All Muslim eyes today are turned toward New York, where Muslim WakeUp! and the Muslim Women's Freedom Tour have organized the first public woman-led Friday prayer service in ... well, perhaps ever. Needless to say, this event has stirred up quite a bit of controversy. In order to justify the event, MWU has posted an article by Nevin Reda arguing for the religious validity of female imams for mixed-sex Friday prayers. A few other such pieces, though not having the depth of Nevin Reda's, also exist on the internet. On the other side of the court, one can find articles opposing female imams for jumu'ah services. My contention here is that the argument in favor of woman-led jumu'ah salat is not persuasive, for reasons that have been only partially explained in some of the existing critiques.

As a starting thought, let me say that PMU/MWU! serves an important function in the Muslim community in its role as gadfly. Many of the issues they raise, pertaining to women, sexuality, the use of violence, interfaith relations and the like, are ones that need to be raised in an open way. They have thrown down the gauntlet to the rest of the ummah, and that is to be lauded. I agree with their overall goal of improving women's position within Islamic law, and of seeking gender equity. I also support a critique of classical Islamic legal methodology, and revision where appropriate. As for the issue of women leading salat al-jumu'ah, I have no personal objection to it. However, it is the divine will that I believe we are charged with discerning, not our personal sensibilities. Thus, my disagreement with the progressive position is not over the content of the rulings, but with the legal methodology by which the rulings are being argued, which does not appear to me to be sound.

In order to arrive at any new legal doctrine, or hukm, one must employ a systematic methodology by which to extract meaning from the sources. Traditionally, this methodology has been categorized under the rules of ijtihad. If the classical principles of ijtihad are not viewed by progressive Muslims as being adequate, either in whole or in part, for discerning the will of God, then they must present an alternative.

About the Friday Prayer Led By Amina Wadud - In the issue of the imamate of women, all opinions are respectable. If some Muslims consider that it is illicit for a woman to deliver the khutba and lead the friday prayer, they are in their right to do so. The contradictions among scholars are not necesarily bad. We have to consider them as an expression of the variety and vitality of islam, and never as a fitna. (Read more...)

The centerpiece of a proper juristic methodology is a sound system of legal reasoning which is consistent with the texts of the Qur'an and the most-likely-authentic Sunna, and which emerges from a spirit of piety and submission to Allah (or khushu'). By sound reasoning, I mean that any argument that is proffered should progress along logical lines that are internally consistent. The classical jurists of Islam developed such a methodology. They devised ways of both grading the reliability of, and extracting meaning from, the texts, ways that by and large are very sound. For example, the fuqaha' isolated different degrees of textual clarity: Does a text reasonably permit of only one meaning? Two? More? Are there other texts that help us decide between two possible meanings in the first text? They also came up with principles for determining when a strict application of the law might be set aside for reasons of individual or social necessity. The important point for our purposes is that while jurists might have disagreed about specific rulings, they followed a well-elucidated methodology that was highly rational, that was consistent with the Qur'an and Sunna/hadith, and that appears, from my readings, to have emerged from a very real spirit of humility before God. The classical methodology of discerning the divine intent is truly awe-inspiring, and a formidable challenge to anyone who seeks to arrive at wholly new hukms, in large part because - as a method - it remains highly persuasive.

I do not say that the classical juridical methods were flawless. There were clearly differences of opinion between the jurists over specific rulings, and these differences arose from methodological disagreements. However, despite these differences in methodology and content, there were broad swaths of moral action that were treated in nearly identical fashion by most expounders of the law. Any attempt to come to fiqh positions that are not given somewhere within the existing corpus must:

a) explain why the existing methodology is unacceptable (that is, why it necessarily leads to conclusions that are makruh or haram), and

b) provide an alternate methodology that is more capable than the existing one at discerning the divine intent.

The proposed ruling - that women may lead men in salat al-jumu'ah - violates several basic texts and classical interpretive principles, and its proponents provide neither a sound critique of the traditional legal methodology or nor an improved one to replace it. The impression one gets is that there is no consistent methodology, that in fact, the desired ruling (the permissibility of women leading mixed-sex congregations for salat al-jumu'ah) dictates their use of texts and of interpretive method. Heaven knows I have wished for women to be able to lead salat al-jumu'ah. But wishful thinking is not a sound methodology.

Because the arguments in favor of women leading jumu'ah, and mixed congregations generally, is being made using traditional sources and methodology, let me explain why I think their argument is flawed.

1. Salat al-jumu'ah and the requirements of the imamah are issues of worship ('ibadat), and thus should not be modified.

Some might ask, is the issue of women leading salat one of social norms or religious law?

Answer: In a nutshell, the laws of Islam have been divided by the scholars into two broad categories, those that have to do with the rights of God, and those that have to do with the rights of human beings. Certain acts are purely in fulfillment of one, and some the other, and some fulfill both. Prayer, as one of the 'ibadat (forms of worship) has been considered to be almost purely in the category of rights of God. This is in distinction to social, economic and political activities, which are seen as having to do with the rights of human beings.

The jurists gave human interpretation very little scope in modifying the rules regarding the forms of worship. They reasoned as follows: The elements of salat - its physical format, the formulae read within it, the specifics of the surahs that may be read, the rules regarding special types of salat (such as jumu'ah, eid, janaza), the rules regarding what constitutes tahara (ritual purification), the number of raka'at in each type, the times of day, the alignment of men and women, the khutab - all of these were established during the life of the Prophet under divine guidance. We simply do not know the reasons for their form. Furthermore, because salat is so critical to proper practice of Islam, it is not an area that one may tamper with.

Thus, the scholars operated according to the principle that the rule (asl) in social laws (mu'amalat) is permissibility (ibahah), and the rule in religious observance ('ibadat) is prohibition (tahrim). In ordinary language, this means that in the area of ordinary life (social and individual), we may assume that a lack of evidences (dala'il) regarding an activity indicates that we can do it. In the area of the ibadat, however, we are to take the opposite approach: Unless there is a dala'il indicating that something is permissible, we are to assume it is prohibited. It is a very conservative approach to the ibadat, undoubtedly, and I believe for good reason.

The consensus among the scholars on the issue of leadership of salat (imamah), both in terms of leading the actual salat and of delivering the khutba, falls under the laws of 'ibadah, and is not simply a question of social norm. We submit to the form of the salat that the Prophet did, and pray as he did. Just as we cannot decide that the ritual aspect is old-fashioned and we now want to pray sitting in pews, we cannot modify the rules of imamah. A hard pill to swallow for some, perhaps, but the goal is jannah, in the end.

2. Women leading mixed congregations in fard salat does not constitute a grave need, for which ordinary rules of salat and imamah may be set aside.

According to the traditional methodology, the selection of a weaker hukm over a stronger hukm can only be done when there is a dire social or individual need, or a threat of injustice or loss of life. For example, when Umar b. al-Khattab suspended the law of cutting off the hand for theft in a period of hunger, that was a dire need. When one is permitted to consume alcohol or pork when on the verge of death, that is a dire need.

Women leading salat simply does not qualify as a dire need, either individually or socially. Nor does a woman delivering the khutba (which is part of the salat). Nor does bringing the women up to the front or having a mixed congregation. Furthermore, non-engagement in any of these actions does not result in a loss of life or well-being, intellect, property, lineage, or religion. Non-engagement does not constitute injustice. On the level of necessity, then, this proposed hukm does not pass the muster.

This is not to say that there are not grave problems concerning gender equity in our community. Women in the Muslim community generally, and in the mosque in particular, are seen as being "good Muslims" when they are most silent, most unobtrusive, most compliant with male-driven policies. Walls and curtains, crowded and substandard prayer areas, prohibitions from entering the "main" area or going through the "main" door, lack of comfortable and direct access to imams/scholars, gender separation of couples and families upon entrance into the mosque � all of these contribute to a feeling of alienation among Muslim women. All of these problems, however, should be rectified without violating the sanctity of our 'ibadat.

3. Tarawih and leading one's slaves and kin is fundamentally distinct from jumu'ah, and the rules from one cannot be translated to the other.

Although the majority of scholars said that women cannot ever lead men in jama'ah (congregation) for any prayer, there were a few (such as al-Tabari, al-Muzani, Abu Thawr and Ibn Taymiyya) who made exceptions. The exceptions were based not on any one hadith, such as that of Umm Waraqa, but on all the textual and rational evidences taken together. These exceptions were of two sorts:

1) That a woman may lead salat al-tarawih if there is no male who has memorized the Qur'an, as long as segregation and the rows are maintained, and

2) That a woman may lead her own male kin (her husband, her children, her slaves) in her own household, if she is the most knowledgeable of them.

Each of these exceptions has its particular logic, a logic that cannot be extended to Friday prayer within the existing interpretive methodology.

Tarawih is distinct from jumu'ah in several key respects: Tarawih is a nafl salat, while jumu'ah is a fard salat. Tarawih is ideally offered in one's own home, while jumu'ah is the most public of congregations. Tarawih becomes the grounds for an exception, according to the Hanbali jurists, because of the importance of reciting and hearing Qur'an during the month of Ramadan. So important is it, they reasoned, that if a woman were the only one who had memorized or could read and recite Qur'an, it warranted an exception to the rule of male-led salat. It is very difficult to argue that in an entire locality, there is no man who is capable of leading jumu'ah, while for the much smaller tarawih, it is more likely that a woman may be the one who has memorized most Qur'an.

Leading salat al-fard in one's own household is distinct from jumu'ah in several key respects, which all stem from the fact that in one's own home, the assumption is that one is leading maharim (blood-relatives) only, while the assumption is that in jumu'ah, one is leading mostly ghayr maharim (strangers). The rules for relationship between maharim are well-known: A woman need not cover herself or be as concerned for modesty around her husband, parents, siblings, children. She can touch them, relax, etc.

In short, the jurists who were open to women's imamah still limited their exceptions to tarawih and household salat. They took the hadith of Umm Waraqa seriously, but did not run with it to the point of trampling all the other dala'il, as does the progressive approach to this issue.

4. The hadith of Umm Waraqa does not provide a sufficiently persuasive basis for women leading mixed congregations in salat al-jumu'a.

At most, one might reasonable argue that a woman can lead her own household, as have a minority of jurists. The progressives' argument on the general permissibility of women's imamah hinges in part on the idea that in the hadith of Umm Waraqa, "dar" means area or locality. While this is one of the possible meanings of "dar," it is highly unlikely in this context. For example, no one ever suggests that when the early Muslims prayed at the "dar" of al-Arqam, they were praying in al-Arqam's locality rather than within the confines of his private residence. Perhaps the strongest evidence that "dar" literally means her home is the fact that there are multiple variants of this hadith. While in Tabaqat Ibn Sa'd, the word used is "dar," the version given by Abu Dawud in his Sunan uses the word "bayt," which not only means "home" but even "room within a home."

Nevin Reda's argument (on the MWU site) is particularly inconsistent on the meaning of "dar" in Umm Waraqa's hadith. On one hand, she says that "dar" likely means "area," and that Umm Waraqa was thus designated to be imam of her locality. On the other hand, she says that "dar" means "home," and that Umm Waraqa's home functioned as the jami' masjid of her area. Both readings are speculative, and cannot be used as a basis upon which to construct a general permissibility of women's imamah, especially when there are no other supporting texts for that idea, and when there are several texts indicating that in all other known circumstances, men served as imams over other men.

In the same way, the argument that Umm Waraqa's congregation must have included more than just her 2 slaves and perhaps the elderly man who served as her muezzin can hardly pass as strong evidence for women leading jumu'ah or mixed jama'ah. Likewise, the contention that there must have been more than 3-4 people in order for there to have been a designated muezzin is not strong. There can be a muezzin even for such a small group, and most jurists held that even a lone man doing salat should call adhan for himself. Numbers have nothing to do with the need for a muezzin.

In general, the arguments that are given in support of the upcoming female-led jumu'ah, in combination with the extent of the modifications being made to traditional laws of salat, reflect an ends-justify-the-means approach. It appears that it has already been decided that it is permissible for women to lead a mixed congregation in jumu'ah. Any textual or rational indicants that these rulings might be invalid are conveniently rejected. At the same time, texts that are seen as supporting the pre-determined ruling are championed in a way that is highly selective and methodologically inconsistent.

Furthermore, the claims being made are far more sweeping than the evidence warrants. For example, Nevin Reda writes, "From the above evidence it is abundantly clear that Qur'anic and hadith evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of woman imams." Can it really be that the same scholars who preserved for us the hadith of Umm Waraqa could have been so dimwitted as to have missed "abundantly clear" rulings? That we are the first to realize that the Prophet had actually established a second mosque in Madina and designated Umm Waraqa as its imam? While it may be fashionable to ignore or undermine the classical legal tradition, I have a hard time understanding how one could reasonably think that those interpretive methods were all flawed, that the jurists were all wrong, and that we have arrived at the true Islam � which happily enough, matches our own cultural sensibilities.

My recommendation is that we study and critique the tradition, and work on developing a legal interpretive methodology that leads to more equitable rulings, yes. But I would also recommend a much greater dose of caution and of humility, in light of the gravity of the task. I would seek to remind us all that our first priority is to seek the good pleasure of Allah, whose guidance for humanity may not always be scrutable.

Given both a recognition of the marginalization of women from public religious life and the need to preserve the sanctity of the 'ibadat, there are other ways for women to become integrally involved in jumu'ah in a public teaching capacity, and I would encourage masajid to implement these. I realize that my recommendations will not satisfy those who favor women leading mixed congregations, and this is fine. I think it is also clear by now that I am not willing, at this point, to concede the legitimacy of that route, wallahu a'lam. I suggest these avenues for those who remain unconvinced of the progressive position, who seek to preserve the integrity of the 'ibadat, but who also would feel that women must have greater visibility within the religious life of the community:

1) Women may write the Friday khutbas to be delivered by the khatib with proper attribution to the author. In my experience, imams are more than happy to have someone else do the work of putting together the khutba, and the practice of khatibs reading sermons written by others is well-known.

2) Women may deliver public lectures just prior to the khutba. The practice of a public talk between the adhan and the beginning of the khutba is found in much of the Muslim world and is an even more direct way than the above for women to communicate their ideas directly to the congregation. One idea for dual-language communities is that the talk delivered by the woman can be the basis for the khutba, which would essentially be a translation of it.

3) Women may be the translators of the khutba, as the translation is not technically part of the khutba. This is clearly not a function in which her own ideas will be disseminated, but in many communities, even hearing a woman's voice, either through one's headset or after the khutba, would be a significant improvement over the status quo.

Some might regard these suggestions, particularly #2, as being so close to women giving the khutba that I am just hairsplitting. Others may feel that these suggestions do not go far enough, since they stop shy of restructuring the jumu'ah rules. My hope, however, is that for those who seek a middle course, these will provide a sound basis for action while remaining within the parameters of the tradition.

Without doubt, the most balanced and sensible statement so far on this issue that ate the world. It's far better than the crap written elsewhere, including here.

Thank you for your courageous and thoughtful piece. A lot of times I feel that people want to redefine Islam so radically and throw away so much baggage that I wonder why they even call it Islam and not just start some new religion freshly conceived from their notions du jour. You, on the other hand, obviously have a great regard for tradition and honest discourse and have studied and thought hard before making your declarations.

Jazakallah Khairan, Sister Azam for your article. It is heartwarming to know that there are still some people out there that are unwilling to let Islamic principles fall victim to the latest cultural rage.

I have to agree that this is the most well thought out and reasonable piece on the debate i have read so far.
Had there been such a pressing need or urge within Islam or had the prophet approved of it so much, wouldn't he have made it a point to appoint women imams. but he didn't and aren't we required to follow his precept as much as possible?

For a good article on wadud and go here:
http://world.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/13703/

***The important point for our purposes is that while jurists might have disagreed about specific rulings, they followed a well-elucidated methodology that was highly rational, that was consistent with the Qur'an and Sunna/hadith, and that appears, from my readings, to have emerged from a very real spirit of humility before God. The classical methodology of discerning the divine intent is truly awe-inspiring, and a formidable challenge to anyone who seeks to arrive at wholly new hukms, in large part because -- as a method Û it remains highly persuasive.

I do not say that the classical juridical methods were flawless. There were clearly differences of opinion between the jurists over specific rulings, and these differences arose from methodological disagreements. However, despite these differences in methodology and content, there were broad swaths of moral action that were treated in nearly identical fashion by most expounders of the law. Any attempt to come to fiqh positions that are not given somewhere within the existing corpus must:

a) explain why the existing methodology is unacceptable (that is, why it necessarily leads to conclusions that are makruh or haram), and

b) provide an alternate methodology that is more capable than the existing one at discerning the divine intent.***

To be brief, it is ONLY Allah who, can determine what is halal [lawful] and what is haram [unlawful]. Allah's Messenger did not make any laws [ "...I follow naught but what is revealed to me; surely I fear, if I disobey my Lord, the punishment of a mighty day." 10:15 ]


Allah says:

16:116 But say not - for any false thing that your tongues may put forth,- "This is lawful, and this is forbidden," so as to ascribe false things to Allah. For those who ascribe false things to Allah, will never prosper.

The above ayat decisively overrides any "traditions/customs" of men/scholars etc., because nowhwere in Al-Quran does Allah make haram a woman leading men in salat.

6:149 Say: Then Allah's is the "conclusive argument"; so if He please, He would certainly guide you all.

Reposted for your benefit, Iconoclast:
I am sure you must have read some of my comments from the other articles, if not, feel free to do so b/c I am not going to repeat the same stuff here. But in a nutshell:
1. None of these self-proclaimed reformists are qualified to be leaders under ANY capacity, in fact they are not considered part of Islam to begin with, much less leaders (Wadud, Manji, Nomani, etc÷)
2. There are no REAL ÏissuesÓ with womenÌs rights in Islam.
3. Attacking the ÎpowerÌ structure or, for that matter, any component of Islam is a direct attack on the Quran and the traditions from which said component finds its origin.
4. Conformance to Islam and its law is spotty at best, and using incidents where Islamic law has been bypassed is no excuse to attack Islam.
5. People are corrupt no matter which religion or ethnicity they are; and yes, sadly some women, made shameless by their exposure to the western ideal of ÎwomanhoodÌ are using their shamelessness as an excuse for a power trip or a quick buck or a higher ÎacademicÌ status. (Wadud, Manji, Nomani, Tantawi etc÷)

The question of womenÌs imamate is so immature, because anybody with any semblance of Islamic knowledge (regardless of fiqh) recognizes it as an aberration. WomenÌs imamate is wrong on so many levels that it is a sad day indeed, when it will have to explained to MUSLIMS why it is wrong.

An even sadder day, when after explaining it, they refuse to see the truth, blinded by their passion.

"Allah taketh away their light and leaveth them in darkness, where they cannot see,
Deaf, dumb and blind" (2:17-18).

I would also congratulate Ms Azam's on her well-written article.
While some are questioning the very fact that since Quran (i.e. Allah hinself) doesn't make it specifically haram for women to lead prayers, and haram and halal can only be from Allah Himself, and not even His Rasool had the authority to override Him, my appeal to Muslims would be not to get lost in the heated debate and controversy arising from this "act of defiance", alone, but use this as an opportunity to identify and provide practical solutions for the root causes of women suppression in Muslim societies, which is not due to Islam, but inspite of it.
It is a historic fact that women in all cultures and societies had to fight for their rights. In Christianity it took a long time for women to get some equality status.
It is Ironic that while Islam has been the most progressive religion to give women more rights than any other religion of the time, its followers have generally not adhered to principles of equality and used cultural traditions to suppress their voice for centuries.
The time seems to have arrived that our religious establishment can't ignore women's plight any longer and invite them to discuss issues that are important to them.

an amazing article. I thank Hina Azam for taking the time out to write this and to post it on the web for all to read. It was a much anticipated and needed interpretation of this historic event, from an Islamic legal perspective. Azam's analysis was not only thorough, but proactive through its recommendations. May Azam be rewarded for this noble act and may Allah protect and guide our ummah, ameen.

Salaamun, Roomih,

Don't get me wrong, I am not defending anyone, I am defending the Deen of Allah. My position is this, if one believes a ritual prayer, jumaa included, is prescribed by Allah, then based on ayat 16:116, what Wadud did is not haram according to Allah and with Him is the conclusive argument. The vast majority of Muslims, unfortunately, prefer to follow opinion and traditions, rather than what Allah has in fact commanded. Allah warns His servants about this in the following ayat:

6:116 Were you to follow the common run of those on earth, they will lead you away from the way of Allah. They follow nothing but conjecture: they do nothing but lie.

I don't know what you mean by "power structure" and "any component of Islam", please clarify these ideas, thanks. Let me correct on you one matter though. Al-Quran is not a book of traditions but a Book of Law. Look, don't get me wrong I have nothing against tradtions, that is, so long they are not ascribed to Allah, His Deen, His Quran and His Messenger(s). All to often, scholars, imams, and common Muslim folk pass of tradition and opinion as if were from Allah's Quran. Allah says of this:

3:78 Most surely there is a party among those who distort the Book with their tongue that you may consider it to be of the Book, and they say, It is from Allah, while it is not from Allah, and they tell a lie against Allah and they know it.

Where, according to Allah's Quran, was Al-Islam attacked by Ms. Wadud? Please be specific.

In regard to a woman leading the so-called jumaa prayer in mixed gender setting, where exactly do you fault these women? I being specific to women being imams and not other positions which they may hold.

If women being imams is wrong, that is, haram, then please produce the ayat from Allah's Quran to substantiate your charge. Please keep the following ayat and m-w definitions in mind when formulating your response:

7:33. Say: the things that my Lord hath indeed made haram are: shameful deeds, whether open or secret; sins and trespasses against truth or reason; and that you associate with Allah that for which He has not sent down any authority; and...."saying things about Allah of which you have no knowledge".

Main Entry: KNOW :be convinced or certain of.

Main Entry: KNOWLEDGE: the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association.

Looking forward to your reply.

Salaamun All

***I do not say that the classical juridical methods were flawless. There were clearly differences of opinion between the jurists over specific rulings, and these differences arose from methodological disagreements. ***

One of the main problems today with the Muslim ummah and why we have lost our qibla, is the result of giving/following opinion rather than giving/following knowledge. Allah, in the following ayat, has expressly forbidden the giving of opinion relative to His Din:

7:33. Say: the things that my Lord hath indeed made haram are: shameful deeds, whether open or secret; sins and trespasses against truth or reason; and that you associate with Allah that for which He has not sent down any authority; and saying things about Allah of which you have no knowledge.

17:36 And follow not that of which you have not the knowledge; surely the hearing and the sight and the heart, all of these, shall be questioned about that.

Main Entry: OPINION: belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge.

Main Entry: IMPRESSION: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed.

Main Entry: POSITIVE: not speculative: incontestable: independent of changing circumstances.

Main Entry: KNOW :be convinced or certain of.

Main Entry: KNOWLEDGE: the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association.

Hence, when one loses focus of the above ayat and definitions, the following is the result:

53:28 And they have no knowledge of it; they do not follow anything but conjecture, and surely conjecture does not avail against the truth at all.

Main Entry: CONJECTURE: supposition: inference from defective or presumptive evidence b : a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork.

Allah says:

2:185. Ramadhan is the (month) in which was sent down the Qur'an, as a guide to mankind, also clear proofs of guidance and the criterion... in that He has guided you; and perchance ye shall be grateful

21:24. Or have they taken for worship (other) gods besides him? Say, "Bring your convincing proof: this is the Message of those with me and the Message of those before me." But most of them know not the Truth, and so turn away.

Hence, giving opinion, is haram. We either know what we are talking about [being able to go to Al-Quran and bring our convincing proof] or we do not.

Dear Iconoclast:
I would agree with the thrust of your argument, but I would not claim that "giving opinion is haram". The concept of qayas i.e. using intelligence and knowledge to render an opinion, is valid in Islam. The Prophet and subsequent followers have supported this practice.
My problem is that most Muslim scholars have STOPPED giving opinions and have relied only on Ijmaa, i.e collective opinion or consensus and shunned the practice of Ijtehad.
This is a result of centuries-old held belief and custom, started during the times of Imam Ghazali (13th century), when he declared the doors for Ijtehad to be closed for ever.

Peace be unto you all...

I am new here...
This particular event was highlighted today in the Singapore Straits Times...

I went online and found this site...
Well...here is my time. ( I know you never asked for it. :)

I am one of those who do not believe anyone is equal to anyone.

Any expectation of anyone to be treated like the other is futile if not foolhardy.

Among Mankind...
Men are not equal to men, nor are they born equal, have equal lives, or destinies.

Women are not equal to other women and certainly are not equal to men.
These are empirical facts.

As to equality before Allah(swt) that is not even matter for us to concern ourselves with...His(swt) ways are not our ways, and the Creation cannot know the Creator except in the way the Creation is allowed by the Creator.

The sister and the brothers in that gathering does not seem to be acting in line with Quraan and Hadeeths, and anything in Islam....

Perhaps one of you posters can remind me, but on the matter of equality, did not the Qura'an say that

"Men are created a degree above women...."?

Is that not sufficient for us to not even bother with the man/woman equality thing.

I will post a series of Quraanic ayats that will establish my position on this...
As muslims, in matters like these, we have to refer it to Allah(swt), His(swt) Rasul(pbuh), and His(awj) Book...

Allah(swt) has decreed some obligations; do not neglect them; Allah(swt) has forbidden others; abstain from them; Allah(swt) has established some boundaries, do not violate them. Every Action is based on an Instruction. Every Action not Instructed is rejected

Surah 4 Aayat 65:
" But no, by your Lord! They could not be believers, until they make you (Muhammad) judge in all disputes between them and find in their souls no resistance against your decisions, but accept them fully with submissionÓ.

For My brothers and sisters, we are warners only...take care of what you call others to...lest more of the following be revealed against us...

Let us enjoin good...otherwise we will be cursed, with more severe tests, than this war against Islam...

Abdullah ibn Mas'ud related that Rasulullah peace be upon him, said,The first weakness crept into the Children of Israel this way.

One of them would meet another and say to him, Fear Allah and give up the wrong that you are doing.

Then he would meet him the next day and find no change in him, but this would not prevent him from eating, drinking, and befriending with him.

When they came to this stage, their hearts were perverted on account of their associations. He continued and said, By Allah!

You must enjoin good and forbid evil and seize the hand of the wrongdoer and persuade him to act justly and establish him firmly on the right, otherwise Allah will change your hearts and will curse you as he cursed them.Abu Daud "

The position I understand in Islam is that we cannot abandon these wrongdoers, if we think that abandoning them will make them worst...if we sincerely think it abandoning them will help then we may attempt it but with guidance from our Lord(swt)...His(awj) Prophet (pbuh)...

Otherwise the test is to find way to hold their hands and bring them back to the right path...

Even though we do not act it, a Musim s a brother and a sister to Muslims everywhere...

We are accountable to some degree....will will answer to this on day when we would prefer not to.

Allahualam.

"And when a party of them said, Why do you admonish a people whom God would destroy, or whom He would chastise with a severe torment? they said:

To be free from blame before your Lord, perchance they may fear God. Qur'an Translation 7:164"

"Whoever turns to God repentant after his iniquity and reforms himself, verily God turns to him mercifully, indeed, God is oft-Pardoning, Merciful.Qur'an Translation 5:39"

Walikum Iconoclast;
LetÌs start with the basics:
1. How did we come about the Quran?
2. If it was revealed to the last messenger, then God must have surely trusted the messenger's authenticity?
3. Does this mean that the last messenger was infallible, within the capacity of presenting the religion? (If not, do we know of any way to verify the fallacy?)
4. What does it mean when the Quran tells us to obey the last messenger? (is it an ego trip injected by our messenger? or a pat on the head from God? or a bona fide command?)
5. If it is in fact a bona fide command from God then does this enforce the infallibility of the last messenger?
6. Why would God tell us to obey the last messenger, when God himself is telling us how to live our life in the Quran?
7. Can the Quran by itself, without any further added tafsirs, prophetic traditions, and the ijtihad of scholars, guide you in all your religious obligations?

I would like for you to respond (at least) to the last question (no. 7).
If yes, what makes you qualified to interpret the Quran without having any background knowledge?
If not, then we must agree that the Prophetic Traditions, aka Hadith or Sunna are vital to the comprehension of the Quran.

Please respond, so that I may continue.

Sister Azam,
Thank you for a mature, rational, well-written argument. I am so happy that there are some Muslims left who can discuss and debate like adults without calling for someone's head or seeing the opposite side as some sort of conspiracy. You are to be commended.

Though I am a supporter of women's leadership, I (and I believe most others) am not about forcing anything on anyone. I hope that thinkers such as you and some of the others who posted will be able to work together with people like myself on the causes and issues we agree on, including restoring to so many women the rights they are due in Islam.

It will be interesting to see if any mosques take up your ideas regarding potential roles for women. They certainly would be a nice change. I look forward to reading more of your work in the future. Salaam.

SALAAMUN JALAL

***...but I would not claim that "giving opinion is haram". The concept of qayas i.e. using intelligence and knowledge to render an opinion, is valid in Islam.***

If giving one's opinion is permissable, then the following ayats contradict your assertion:

2:78 And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book, but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture.

53:28 But they have no knowledge therein. They follow nothing but conjecture; and conjecture avails nothing against Truth.

Conjecture, impression, and opinion all, bottomline, are not postive knowledge. Allah, requires that we have positive knowledge about what we say about Him, His Deen, His Quran, and His Messenger. The following ayat definitions, proves this assertion:

7:33. Say: the things that my Lord hath indeed made "haram" ...and saying things about Allah of which you have no knowledge.

Main Entry: OPINION: belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge.

Main Entry: IMPRESSION: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed.

Main Entry: POSITIVE: not speculative: incontestable: independent of changing circumstances.

Main Entry: KNOW :be convinced or certain of.

Main Entry: KNOWLEDGE: the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association.

Hence, giving opinion, relative to Allah, His Deen, His Quran, and His Messenger, is haram.

***The Prophet and subsequent followers have supported this practice.***

Having not witnessed what the Prophet did/said, we cannot with certitude/positive knowledge, use the extra-Quranic reports about his alleged postions.

Comments for this article have been archived and no further comments are allowed.