Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Cypress

[Closed/Review]Mujtahidah (female Allamah)

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

If Muslims were truly as capable of leading societies and such, then why haven't they? Christian White men have been ruling over much of the world for centuries now, things like that don't just happen by accident. Most societies ruled by Muslims are either utterly inefficient, corrupt or just plain evil killing whatever humanity they had in order to assert their power over others.

Tell, me, is their something inherently unfeminine about asserting power over others?

Well its true...if the Ahlul Bayt had been ruling society it'd be a different matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I was obviously joking about that and it was in response to some of your ribbing. If you don't want to get ribbed back don't rib:)

Irregardless instead of focusing this on me please address the issue at hand you don't know me so please refrain from saying you dont' know this or that. Ad hominem arguments don't hold much water.

I personally don't believe that this animal theory of yours holds weight. The reason is that, especially in matters of religion, we are much more than animals. Animals dont' follow mujtahids....sensitive, humane, religious people do. A marja isn't based on his size, weight, aggresiveness, or manliness. It is based on knowledge and piety.

Knowledge and piety are not animal qualities; if they were i'd be inclined to agree with you.

This is an interesting issue and i think the crux of it lies in the debate between the neo western idealogy that men and women are the same in all ways and the older religious fundamentals which state men and women are equal but definately not the same.

However, as far as application is concerned it seems we agree, so I guess it is healthy to simply agree to disagree on the matter of who is more emotional.

yeah the end result is the same...its good to debate these points because it brings us closer to the reality and truth. If we leave our views unexamined they may very well be false and we would never know.

Duas:)

One thing which i saw in this thread that is unhealthy is name calling. By calling people archie bunkers or sexist it doesn't really help any. When we debate it shouldn't be about our personal opinions but it should be about the truth. Inshallah we can all move closer to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seyed married pesarak, you still dont seem to understand. islam does cater to the animal side of man just as much as to the spiritual.

you can simply ride it off as some sort of western feminist ideal, but you dont seem to grasp how insulting your thinking is to females or anyone who has any real respect for them. well no, you actually do, because you knew that this thread was in effect a "ribbing". To say that women are incapable of leadership because their rationality is incapacitated by their emotions is saying that women are inferior to men. it is as simple as that.

there was a hadith i remember reading a while back, that if two men are of equal knowlege and piety, but you have to choose one rather than the other as a leader, you should choose the better looking one. how is that relevant to piety/knowledge at all? a quality of a leader is that he/she should be followed. if a leader will not be followed, well their role is a bit of a joke. therefore characteristics which make a person more likely to be followed in the society he/she is in should be met. so if one is more acceptable/attractive in appearance, then they apparently should be chosen (when other factors are all equal).

Perhaps this is a point that you are missing. It is not hte maleness thatis important in a marja, its the knowledge and piety. The gender status may very well be a mere thing of convenience just as the appearance factor is, in order to make it more likely for the person to be followed.

and just to clarify, the animal theory is not mine. it was in response to you supposedly using science to back up your theories. i still find it hilarious when relatively lay people try to use science to back up a belief. Unlike yourself, I dont place myself in a position to make the sweeping statements you have. Simply put, I am not qualified to say why this ruling exists (i can make a few educated guesses tho). I simply understand them enough for my own use and application. I'm not about to climb up onto a pulpit as you confidently have, even brushing aside scholars who have more knowledge than you as not having achieved your approval. i generally speak out about something when i feel that a group of people have been wronged or there is the potential for them to be wronged. although this is a case where women have been wronged, i cant say that i feel strongly about it right now to respond with any level of real seriousness. the audience ofcourse also plays a part.

if you wanted a serious debate then you should have approached it with some real intelligence and seriousness, not conveniently used it as a tool of "ribbing".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

43:18
Is then one brought up among trinkets, and unable to give a clear account in a dispute (to be associated with
Allah
) ?

..End of discussion..

Exactly. The requirements for being a marja are intellectual and spiritual.

Please don't make up stuff. In future, you need to prefix this with: "In my opinnion:..". Bar FSJ (as per ruddy usual), all other scholars are unanimous.

The rest of post #26 which I didn't bother to quote had with it the same problematic issue underlying qiyas as well. You can't just guess dalayil and reverse engineer nass to somehow obtain a "more perfect" solution. This logic borders kufr and is an insult to Islam.

This is true of male figures like Jesus and Muhammad and female figures like Maryam and Zainab and Fatimah.

I always find it amusing how those arguing for this, always tend to bring up these names, and then just leave it that as if automatically is taken for granted that it proves their point. Why don't you go ahead and compare for us their role with the other Ma`soomin [AS], and then we will see whose point it proves..

No, actually, this attempt to control emotions rather than manage them leads to men being less able to recognize when their actions are based on emotion rather than clear thinking. In my experience men are much more likely to act on emotion than women, and women usually recognize when they are acting on emotion, while men typically do not. Obviously, the best of men are able to process their emotions in healthy ways and base their actions on Islamic laws and good common sense, but most certainly NOT the typical male.

You've just broken rule number 1 of what they teach mujtahids :P: Quite frankly, no one cares about personal experiences..

It holds no credibility and suprisingly I see you like to bring this up a lot in your posts..

Indeed the mystics will tell you that the immanent, merciful, nurturing, loving "female" aspects of God are actually stronger than the distant, transcendant, stern, "male" aspects.

Absolute nonsense. You've been hanging around ethereal too much. If you are talking about those abnormal wannabe sufi pseudo-mystics (i.e. orientalists) who try to blend Islam with their own concepts (*coughtaocough*), then yes; otherwise, you will not find this notion in the works of any true Imami scholar. You should take up macisaac's advice and stick to more authentic sources rather than any wishy-washy statement which sound remotely poetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm searching carefully for the actual meaningful response too what I am saying, refutation of the reasoning, etc. However, I don't see anything rising above the level of "is not." If you have anything more substantial to say in response, please feel free.

I have to say I've had about enough of you pissing on maraja because they don't meet your standards of rigidity. There are sick hearted people who slander Fadlallah, but noone disputes the credentials of Saanei and Jannaati. Show a little damned respect for once.

Edited by kadhim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say I've had about enough of you pissing on maraja because they don't meet your standards of rigidity. There are sick hearted people who slander Fadlallah, but noone disputes the credentials of Saanei and Jannaati. Show a little damned respect for once.

That just really needed repeating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do people get so angry on SC...its like they're debating the chastity of their mother or something.

Chill out everyone. We're here to learn.

lol you basically label one gender as rational and the other as not, and insult people's scholars, and then you remark why people may be annoyed :lol:

I personally don't put much stock in these 3 scholars...we have hundreds of others who have completely different opinions. I'm not going to base my religion on a minuscule minority opinion that clearly fails reality.

id be interested in what exactly youre here to learn :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

43:18
Is then one brought up among trinkets, and unable to give a clear account in a dispute (to be associated with
Allah
) ?

..End of discussion..

Tafseer.

The description of those lifeless objects which were adorned with ornaments and could neither speak nor do anything refers to the idols the disbelievers used to worship. Some commentators say that this verse refers to women. The universality of the statement made in this verse may lose its purport if applied to women because there were and are many women who do not like ornaments nor display of female vanities, and very effective in arguments or presentation of a point of view.

http://www.al-islam.org/Quran/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it is a question of a woman being able to execute (kill), then I would say most women are able to kill in a burst of emotional reaction. As for the controlled (order of) killing, I would say still a percentage of them would be able to do so. Just look at the queens of England, they killed relentlessly and in very horrible ways. For example, Mary the 1st used burn protestants alive on wet wood because dry wood killed them 'too fast'. She also used to write love letter to 'her prince' in France saying how many protestants she killed (in detail) for him as a show of love for him, lol.

The ones who mention the names of hazrat Maryam (as), etc. As far as I am aware they never lead anyone and never opted to do so either. If it is Islamic past you want to bring up as proof, then it is proof that women shouldn't lead at all and that horrible things happen if they do lead.

Personally I don't believe in female role models for men nor in female leaders and I believe women are incapable of leading at Islamic standards, however we have no say over the matter. It is all in the hands of the scholars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tafseer.

The description of those lifeless objects which were adorned with ornaments and could neither speak nor do anything refers to the idols the disbelievers used to worship. Some commentators say that this verse refers to women. The universality of the statement made in this verse may lose its purport if applied to women because there were and are many women who do not like ornaments nor display of female vanities, and very effective in arguments or presentation of a point of view.

http://www.al-islam.org/Quran/

Oh my God. Is that what Persian intended by quoting that verse and saying "end of discussion?!"

That's hilarious. And absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tafseer.

The description of those lifeless objects which were adorned with ornaments and could neither speak nor do anything refers to the idols the disbelievers used to worship. Some commentators say that this verse refers to women. The universality of the statement made in this verse may lose its purport if applied to women because there were and are many women who do not like ornaments nor display of female vanities, and very effective in arguments or presentation of a point of view.

Oh my God. Is that what Persian intended by quoting that verse and saying "end of discussion?!"

That's hilarious. And absurd.

Absurd and hilarious is your quick prejudgement: http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?sh...4957572&hl=. Did you really think I would post something as controversial as that without doing any research into it ? Or at least you could have done some yourself. Pooya's opinnion is respectable, but with all due respect he is not an Imam & that is not tafseer-e masoom that you just blindly accept it. His comments are extreme and isolated, a mere fyst-like attempt to try and twist the clear and apparent meaning of the ayat simply because it is not to his liking. I at least assign some credibility to some of the other non-conventional interpretations, but Pooya's one is just completely incompatible. This can be deduced with minimal effort by just reading the whole chapter in it's entirety. For a more detailed explanation, see Tabataba`i's Al-Mizan: http://www.holyquran.net/tafseer/almizan/ (and yes, he does agree with the 99.9% of the other translators/interpretators for those of you too lazy too read it)..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like someone more knowledgeable to comment on the tafseer of that verse. .because it is an insult not only to Lady Maryam, Lady Khadija, Lady Fatima and Lady Zainab (peace be upon all of them), but also great female mujtahidas like Shaykh at-Tusi's daughters, one of whom was Sayyed ibn Tawus's grandmother, Allamah Majlisi's daughter, etc. .

In fact, it is written that Allamah Majlisi's daughter helped her husband solve a difficult jurisprudential issue to which he couldn't find the solution:

Allama Majlisi was an erudite scholar but was also very wealthy. To gauge his learning, a glance at his book Bihar al Anwaar should be sufficient. We can say with confidence that so far, after him, a scholar of his erudition has not been born. Allama Majlisihad a daughter who was not only a scholar and a mujtahida, but also very beautiful too.As far as lineage was concerned, she belonged to one of the highly respected families of the time. Allama Majlisi arranged her marriage to his student, Sayyid Saleh Mazandarani,who had no name, fame and property worth a mention. But he was religious, morally upright and a good student of religion. Allama Majlisi married his daughter to him because of his good akhlaq.
It is said that once Mazandarani was unable to solve a question of jurisprudence. When he came home and referred it to her, she was able to give a learned reply to the question!
Although the daughter was not an ordinary person, the Allama selected this youth as a match for her because he found him morally upright and religious.

That verse could have easily been used by Abu Bakr as well when Fatima (sa) went to his court to fight for her right on Fadak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have to say I've had about enough of you pissing on maraja because they don't meet your standards of rigidity. There are sick hearted people who slander Fadlallah, but noone disputes the credentials of Saanei and Jannaati. Show a little damned respect for once.

Why so hot-headed ? No-one disputed the credentials of any scholar; not even the slightest. Your only argument was an appeal to authority, and I blew it out the water by saying that if you want to merely hide behind personalities, then there are alot better & more personalities you could hide behind.

Pooya isn't infallible. Tabataba'i is.
I'd like someone more knowledgeable to comment on the tafseer of that verse. .because it is an insult not only to Lady Maryam, Lady Khadija, Lady Fatima and Lady Zainab (peace be upon all of them), but also great female mujtahidas like Shaykh at-Tusi's daughters, one of whom was Sayyed ibn Tawus's grandmother, Allamah Majlisi's daughter, etc. .

*sigh* - it is no insult at all; if you had read Tabatabai's full explanation that is..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no limit on a woman becoming a mujtahida, in fact if she has the means and the inclination, ijtihad will become compulsary for her, trinkets or no trinkets.

Imamat though is a different issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why so hot-headed ? No-one disputed the credentials of any scholar; not even the slightest. Your only argument was an appeal to authority, and I blew it out the water by saying that if you want to merely hide behind personalities, then there are alot better & more personalities you could hide behind.

You know precisely why I am upset. The "ruddy old trio, FSJ?" It's a total disrespect, a trivialization. And by far it is not the first time you have done this. Saanei, for example, has been doing ijtihad for probably twice as long as you've been alive.

I can tolerate ignorance by rolling my eyes, but dishonesty I cannot. Please don't insult our intelligences with this backpeddaling.

And to correct. I did not "appeal to authority." I provided rational arguments for my position and supplemented these with the names of some respected scholars who share the opinion as an extra gift to those here who can't even think about thinking something until someone in a big turban approves.

I will add that you are in no position to judge who is a better personality to listen to. We have an institution of marjaiyyat, with credentials managed and given out internally. It's a community of teaching and guidance with a spectrum of opinion. All of them have reasons for their conclusions and it is not legitimate to say that the majority is right and the minority can be ignored. Once you start doing this you might as well reject the whole institution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know precisely why I am upset. The "ruddy old trio, FSJ?" It's a total disrespect, a trivialization.

A fair brief summary: Fact - There names tend to crop up on issues clumped together (which I am sure you don't deny yourself either).

Jooi, for the sake evidence, could you please post the exact ruling you refer to ?

And by far it is not the first time you have done this.

I haven't disrespected anyone yet.

Saanei, for example, has been doing ijtihad for probably twice as long as you've been alive.

How is that at all relevant ?

And to correct. I did not "appeal to authority." I provided rational arguments for my position and supplemented these with the names of some respected scholars who share the opinion as an extra gift to those here who can't even think about thinking something until someone in a big turban approves.

Correction 1: Your first post quotes their names, and purely refers to their views and opinnions.

Correction 2: Your second post starts off The requirements for being a marja are intellectual and spiritual. And I told you that you can't just guess or make up the underlying reasons to nass. This requires sources, and you didn't provide any. You then say: Since women and men are equal in their capacity to achieve the required intellectual and spiritual development. Which is equally as valid as your last statement. All in all, you just appear to be pulling premises outa your ass, and think that you can somehow get away with it.

Correction 3: Your third post tries to establish a universal affirmative proposition via particular affirmative propositions, which is logically absurd.

Correction 4: You haven't provided any "rational arguments" at all.

I will add that you are in no position to judge who is a better personality to listen to.

I don't think that there is any doubt that 3 scholars are evenly matched against all the shia ulema in 1400 years. The quantity is so great, that we need not even look at weighting assigned by quality. If you follow the line of reasoning of Whizbee that "no student can excel past his/her teacher", then the view of any single one of Grand Ayatollah Boroujerdi [QS], or Abu al-Qasim al-Khoei [QS], or Imam Khomeini [QS] suffices to prove my point.

All of them have reasons for their conclusions and it is not legitimate to say that the majority is right and the minority can be ignored.

*sigh*. Last time I'm going to say this: I have never appealed to any authority, or said that the majority is right etc. This is your argument. I am only saying that if you want to blindly cling onto a scholar or two with a big turban, then there are alot more, darker & bigger turbans on the other side, and it makes more logical sense to go with them instead. Learn to read.

Edited by The Persian Shah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A fair brief summary: Fact - There (sic) names tend to crop up on issues clumped together (which I am sure you don't deny yourself either).

Referring to them as "the ruddy trio FSJ" is a disrespect. The basic message is "oh, those dudes? Like, whatever." You don't even have the common decency to write out the names. Have some honor and integrity and apologize for your flippancy.

Correction 1: Your first post quotes their names, and purely refers to their views and opinnions.

Indeed. The OP requested this level of information.

Correction 2: Your second post starts off The requirements for being a marja are intellectual and spiritual. And I told you that you can't just guess or make up the underlying reasons to nass. This requires sources,

Religious. Scholar. Spiritual. Intellectual. Rather self-evident. Please share whatever other types of competencies you think are required.

You then say: Since women and men are equal in their capacity to achieve the required intellectual and spiritual development.

As for spiritual development, this is a 101 level common knowledge in our religion. As for intellectual potential, this is self-evident. In this day and age the burden is on anyone who would want to argue otherwise.

Which is equally as valid as your last statement. All in all, you just appear to be pulling premises outa your ass, and think that you can somehow get away with it.

Wow. Yeah. And to think I was about to state without proof that 2+2=4, the sky is blue, and breathing is good for you. I'd better find some sahih ahadith before making such rash assumptions.

If you follow the line of reasoning of Whizbee that "no student can excel past his/her teacher",

I most certainly don't. It is empirically false.

*sigh*. Last time I'm going to say this: I have never appealed to any authority, or said that the majority is right etc.

You didn't need to. It's more than evident between the lines.

Absurd and hilarious is your quick prejudgement: http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?sh...4957572&hl=. Did you really think I would post something as controversial as that without doing any research into it ? Or at least you could have done some yourself. Pooya's opinnion is respectable, but with all due respect he is not an Imam & that is not tafseer-e masoom that you just blindly accept it. His comments are extreme and isolated, a mere fyst-like attempt to try and twist the clear and apparent meaning of the ayat simply because it is not to his liking. I at least assign some credibility to some of the other non-conventional interpretations, but Pooya's one is just completely incompatible. This can be deduced with minimal effort by just reading the whole chapter in it's entirety. For a more detailed explanation, see Tabataba`i's Al-Mizan: http://www.holyquran.net/tafseer/almizan/ (and yes, he does agree with the 99.9% of the other translators/interpretators for those of you too lazy too read it)..

I just read the relevant section again. The message is clear to me. Worship one God, idolatry is bad, and the idolaters are hypocrites because they say God has daughters, but they see it as a tragedy if they get a daughter, and they totally disrespect women.

How someone would try to wrench out of this some timeless message that women inherently can't think or argue about weighty matters is beyond me. It's a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO the reason woman are not leaders has less to do with the "emotional" nature of women and more to do with the nature of men.

(I think Cary Grant was making a similiar point).

The male ego makes it very difficult for us men to accept woman as our leaders. Regardless of how qualified a woman is men will always have a hard time imitating a woman. (Much of this thread is an example of this male pride) Even in examples of woman as leaders of countries they only reached that status by displaying very masculine traits.

To say that woman are not capable of rationally thinking is unfair though because so many of the great figures in history have turned to woman such as wives and mothers for advice on important matters. This would be like saying Fatima (pbuh) was too emotional to lead and think rationally. Obviously this is not true and her role is not based on a lack of capability but instead on a lack of acceptance from others if she had a different role.

Anyway just my two cents, of course Allah knows best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam allaikum,

I just wanted to clarify a main point in this argument. No one is saying that women are utterly irrational.

A small example is to imagine a woman who becomes a marja..then she becomes pregnant. During these 9 months will she be as rational as she was beforehand? Pregnancy is ruled by hormones and emotions...it is the way it is.

If she is not as rational as she was then this is dangerous for the position of a marja. How can we know that the rulings she makes are 100% logic and not whatever % of emotion due to the pregnancy?

All people have varying degrees of wisdom, knowledge and rational. Not every man can be a marja or even a mujtahid. Its not an issue of rationality or utter irrationality but that of the utmost level of rational.

I think some people on SC take this to mean that women are utterly irrational...this is disrespectful. But to say that people have varying degrees of rational and that a women during certain times of the month or in her life is more prone to hormonal flux and emotion is a very valid point.

Edited by seyedmusawi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IMO the reason woman are not leaders has less to do with the "emotional" nature of women and more to do with the nature of men.

(I think Cary Grant was making a similiar point).

The male ego makes it very difficult for us men to accept woman as our leaders. Regardless of how qualified a woman is men will always have a hard time imitating a woman.

While we disagree about whether this should carry over into the modern world, I do believe you are hitting the nail on the head as for why there were (little or) no female prophets or imams and few female mujtahids. They wouldn't have been respected in a male world. As for national leaders, in the past, as today, power was based at least partly on military strength, and in that day, military strength was physical strength (no missiles or F-16s to let you kill hundreds with a push of a button ). So male leadership was practically necessary, for the most part.

Where we part ways I think is in how much this male pride and ego is inevitable. In my experience in the West, as women become more highly educated and appear in positions of leadership, men get used to it. It just takes time.

Edited by kadhim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The male ego makes it very difficult for us men to accept woman as our leaders. Regardless of how qualified a woman is men will always have a hard time imitating a woman.

I disagree. 1) Imam Hussan [AS] delegated Zainab [sA] after his death to be the one to ask their religious questions from. 2) A child imitates his mother.

While we disagree about whether this should carry over into the modern world, I do believe you are hitting the nail on the head as for why there were (little or) no female prophets or imams and few female mujtahids.

Prophets & Imams are chosen by Allah [sWT], and so the nature of males has nothing to do with this. If your argument is that Allah [sWT] chose them to maximise the number of followers (again, trying to guess more underlying reasons behind Allah's [sWT] actions), then he would have also chosen some powerful ruler with a big army, instead of a shepherd to be Nabi Musa [AS], a carpenter to be Nabi Isa [AS], and an unschooled orphan to be the Seal of the Prophets [sAWS]. This refutes your following conclusion:

They wouldn't have been respected in a male world. As for national leaders, in the past, as today, power was based on military strength, and in that day, military strength was physical strength (no missiles or F-16s to let you kill hundreds with a push of a button ). So male leadership was practically necessary.

This is also another insult to Islam, as you are basically saying that the only reason Islam has spread & the sole virtue of the Prophet [sAWS] was none other than in his physical strength. So much for the criteria of a mujtahid being "Religious. Scholar. Spiritual. Intellectual." >_<..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you follow the line of reasoning of Whizbee that "no student can excel past his/her teacher", then the view of any single one of Grand Ayatollah Boroujerdi [QS], or Abu al-Qasim al-Khoei [QS], or Imam Khomeini [QS] suffices to prove my point.

Stop lying.

And while you are at it, stop referring to people who aren't even debating here and mocking what you construe as their "characteristics". In short, grow up.

----

For the verse, if there are scholars who says it refers to women then there are also scholars who says it refers to idols. The verse itself can be translated in more than one way [refer: The Persian Shah's linked thread where he posted the translations].

You cannot post a disputed verse and announce that it "ends" the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stop lying.

You first..

Ayatullah Mutahhari [ar] was the student of Ayatullah Burujardi [ar].

LOL So you seriously subscribe to the belief that "If X is the student of Y, then [necessarily] Y > X" ? In which case if A taught B who taught C who taught D who taught E, then A > B > C > D > E, and

Unless there is a good reason to believe otherwise, I would say that yes, the teacher knows more than the student.

there can never be any progress, only regression..

Show me one scholar today who is on the level of Sayyed Ibn Tawus [ar].

Hrmmm, I wonder what "Sayyed Ibn Tawus [ar]" view on this ayah is :)..

For the verse, if there are scholars who says it refers to women then there are also scholars who says it refers to idols. The verse itself can be translated in more than one way [refer: The Persian Shah's linked thread where he posted the translations].

Have you actually seen the other thread ? No scholar, big or small, other than Pooya says it refers to the idols. The chapter doesn't even make sense with this meaning.

43:16 (Y. Ali) What! has He taken daughters out of what He himself creates, and granted to you sons for choice?

43:16 (Picktall) Or chooseth He daughters of all that He hath created, and honoureth He you with sons?

43:17 (Y. Ali) When news is brought to one of them of (the birth of) what he sets up as a likeness to ((Allah)) Most Gracious, his face darkens, and he is filled with inward grief!

43:17 (Picktall) And if one of them hath tidings of that which he likeneth to the Beneficent One, his countenance becometh black and he is full of inward rage.

43:18 (Picktall) (Liken they then to Allah) that which is bred up in outward show, and in dispute cannot make itself plain?

43:18 (Y. Ali) Is then one brought up among trinkets, and unable to give a clear account in a dispute (to be associated with Allah.?

The whole story is about how the pagans ascribed daughters to Allah [sWT], not idols. I suggest you read it once from the beginning..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prophets & Imams are chosen by Allah [sWT], and so the nature of males has nothing to do with this. If your argument is that Allah [sWT] chose them to maximise the number of followers (again, trying to guess more underlying reasons behind Allah's [sWT] actions), then he would have also chosen some powerful ruler with a big army, instead of a shepherd to be Nabi Musa [AS], a carpenter to be Nabi Isa [AS], and an unschooled orphan to be the Seal of the Prophets [sAWS].

You're unnecessarily obscuring the point. Neither of us have said that maleness was the sole or most relevant factor to a person attracting and keeping followers for a politico-religious movement. It goes without saying that there are other factors needed, intellectual and spiritual factors. But imagine you have a male and a female with equally high spiritual and intellectual development. Who is more likely to be followed in the pre-modern world? It's not a complex point.

This is also another insult to Islam, as you are basically saying that the only reason Islam has spread & the sole virtue of the Prophet [sAWS] was none other than in his physical strength. So much for the criteria of a mujtahid being "Religious. Scholar. Spiritual. Intellectual." >_<..

No. You misunderstood, by a long shot. What I said (or rather, intended to say, to be charitable, and accept some responsibility for the misunderstanding) was that in the past, because of the physical military aspect of political leadership, it was necessary generally for a leader to be male for the leader to be respected. The leader needed to be seen credibly as a symbol of strength in order to be seen as able to lead militarily, and for this maleness was a practical necessity. This was however only one factor that was necessary for leadership. I distinctly did not say it was the only relevant factor. Necessary is different from sufficient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're unnecessarily obscuring the point. Neither of us have said that maleness was the sole or most relevant factor to a person attracting and keeping followers for a politico-religious movement. It goes without saying that there are other factors needed, intellectual and spiritual factors. But imagine you have a male and a female with equally high spiritual and intellectual development. Who is more likely to be followed in the pre-modern world? It's not a complex point.

But imagine you have a pharoah and a shepherd, the president of the USA and a old cleric, a king and a carpenter, a khalif and an unschooled orphan with equally high spiritual and intellectual development. Who is more likely to be followed in the pre-modern world? It's not a complex point.

No. You misunderstood, by a long shot. What I said (or rather, intended to say, to be charitable, and accept some responsibility for the misunderstanding) was that in the past, because of the physical military aspect of political leadership, it was necessary generally for a leader to be male for the leader to be respected. The leader needed to be seen credibly as a symbol of strength in order to be seen as able to lead militarily, and for this maleness was a practical necessity. This was however only one factor that was necessary for leadership. I distinctly did not say it was the only relevant factor. Necessary is different from sufficient.

- How could I have missed the issue "by a long shot", while you are ready to accept some responsibility for the "misunderstanding" ? The two are mutually exclusive.

- "Physical military aspect of political leadership" - seriously bro, what are you talking about ? I think you've finally lost the plot. Have you been reading any of my posts ? Perhaps you should take some of your ornaments off (:!!!:). Where was the "physical military aspect" of any of the Prophets [AS] ? Shepherds, carpenters & orphans ? Other than Nabi Sulayman [AS], I really don't think you can quote any.

- Why are you assuming a female can't command a large military/rulership like Queen of Sheba or Cleopatra VII, eh ? This assumption of yours directly contradicts what you are trying to prove in the first place !

- I don't know what you are trying to get with necessary/sufficient conditions. You are simply stating that the size of the biceps of the Prophets [sAWS], or the number of people under his commands was important to his followers, which is just plain absurd. I'm sure none of these factors were "necessary" for Imam Ali's [AS] allegiance to the Prophet [sAWS]. I think you have gotten a little carried away with demonising anyone who lived before you as an archaic barbarian, and positing yourself as a civilised rowshanfekr ("intellectual").

- Why are you so hellbent on trying to assert that Allah [sWT] has granted you exclusive knowledge from his realm of ghayb/unseen, as to what His underlying reasons of His actions are ? Just give up bro: "Physical military aspect" was clearly not an aspect of Prophethood nor Imammat..

Edited by The Persian Shah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're obviously being driven principally by your emotions here, and are making this into some sort of personal matter. When you have calmed down and are ready to discuss in a respectful manner, let me know, and I will continue with comments. For now I will withhold further comments.

Edited by kadhim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're obviously being driven principally by your emotions here, and are making this into some sort of personal matter. When you have calmed down and are ready to discuss in a respectful manner, let me know, and I will continue with comments. For now I will withhold further comments.

Lol, I'll take that as your exit without an acknowledge out of this discussion then :rolleyes:. I'd be more interested in seeing where any of my arguments were based or affected by emotion though tbh (:lol:)..

All the arguments are there. I won't repeat them. Respond in your own time..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lol, I'll take that as your exit without an acknowledge out of this discussion then :rolleyes:. I'd be more interested in seeing where any of my arguments were based or affected by emotion though tbh (:lol:)..

All the arguments are there. I won't repeat them. Respond in your own time..

seriously bro, what are you talking about ? I think you've finally lost the plot.

Have you been reading any of my posts ? Perhaps you should take some of your ornaments off ( :!!!: ).

I think you have gotten a little carried away with demonising anyone who lived before you as an archaic barbarian, and positing yourself as a civilised rowshanfekr ("intellectual").

Why are you so hellbent on trying to assert that Allah [sWT] has granted you exclusive knowledge from his realm of ghayb/unseen, as to what His underlying reasons of His actions are ? Just give up bro:

My further responses lie ready when you are able to calm yourself and take a civil tone. This time does not appear to be now, since you seem more interested in snarky personal attacks than in listening to what others are saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. You misunderstood, by a long shot. What I said (or rather, intended to say, to be charitable, and accept some responsibility for the misunderstanding) was that in the past, because of the physical military aspect of political leadership, it was necessary generally for a leader to be male for the leader to be respected. The leader needed to be seen credibly as a symbol of strength in order to be seen as able to lead militarily, and for this maleness was a practical necessity. This was however only one factor that was necessary for leadership. I distinctly did not say it was the only relevant factor. Necessary is different from sufficient.

Salaam allaikum brother kadhim,

If acceptability was the criterion for prophethood why were people picked who did not have a lot of wealth and why was the majority of their followers poor and dispossessed. If acceptibility was the factor then this doesn't make sense.

Second point is if thats the case why weren't the prophets (like the example of our own prophet) the most large and physically powerful like the case of amr bil abdu wudd. They were not exceptionally known for the their physical prowess (to the best of my knowledge).

Third point is why didn't they have the largest number of kills in battles. Wouldn't this have been a sign of ultimate male (follow me strength)?

All of these things are indicators of "male strength" in times past. I don't think our holy Prophet (sawws) had any of them in the sense of being # 1.

In todays world if we had a marja who was super rich or he was a "general" then he would probably have more followers as well (albeit superficial ones) yet the conditions for being marja have never included anything except the piety and knowledge. Why is this?

I honestly feel like your not applying logic to this argument and your trying to fit in your worldview.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Salaam allaikum brother kadhim,

If acceptability was the criterion for prophethood why were people picked who did not have a lot of wealth and why was the majority of their followers poor and dispossessed. If acceptibility was the factor then this doesn't make sense.

Second point is if thats the case why weren't the prophets (like the example of our own prophet) the most large and physically powerful like the case of amr bil abdu wudd. They were not exceptionally known for the their physical prowess (to the best of my knowledge).

Third point is why didn't they have the largest number of kills in battles. Wouldn't this have been a sign of ultimate male (follow me strength)?

All of these things are indicators of "male strength" in times past. I don't think our holy Prophet (sawws) had any of them in the sense of being # 1.

In todays world if we had a marja who was super rich or he was a "general" then he would probably have more followers as well (albeit superficial ones) yet the conditions for being marja have never included anything except the piety and knowledge. Why is this?

I honestly feel like your not applying logic to this argument and your trying to fit in your worldview.

No, you're showing in the examples you're giving that you're not understanding me either. All of these questions, "why not a muscle man rather than a weak man; why not a rich man rather than a poor man?" and these other comparisons between men with different characteristics is missing what I am getting at. The issue is "why not a female prophet, imam, etc" or "why not so many of them." I.e., why most or all, depending on the tradition you refer to (Jews acknowledge a few female prophets, for example) prophets or imams were men.

Why would this be so? Because in the time there was a general conception that leaders needed to be men, with men more likely to be respected as leaders than women. Why? Because political leaders were generally men. Why? Because political leaders generally needed to be military leaders as well, and military leaders generally needed to be men. Why? Because combat was very physical. Women were generally weaker physically than men, and therefore generally less likely to be military leaders, and thus generally less likely to be political leaders. This produced an environment where women were generally subconsciously seen as less appropriate for leadership, despite the fact that they were capable, potentially, of the intellectual abilities needed for leadership. Add to this that women were less likely to be educated, and it became even less likely for a woman to appear who would be recognized as a leader.

Does anything in this remotely suggest that a prophet needs big muscles to be a prophet? That he needs riches, etc? No. It addresses simply the issue of why women were less likely than men to be taken seriously as spiritual leaders in the pre-modern world. The skills and level of development needed to make one an apt candidate to be chosen by God for prophethood are of course quite complex and dependent on the situation. Note that nowhere did I say acceptability was the criterion. I hope it is clear why a woman would have been less likely than a man in the past to achieve the mission if chosen, and why few, or possibly none, were chosen.

I hope this shows the importance of reading carefully. One false assumption about what I was saying (bolded above) led to a whole series of misunderstandings of what I am saying.

Edited by kadhim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because in the time there was a general conception that leaders needed to be men, with men more likely to be respected as leaders than women. Why? Because political leaders were generally men. Why? Because political leaders generally needed to be military leaders as well, and military leaders generally needed to be strong. Why? Because combat was very physical. Women were generally weaker physically than men, and therefore generally less likely to be military leaders, and thus generally less likely to be political leaders. This environment produced an environment where women were generally subconsciously seen as less appropriate for leadership, despite the fact that they were capable, potentially, of the intellectual abilities needed for leadership. Add to this that women were less likely to be educated, and it became even less likely for a woman to appear who would be recognized as a leader.

Because in the time there was a general conception that leaders needed to be rulers (not shepherds), with a rich man more likely to be respected as leaders than a poor man. Why? Because political leaders were generally rich. Why? Because political leaders generally needed to be military leaders as well, and military leaders generally needed to be brutal. Why? Because combat was very physical. Carpenters were generally less skilled than soldiers, and therefore generally less likely to be military leaders, and thus generally less likely to be political leaders. This environment produced an environment where orphans were generally subconsciously seen as less appropriate for leadership, despite the fact that they were capable, potentially, of the intellectual abilities needed for leadership. Add to this that unschooled orphans were less likely to be educated, and it became even less likely for a unschooled orphan to appear who would be recognized as a leader.

Lol, that last criteria (education) you added is pretty funny. I didn't even have to change that one to make it contradict the truth/reality :lol:..

Edited by The Persian Shah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...