam not HIslam.