Genders and Authority

[SoRoUsH]

(salam)

We know that Islam is a patriarchal religion. Men have more authority with regards to judiciary, economy and other social issues. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

Now my question is, in what aspects of life, do women have more authority than men?

In what aspects of life do men need to obey and follow women?

Any?

Please answer, via Islamic texts. and not mere opinions.

Thank You

[UnknownShia]

There is no situation in which men "have" to obey the women. Apart from our mothers.

[Fatima Hussain]

Women manage the finances.

[SoRoUsH]

Any other opinions (supported by Islamic texts)?

[guest 34193]

(wasalam)

From al-Kafi:

باب في ترك طاعتهن

Chapter on the abandonment of obeying them (women)

(10227) - 1 - أبوعلي الاشعري، عن محمد بن عبدالجبار، عن صفوان، عن إسحاق بن عمار قال: قلت لابي الحسن (ع) وسألته عن المرأة الموسرة قد حجت حجة الاسلام فتقول لزوجها: أحجني من مالي أله أن يمنعها؟ قال: نعم ويقول: حقي عليك أعظم من حقك علي في هذا.

1 – Abu `Ali al-Ash`ari from Muhammad b. `Abd al-Jabbar from Safwan from Ishaq b. `Ammar. He said: I said to Abu ‘l-Hasan عليه السلام and asked him about the wealthy woman who has performed the hajj of Islam and who says to her husband: I will go (?) on hajj from my property. Is it for him that he may forbid her? He said: Yes, and he says: My right upon you is greater than your right upon me in this.

(10228) - 2 - عدة من أصحابنا، عن أحمد بن محمد، عن ابن محبوب، عن عبدالله بن سنان، عن أبي عبدالله (ع) قال: ذكر رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله) النساء فقال: اعصوهن في المعروف قبل أن يأمرنكم بالمنكر وتعوذوا بالله من شرارهن وكونوا من خيارهن على حذر.

2 – A number of our companions from Ahmad b. Muhammad from Ibn Mahbub from `Abdullah b. Sinan from Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام. He said: The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله mentioned women, so he said: Disobey them in the good before they command you to the evil, and take refuge with Allah from their evil ones and be cautious of their good ones.

(10229) - 3 - علي بن إبراهيم، عن أبيه، عن النوفلي، عن السكوني، عن أبي عبدالله (ع) قال: قال رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله): من أطاع امرأته أكبه الله على وجهه في النار، قيل: وماتلك الطاعة؟ قال: تطلب منه الذهاب إلى الحمامات والعرسات والعيدات والنياحات و الثياب الرقاق.

3 - `Ali b. Ibrahim from his father from an-Nawfali from as-Sakuni from Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام. He said: The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله said: One who obeys his woman Allah will prostrate him upon his face in the Fire. It was said: And what is that obedience? He said: She seeks from him to go out to the bath houses, weddings, `eids, lamentations, and fine clothing.

(10230) – 4 – وبإسناده قال: قال رسول الله: طاعة المرأة ندامة.

4 – And by his isnad, he said: The Messenger of Allah said: Obedience to the woman is a regret.

(10231) – 5 – عدة من أصحابنا، عن أحمد بن أبي عبدالله، عن أبيه، عمن ذكره، عن الحسين ابن المختار، عن أبي عبدالله (ع) قال: قال أمير المؤمنين (ع) في كلام له: اتقوا شرار النساء وكونوا من خيارهن على حذر وإن أمرنكم بالمعروف فخالفوهن كيلا يطمعن منكم في المنكر.

5 – A number of our companions from Ahmad b. Abu `Abdillah from his father from the one whom he mentioned from al-Husayn b. al-Mukhtar from Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام. He said: Amir al-Mu’mineen عليه السلام said in speech of his: Be wary of the evil ones of women and be cautious from their good ones. And if they command you to the good then contradict them (khalifuhunna, oppose them, be at variance to them, disobey them) that they might not expect from you in regards to the evil.

(10232) - 6 - وعنه، عن أبيه رفعه إلى أبي جعفر (ع) قال: ذكرعند أبي جعفر (ع) النساء فقال: لاتشاوروهن في النجوى ولا تطيعوهن في ذي قرابة.

6 – And from him from his father going up to Abu Ja`far عليه السلام. He said: Women were mentioned with Abu Ja`far عليه السلام, so he said: Do not take counsel with them in confidential talk and do not obey them in regards to (one’s) relations.

(10233) - 7 - محمد بن يحيى، عن محمد بن الحسين، عن عمروبن عثمان، عن المطلب بن زياد رفعه عن أبي عبدالله (ع) قال: تعوذوا بالله من طالحات نسائكم وكونوا من خيارهن على حذر ولا تطيعوهن في المعروف فيأمرنكم بالمنكر.

7 – Muhammad b. Yahya from Muhammad b. al-Husayn from `Amr b. `Uthman from al-Muttalib b. Ziyad going up to Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام. He said: Take refuge with Allah from the vicious ones of your women and be cautious of their good ones. And do not obey them in the good so they would command you to the evil.

(10234) - 8 - وعنه، عن أبي عبدالله الجاموراني، عن الحسن بن علي بن أبي حمزة، عن صندل عن ابن مسكان، عن سليمان بن خالد قال: سمعت أبا عبدالله (ع) يقول: أياكم ومشاورة النساء فإن فيهن الضعف والوهن والعجز.

8 – And from him from Abu `Abdillah al-Jamurani from al-Hasan b. `Ali b. Abi Hamza from Sandal f rom Ibn Muskan from Sulayman b. Khalid. He said: I heard Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام saying: Beware you of consulting women for in them is weakness, feebleness and incapacity.

(10235) - 9 - وعنه، عن يعقوب بن يزيد، عن رجل من أصحابنا يكنى أبا عبدالله رفعه إلى أبي عبدالله (ع) قال: قال أمير المؤمنين (ع): في خلاف النساء البركة.

9 – And from him from Ya`qub b. Yazid from a man from our companions who has the kunya Abu `Abdillah going up to Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام. He said: Amir al-Mu’mineen عليه السلام said: In contradicting (khilaf, variance, opposing, difference ) women is the blessing.

(10236) - 10 - وبهذا الاسناد قال: قال أميرالمؤمنين صلوا ت الله عليه: كل امرء تدبره امرأة فهو ملعون.

10 – And by this isnad, he said: Amir al-Mu’mineen صلوا ت الله عليه said: Every man who a woman administers, then he is cursed.

(10237) - 11 - محمد بن يحيى، عن أحمد بن محمد، عن الحسين بن سيف، عن إسحاق بن عمار، رفعه قال: كان رسول الله (ص) إذا أراد الحرب دعا نساء ه فاستشارهن ثم خالفهن.

11 – Muhammad b. Yahya from Ahmad b. Muhammad from al-Husayn b. Sayf from Ishaq b. `Ammar going up to him. He said: When the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله wanted to (go to) battle, he would call his women and seek their council then he would contradict them.

(10238) - 12 - علي، عن أبيه، عن عمروبن عثمان، عن بعض أصحابه، عن أبي عبدالله (ع) قال: استعيذوا بالله من شرار نسائكم وكونوا من خيارهن على حذر ولاتطيعوهن في المعروف فيدعونكم إلى المنكر، وقال: قال رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله): النساء لايشاورن في النجوى ولا يطعن في ذوي القربى، إن المرأة إذا أسنت ذهب خير شطريها وبقي شرهما وذلك أنه يعقم رحمها ويسوء خلقها ويحتد لسانها وأن الرجل إذا أسن ذهب شر شطريه وبقي خيرهما وذلك أنه يؤوب عقله ويستحكم رأيه ويحسن خلقه.

12 - `Ali from his father from `Amr b. `Uthman from one of our companions from Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام. He said: Seek refuge with Allah from the evil ones of your women and be cautious of their good ones. And do not obey them in the good so they would call you to the evil. And he said: And the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله said: Women, do not consult them in private conversation and do not obey them with regards to (one’s) relations. Verily the woman, when she becomes old the good of her two halves goes and their evil remains, and that is that her womb becomes barren, her creation worsens and her tongue becomes furious. And the man, when he becomes old the evil of his two halves goes and their good remains, and that is that his `aql returns, his view becomes ingrained and his creation is made handsome.

http://www.*******.org/hadiths/marriage/not-obeying-women

[Al-Mufeed]

Thanks for putting up those hadeeths Macisaac.

Our society has basically let feminism take over and now women are slowly running the affairs of men.

Unfortunately now even Iran has sold out Islamic principles and is letting women take control of powerful government positions. May Allah bless Ayatullah Gulpayghani for speaking against it.

[SoRoUsH]

(salam) Brother MacIsaac,

I must say I am extremely shocked and ... disappointed.

I cannot fathom, how in Islam such inequality is encouraged.

Am I missing something?

How can there be such blatant inequality between obeying men and obeying women?

This simply seems very outrageous to me.

I assume, and I really hope, that I am missing a big factor, a big logic, and a big reason behind such vivid inequality.

If so, could anyone, please shed more light on this matter?

[fyst]

Just wanted to mention the gradings of these ahadith from al-Kafi by Allamah Majlisi:

1 - muwaththaq

2- sahih

3 - daeef ala mashhoor

4 - daeef ala mashhoor

5 - mursal

6 - marfoo`

7 - marfoo`

8 - daeef

9 - marfoo`

10 - marfoo`

11 - marfoo`

12 - mursal

[Basim Ali]

(salam),

(salam) Brother MacIsaac,

I must say I am extremely shocked and ... disappointed.

I cannot fathom, how in Islam such inequality is encouraged.

Am I missing something?

How can there be such blatant inequality between obeying men and obeying women?

This simply seems very outrageous to me.

I assume, and I really hope, that I am missing a big factor, a big logic, and a big reason behind such vivid inequality.

If so, could anyone, please shed more light on this matter?

Man have always had the lead role. You can do or say nothing to deny that. There is inequality in theory, but not in practice. See this sermon of Imam Ali (as):

' O' ye peoples! Women are deficient in Faith, deficient in shares and deficient in intelligence. As regards the deficiency in their Faith, it is their abstention from prayers and fasting during their menstrual period. As regards deficiency in their intelligence it is because the evidence of two women is equal to that of one man. As for the deficiency of their shares that is because of their share in inheritance being half of men. So beware of the evils of women. Be on your guard even from those of them who are (reportedly) good. Do not obey them even in good things so that they may not attract you to evils. ' Nahjul Balagha, SERMON - 80

http://www.al-islam.org/nahj/default.asp?url=80.htm

Allah, the Almighty has given men superiority over women and appointed them as the protectors of women. This is due to the fact that men have been provided by Allah (S.w.T.) with many qualities in great measure as compared to women, like strength, bravery etc. Further they spend their wealth upon their women. So the best women are those who are loyal to their husbands and obedient to their commands. They protect his property and their own chastity in the absence of their husbands. The Holy Prophet (pbuh) has also said,

“Prostration of a human for another human being is not permitted. (If it had been) I would have ordered the wife to prostrate before her husband.”

(Wasa’il ul-Shia)

The lead role of the males has also been emphasized in the following verse of the Quran:

Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great. (4:34)

The men are the maintainers of women, and the women are the maintained. An inferior can not maintain the superior, hence one is forced to conclude that the men are superior than women. The superior, always maintains the inferior, just like Allah maintains us.

If you feel that it is unfair towards women to be treated with such 'inequality', then think of the period of Jahilliyah, before the arrival of the Prophet (pbuh).

In these days, let alone inferior, the women were goods and commodities that were sold and purchased for money! Female infants were buried alive! They were seen as machines, to satisfy lust, and to give birth to a heir. There really was nothing more to النساء than this!

I request you to do a bit research, before you question the traditions of the Imams. :)

(wasalam)

Basim Ali Jafri

Edited November 25, 2009 by Basim Ali

[guest 34193]

(salam) Brother MacIsaac,

I must say I am extremely shocked and ... disappointed.

I cannot fathom, how in Islam such inequality is encouraged.

Am I missing something?

How can there be such blatant inequality between obeying men and obeying women?

This simply seems very outrageous to me.

I assume, and I really hope, that I am missing a big factor, a big logic, and a big reason behind such vivid inequality.

If so, could anyone, please shed more light on this matter?

(wasalam)

It's not a matter of inequality being encouraged, it's more a matter of it being recognized. People can shout a million times that men and women are equal, but this will not change the fact that they are in fact different from one another. Islam is a religion that deals with reality, and not something that bends itself to what people want to hear instead.

As pointed above, men are in fact set as the guardians and maintainers of women. As you pointed out yourself, Islam could be said to be a "patriachal" religion. If this was not in fact based on some very real differences between men and women and their role in society, the family, as individuals, or for no purpose in doing so such a difference in roles would be unjust. But as Islam is not an unjust religion, we can know that it must have a true basis in reality. Part of those differences are in leadership and obedience. As also stated above, the maintainer and the maintained are not on the same footing, and it really doesn't make sense that the former would be in obedience to the latter.

People lose sight of some important things here though. That is, what is the purpose of this life? The point of this brief life is as a testing ground, that the righteous and the wicked be proven. Part of that is that we have been given stations and consequent responsibilities, and part of our judgment, part of our test, is how well we live up to those. In regards to the family and authority, the roles of men and women are different and appropriate to themselves. That is, the man has been given authority over his wife, but, with that authority is a consequent responsibility he has to live up to if he's to be a righteous individual. The woman not holding his authority does not in turn share that responsibility as he does. The role of the woman though is in obedience to her husband, to curb that ego of hers and submit herself to his authority. It's part of her test. A test isn't necessarily going to be easy, but a test it is none the less. At the end, each will be judged in accordance to how well they lived up to the role allotted to them in this life, and it may very well turn out that the obedient, submissive wife ends up honorably in Paradise while the husband who failed at his responsibilities and betrayed the authority that had been given him is burnt wretchedly in Hell. So who in the end there is in the better position?

[kadhim]

(salam) Brother MacIsaac,

I must say I am extremely shocked and ... disappointed.

I cannot fathom, how in Islam such inequality is encouraged.

Am I missing something?

How can there be such blatant inequality between obeying men and obeying women?

This simply seems very outrageous to me.

I assume, and I really hope, that I am missing a big factor, a big logic, and a big reason behind such vivid inequality.

If so, could anyone, please shed more light on this matter?

A number of factors. Weak and / or fabricated narrations in some of the cases. In the case of whatever is sound, a matter of the socio-historical reality of then and there being quite different from here and now, making a literal application of the advice contained in such narrations an act of absurdity.

[SoRoUsH]

(wasalam)

It's not a matter of inequality being encouraged, it's more a matter of it being recognized. People can shout a million times that men and women are equal, but this will not change the fact that they are in fact different from one another. Islam is a religion that deals with reality, and not something that bends itself to what people want to hear instead.

As pointed above, men are in fact set as the guardians and maintainers of women. As you pointed out yourself, Islam could be said to be a "patriachal" religion. If this was not in fact based on some very real differences between men and women and their role in society, the family, as individuals, or for no purpose in doing so such a difference in roles would be unjust. But as Islam is not an unjust religion, we can know that it must have a true basis in reality. Part of those differences are in leadership and obedience. As also stated above, the maintainer and the maintained are not on the same footing, and it really doesn't make sense that the former would be in obedience to the latter.

People lose sight of some important things here though. That is, what is the purpose of this life? The point of this brief life is as a testing ground, that the righteous and the wicked be proven. Part of that is that we have been given stations and consequent responsibilities, and part of our judgment, part of our test, is how well we live up to those. In regards to the family and authority, the roles of men and women are different and appropriate to themselves. That is, the man has been given authority over his wife, but, with that authority is a consequent responsibility he has to live up to if he's to be a righteous individual. The woman not holding his authority does not in turn share that responsibility as he does. The role of the woman though is in obedience to her husband, to curb that ego of hers and submit herself to his authority. It's part of her test. A test isn't necessarily going to be easy, but a test it is none the less. At the end, each will be judged in accordance to how well they lived up to the role allotted to them in this life, and it may very well turn out that the obedient, submissive wife ends up honorably in Paradise while the husband who failed at his responsibilities and betrayed the authority that had been given him is burnt wretchedly in Hell. So who in the end there is in the better position?

This line of thinking seems absurd to me.

Any male chauvinistic and misogynistic individual could justify his chauvinism and misogynism in this way.

In other words, it seems Islam very clearly provides a very clear avenue for males to oppress and suppress women.

Moreover, non-muslims, who do not have the high regard we have for Islam, may easily use such blatant inequality in Islam against it.

It seems in your argument, that you're assuming that Islam must be correct and have a reason behind such patriarchy. Well, non-muslims do not hold such assumptions when they view Islam.

Your explanation would not sway their mind to think that Islam is a fair religion.

You conceded to a misogynistic claim, which basically says, men are more superior to women, women are inferior to men, women must obey men, men must disobey women.

I'm sorry, I still cannot fathom such blatant inequality.

Is there anything that you think you could add to not permit a misogynistic conception of the inequality in Islam?

[guest 34193]

This line of thinking seems absurd to me.

Any male chauvinistic and misogynistic individual could justify his chauvinism and misogynism in this way.

In other words, it seems Islam very clearly provides a very clear avenue for males to oppress and suppress women.

Moreover, non-muslims, who do not have the high regard we have for Islam, may easily use such blatant inequality in Islam against it.

It seems in your argument, that you're assuming that Islam must be correct and have a reason behind such patriarchy.

Of course I'm assuming it's correct, I am a Muslim after all...

Well, non-muslims do not hold such assumptions when they view Islam.

Your explanation would not sway their mind to think that Islam is a fair religion.

Why should I care what a person who doesn't believe in our religion in the first place thinks about it?

You conceded to a misogynistic claim, which basically says, men are more superior to women, women are inferior to men, women must obey men, men must disobey women.

I'm sorry, I still cannot fathom such blatant inequality.

Is there anything that you think you could add to not permit a misogynistic conception of the inequality in Islam?

Suit yourself. But I think it's delusional or dishonest to either think Islam is some egalitarian or even feminist religion. I don't regard this as a negative however, but rather further proof of the correctness of this faith. Islam is the religion of fitra, and fitra clearly shows that there is male and female, and that this properties are not minor accidents but rather play a huge part in who we are as individuals. The true religion would recognize these differences and show us the best way to live with them. Now take the flip side, and look at the people today for all their "egalitarianism". What do we see? Boy men with no sense of responsibility and purpose. Women with no sense of modesty and dignity. Families falling apart with children having no guidance. And lots of depressed, unhappy people leading aimless lives. If you want to believe in that, it's your choice. But please don't try to sully our religion with it.

[A follower]

To the OP, have you read this book; Woman and Her Rights by Shaheed Mutahhari?

It might help answer some of your concerns and questions.

[kadhim]

Suit yourself. But I think it's delusional or dishonest to either think Islam is some egalitarian or even feminist religion. I don't regard this as a negative however, but rather further proof of the correctness of this faith. Islam is the religion of fitra, and fitra clearly shows that there is male and female, and that this properties are not minor accidents but rather play a huge part in who we are as individuals.

Nonsense. We are not beasts. Our nature is body, mind, and spirit. To jump to conclusions about this integrated being based on mere physical differences is pure and willing ignorance.

[guest 34193]

One further thing

Is there anything that you think you could add to not permit a misogynistic conception of the inequality in Islam?

I thought in your OP you said you didn't want mere opinions but wanted to know what the Islamic texts themselves state. The texts themselves, Quran and hadith, are pretty clear on these things, a number of them have been provided here. To twist them around otherwise (or just completely ignore them as so many do) so as to not "permit" a conception you dislike is not being honest to them but is putting emotion and bias above the clear teachings of the religion.

[Guest Zahratul_Islam]

Of course I'm assuming it's correct, I am a Muslim after all...

Why should I care what a person who doesn't believe in our religion in the first place thinks about it?

Suit yourself. But I think it's delusional or dishonest to either think Islam is some egalitarian or even feminist religion. I don't regard this as a negative however, but rather further proof of the correctness of this faith. Islam is the religion of fitra, and fitra clearly shows that there is male and female, and that this properties are not minor accidents but rather play a huge part in who we are as individuals. The true religion would recognize these differences and show us the best way to live with them. Now take the flip side, and look at the people today for all their "egalitarianism". What do we see? Boy men with no sense of responsibility and purpose. Women with no sense of modesty and dignity. Families falling apart with children having no guidance. And lots of depressed, unhappy people leading aimless lives. If you want to believe in that, it's your choice. But please don't try to sully our religion with it.

If you want to talk about delusion or dishonesty, why don't we talk about you getting haddiths off www.google.com/whywomenareevil and pasting them without putting them in context or providing the grading for them.

One of the haddiths states that you should not seek advice from women because they are incompetent.. you are suggesting that this is Islam's take on getting advice from women? Or that this is the Islamic viewpoint on the competency of women? You want anyone with two brain cells to take that seriously?

Another suggests that a man cannot talk in confidence to a woman.. I don't know many Muslim marriages that could hold true to that haddith.

I could go on..

Don't try to paint anyone who takes offense to your literal translations and your inability to take things into context as a feminist who is trying to sully "our religion." You are attempting to create a black and white picture in which the world is running around with immodest, immoral women and spineless men.. or your unique version of Islam. And then taking offense when SoRoUsH unapologetically questions this because she happens to be a thoughtful person

Thoughtfulness doesn't seem to fit into the equation.. does it?

Edited November 26, 2009 by Zahratul_Islam

[SoRoUsH]

Of course I'm assuming it's correct, I am a Muslim after all...

Why should I care what a person who doesn't believe in our religion in the first place thinks about it?

Suit yourself. But I think it's delusional or dishonest to either think Islam is some egalitarian or even feminist religion. I don't regard this as a negative however, but rather further proof of the correctness of this faith. Islam is the religion of fitra, and fitra clearly shows that there is male and female, and that this properties are not minor accidents but rather play a huge part in who we are as individuals. The true religion would recognize these differences and show us the best way to live with them. Now take the flip side, and look at the people today for all their "egalitarianism". What do we see? Boy men with no sense of responsibility and purpose. Women with no sense of modesty and dignity. Families falling apart with children having no guidance. And lots of depressed, unhappy people leading aimless lives. If you want to believe in that, it's your choice. But please don't try to sully our religion with it.

Brother, now I'm not even sure if you're serious.

Such claims are simply ridiculous.

You're saying that Islam shows, based on fitra, that men are superior and women are inferior.

Does this not bother you in any way?

And why are you pointing fingers?

How does showing the flaw in other systems, removes the flaws (flawed interpretation rather) of our system?

There are millions of oppressed and suppressed muslim women as well. Except, it seems, they can't say much, since apparently men have been given a divine green light to think they're superior. They are being oppressed and suppressed in the name of religion.

... shocking to say the least.

[SoRoUsH]

One further thing

I thought in your OP you said you didn't want mere opinions but wanted to know what the Islamic texts themselves state. The texts themselves, Quran and hadith, are pretty clear on these things, a number of them have been provided here. To twist them around otherwise (or just completely ignore them as so many do) so as to not "permit" a conception you dislike is not being honest to them but is putting emotion and bias above the clear teachings of the religion.

According to the grading of the hadiths, apparently only one of them is sahih, and only one of them is mawththaq. However, I do not want to get into that.

You're right. I wanted the Islamic texts.

When I was given the text, I was shocked, and wanted to see how these hadiths are interpreted.

Your interpretation added to my disappointment, and shattered the beautiful image of justice and fairness in Islam.

I will seek other interpretations on this matter.

Hopefully, other brothers and sisters, with more balanced interpretations could state their views in this thread as well.

Of course, I thank you for your response.

I appreciate the fact that you posted those hadiths.

And I apologize if I sound rude, I do not mean to be.

But I cannot manifest my shock and disappointment in any other way.

[guest 34193]

If you want to talk about delusion or dishonesty, why don't we talk about you getting haddiths off www.google.com/whywomenareevil and pasting them without putting them in context or providing the grading for them.

I got them from Furu` al-Kafi... You are familiar with that aren't you? As to the grading, the second is sahih while the first is muwaththaq. That second one, the sahih one, contains the meaning of a number of the other hadiths in that chapter. Some of the others have da`if narrators in them (e.g. the one with al-Hasan b. `Ali b. Abi Hamza), most of the other ones' weakness is on a technical angle of being marfu` or mursal and not necessarily because of an actual weak narrator. However, the meaning on them is fairly consistent and re-enforcing of each other.

Don't try to paint anyone who takes offense to your literal translations

And how would you have translated them? Would you prefer an inaccurate paraphrase instead?

and your inability to take things into context as a feminist who is trying to sully "our religion."

What context? They seem pretty clear. Can you provide _any_ counter evidence from the texts themselves (again, this what the OP was originally asking for) to back up whatever counter view it is you're espousing?

You are attempting to create a black and white picture in which the world is running around with immodest, immoral women and spineless men.. or your unique version of Islam. And then taking offense when SoRoUsH unapologetically questions this because she happens to be a thoughtful person

Thoughtfulness doesn't seem to fit into the equation.. does it?

I believe in honesty to the religion. That is, take what the religion actually says and follow that if you're going to actually adhere to it. Don't dictate to it what you think it should be.

[Guest Zahratul_Islam]

I got them from Usool al-Kafi... You are familiar with that aren't you? As to the grading, the second is sahih while the first is muwaththaq. That second one, the sahih one, contains the meaning of a number of the other hadiths in that chapter. Some of the others have da`if narrators in them (e.g. the one with al-Hasan b. `Ali b. Abi Hamza), most of the other ones' weakness is on a technical angle of being marfu` or mursal and not necessarily because of an actual weak narrator. However, the meaning on them is fairly consistent and re-enforcing of each other.

And how would you have translated them? Would you prefer an inaccurate paraphrase instead?

What context? They seem pretty clear. Can you provide _any_ counter evidence from the texts themselves (again, this what the OP was originally asking for) to back up whatever counter view it is you're espousing?

I believe in honesty to the religion. That is, take what the religion actually says and follow that if you're going to actually adhere to it. Don't dictate to it what you think it should be.

Yes, I am familiar with Usool-al-kafi, which is why you will have to excuse me if I take your haddiths with a grain of salt.. especially since you yourself did not paste the grading (fyst did) and you would have been more than happy to peddle off these haddiths as the absolute truth.

I personally would reject a number of the ones that simple do_not_make_sense and are WEAK. Are you saying that Muslim men today should not talk to their wives in confidentiality? Or that they should not seek the advice of their wife? Because that is what the haddiths say. And then you follow that up with a pretty little sentence where you have the audacity to suggest that not adhering to these haddiths will cause the breakdown of families

I too believe in honesty to the religion.. not honesty to you.

Edited November 26, 2009 by Zahratul_Islam

[kadhim]

I believe in honesty to the religion. That is, take what the religion actually says and follow that if you're going to actually adhere to it.

No you don't. You believe in taking 1200 and 1400 year old statements addressed to social relations when most women could not read or write and applying them literally, with no consideration of this contextuality to a time when women make up the majority of university graduates even in Islamic nations. That's not "honest submission to the religion;" it's incompetent analysis of its texts.

Edited November 26, 2009 by kadhim

[Dirac Delta function]

I don't see why you're all arguing. Soroush (which is a male name, Z_I), asked for some hadiths and got them with the gradings. Interpret and apply them how you will as individuals, what's the point of making a fuss about it all? You aren't going to change the gradings of hadiths, nor are you going to pretend they never existed, so move on.

[Maryaam]

No Muslim is superior to another.

All Muslims are judged only on the basis of their faith and character, not their race, ethnicity, caste or tribe – or - gender. Women are given the same level of humanity as men..only what each does with this humanity and ability to follow Islam will give a measure of difference between them. “Whoever, be it a male or a female, does good deeds and he or she is a believer, then they will enter the Paradise.” (4:124)

The dissimilarities of men and women are things of beauty and wonderment and are collectively ” one of the most wonderful masterpieces of creation” These are good things, not bad. Men and women are to co-exist in harmony – to bring out the best qulaities in eadh other to help us weather the tests of life together. Where does it say that men are to conquer and subjugate?

From post above: http://www.al-islam.org/womanrights excerpt:

DUALITIES

From the physical point of view man, on an average has larger limbs and woman smaller. Man is taller and woman is shorter. Man is coarser and woman is finer. Man's voice is comparatively rough and heavy, and woman's delicate and delightful. The bodily growth of woman is quicker, and that of man is slower. It is said that even the growth of a female foetus is quicker than that of a male foetus. Physically, man is stronger than woman, and his muscles are more developed, but woman has a greater power of resistance than man. Woman reaches the stage of puberty earlier, and loses the capability of reproduction earlier. A girl speaks earlier than a boy. The average brain of man is larger than the average brain of woman, but, in proportion to the whole body, the average brain of woman is larger. The lungs of man can breathe more air than those of woman. The heart of woman beats more rapidly than that of man.

Psychologically, man is more inclined to physical exercise, hunting and active life. The feelings of man are challenging and bellicose, whereas woman has a peaceful disposition. Man is aggressive; woman is comparatively calm and quiet. Woman avoids violence, and that is why the cases of suicide by women are fewer. Even when committing suicide, men tend to be more violent; they resort to shooting or hanging themselves or jump off lofty buildings, whereas women use sleeping pills, opium etc. for this purpose. Woman is more emotional than man and is more easily excited. Man is comparatively cool-minded. Woman is, by nature, much interested in ornaments, cosmetics, make-up and the latest fashions of clothes whereas man is not. Feelings of woman are not stable; she is comparatively fickleminded. She is more cautious, more religious, more talkative, more fearful and more ceremonious than man. Her feelings are motherly from childhood She cannot compete with man in deductive sciences and dry intellectual subjects, but in literature and arts like painting etc. she is not at all behind him. Man has a greater power of concealing his secrets. He can keep the unhappy happenings to himself and that is why he is more often afflicted with the diseases caused by introversion. Woman is more sensitive and soft- hearted than man; she can easily resort to weeping and sometimes even becomes unconscious.

A COMPARATIVE VIEW OF EACH OTHER

Man is the slave of his desires; woman is the bonds-maid of love. Man loves the woman whom he likes; woman loves the man who realises her value and proclaims his love to her. Man wants to own the woman; woman wants to dominate man's heart. Man wants to overpower woman; woman wants to penetrate into his heart. Man wants to capture woman; woman wants to be captured. Woman wants man to be courageous and gallant; man wants woman to be beautiful and charming. Woman wants the protection of man, and looks upon such protection as the most valuable thing she can possess. She can control her desires. Man's sexual urge is active and aggressive, woman's passive and excitable.

DISPARITIES BETWEEN MAN AND WOMAN

An American psychologist, Professor Reek has published in a voluminous book the result of his researches into the affairs of man and woman. He says: "The world of man is totally different from that of woman. If woman cannot think or act like man, it is because they belong to two different worlds."

He further says: 'According to the Old Testament, man and woman have come into being from the same flesh. That is true, but though they have come into being from the same flesh, they have two different bodies, which are totally unlike each other in composition. They never have the same feelings and never show the same reactions to various incidents and accidents. They are like two planets moving in two different orbits. They may understand each other and may be complimentary to each other, but they are never unified. That is why they may live with each other, love each other and may not get fed up with the temperament of each other."

Professor Reek compares the spirit of man with that of woman and discovers many of their dissimilarities. He says:

"It is boring to man to have to live always with the woman he likes. But nothing is more pleasant to woman than to be near the man she loves.

Man always wants to be the same, but woman wants to get up every morning with a new and fresh look.

The best sentence which a man can address to a woman is: 'My dear, I love you'. The most beautiful sentence, which a woman says to a man of her choice is: 'I am proud of you'.

The man who has had several mistresses in his life becomes an object of attraction for other women, but men do not like the woman in whose life more than one man has existed. When men become old, they feel distressed because they lose the jobs on which they depended. The old women feel happy, because, from their own point of view, they come to possess all the best things one could desire, a house and a few grandchildren.

Good luck from man's point of view means securing a respectable position in the society. But to a woman good luck means to captivate the heart of a man and keep it safe throughout her life.

A man always wants to convert the woman of his choice to his own religion and nationality.

For a woman it is as easy to change her religion and nationality for the sake of the man she likes as to change her family name following the marriage."

A MASTERPIECE OF CREATION

Irrespective of the question whether or not dissimilarity between man and woman causes the dissimilarity in their respective rights and responsibilities, dissimilarity itself is one of the most wonderful masterpieces of creation. It is a question which leads one to the recognition of Allah and His Unity. It proves that the system of this world has been most wisely and exquisitely planned. It shows that creation is not a matter of chance. Nature is not a blind force. It is not possible to interpret the world phenomena without recognising the Ultimate Cause'. With a view to preserving the species, the great creative mechanism has brought the reproductive system into existence. Males and females are continuously being produced. As the continuity of the human species depends upon their mutual co-operation, nature has seen to it that the males and females seek coexistence with each other.

For that purpose self-interest which is essential to every living being has been converted into sentiments of service, co-operation and tolerance. To make the scheme practical, and to ensure that their bodies and souls fit in each other comfortably, certain physical and spiritual disparities between them have been arranged. These very disparities attract man and woman to each other. If woman had the same physical features, the same temperament and the same habits as man has, it would not have been possible for her to attract man towards her, in the same way as she does now. If man had the same physical and psychological features dissimilarities as woman has, she would not have regarded him as her ideal and would not have done anything to win his heart. Man has been created to dominate the world, and woman has been created to dominate man.

The law of creation has so ordained that both man and woman seek each other and are interested in each other. But their relationship is not of that nature which they have with other possessions; that relationship emerges from selfishness. They want to possess things for their own use, and look on them as the means of their comfort. But, the relationship between man and woman means that each one of them wants the comfort and happiness of the other, and enjoys making sacrifices for the sake of the other.

[Guest Zahratul_Islam]

I don't see why you're all arguing. Soroush (which is a male name, Z_I), asked for some hadiths and got them with the gradings. Interpret and apply them how you will as individuals, what's the point of making a fuss about it all? You aren't going to change the gradings of hadiths, nor are you going to pretend they never existed, so move on.

I thought she was a female because I remembered meeting her before? Am I mistaken? Anyway, that is irrelevant (although hopefully he/she was not offended) because none of my posts hinged on this member being a female.

No one is arguing because they want to change the gradings of the haddiths :unsure: It wasn't until the OP requested further information or explanation that the debate ensued.

Pretending the haddiths never existed is also not the goal.. but being thoughtful, putting them in context, and taking their grading into consideration are steps that certain people have bypassed..

Edited November 26, 2009 by Zahratul_Islam

[gogiison2]

all i want to say is be careful how you read ahadith. traditions have contexts and usually people's intelligence isn't high enough to understand them properly. with that said i don't think we can say all the ahadith regarding women in islam can be applied to all of the women in history.

[A follower]

No you don't. You believe in taking 1200 and 1400 year old statements addressed to social relations when most women could not read or write and applying them literally, with no consideration of this contextuality to a time when women make up the majority of university graduates even in Islamic nations. That's not "honest submission to the religion;" it's incompetent analysis of its texts.

Kadhim - You differ on your understanding of the hadiths in many cases with other people, good for you. However you should realise that many people have different outlook to yourself, it seems you are quick to dismiss an outlook other than yours, like the above bold part shows. You are maybe right in what you are saying but when you are being dismissive without realising that there were numerous outlooks which are different to yours and you should at least be polite enough to respect it or tolerate it, calling them to be incompetent is not good at all. And in all honesty, as much as I use to enjoy reading your posts in the past now I feel otherwise because you are dismissive of another person's view but you do not present something alternative either. For example, you stated the part I bolded above but where is the expansion on that? Why is it incompetent? Just because you feel some hadiths are not applicable to this time? Is that all? That is not enough, really that is not. As they say you cannot demolish all buildings and not make one yourself. Think about it.

Another point I wanted to mention is this, do not be so quick to dismiss traditions. While you may feel that certain aspect of rationality should be applied to traditions rather than interpreting them literally however at the sametime you have to realise that the weight of the tradition is what sometimes becomes the differentiating factor. Let me elaborate this using an example, the issue of women being judges etc was something which Ayatollah Khoei [r] in his dars al kharij lessons and he shredded the arguement against this however he did not change his view on it, why? Because he considered that a daleel is important in these aspects and without it one cannot pass off things as being permissible. Now this methodology you might disagree with it and feel it is needs to be reformed well good for you however that does not mean that it should be dismissed or those who see things through this methodology are wrong. If we look at things in that manner then one side of the spectrum will consider the Ulemas who follow a reformed methodology in their interpretation of Hadiths to be wrong and the other side of the spectrum will consider those Ulema who relied on daleel for interpretation to be wrong. Realistically speaking you cannot negate either, moderation is the key and being tolerant of one another.

I am sorry if this seems harsh on you or offensive, if so then I apologise. However, I do hope that you get the point I am trying to make. Sorry for being a bit off-topic.

[Al-Mufeed]

Please be carefull in denying hadeeths out right:

From Al-Kafi

Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from Muhammad ibn al-Husayn from Muhammad ibn Sinan from ‘Ammar ibn Marwan from Jabir who has said the

following:

“Abu Ja‘far (as) , has said that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) has said, ‘Hadith of Ahl al-Bayt are difficult and they become difficult. No one believes in them except the angels who are close to Allah or the Prophets, who are Messengers also, and a servant of Allah whose heart Allah has tested for faith. Whatever comes to you of Hadith if your heart feels relief and you recognized them accept them. Whatever causes antipathy in your hearts and you cannot recognize, leave them to Allah, to the Messenger of Allah and the scholar from the house hold of Muhammad (pbuh). The ones to perish are those who do not accept Hadith of Ahl al-Bayt. Whenever one is narrated to them they say, “By Allah, this was not and that was not.” Denial is disbelief.’

Edited November 26, 2009 by Al-Mufeed

[Bonafide Hustler]

It would be utterly foolish of someone to assert that islam does not hold males and females in equal esteem. They are absolutely equal in the eyes of Allah. Gender roles can perhaps be debated, but not equality in the overall scheme of things. Men are naturally more suited to perform certain roles, men tend to be physically stronger than females, but this in no way shape or form propels them to a higher status above their female counterparts. A handicapped/weak/fragile man may not be fit for a certain role, but this doesn't make him any less of a man as our small minded judgments would have you believe.

[kadhim]

Kadhim - You differ on your understanding of the hadiths in many cases with other people, good for you. However you should realise that many people have different outlook to yourself, it seems you are quick to dismiss an outlook other than yours, like the above bold part shows. You are maybe right in what you are saying but when you are being dismissive without realising that there were numerous outlooks which are different to yours and you should at least be polite enough to respect it or tolerate it, calling them to be incompetent is not good at all. And in all honesty, as much as I use to enjoy reading your posts in the past now I feel otherwise because you are dismissive of another person's view but you do not present something alternative either. For example, you stated the part I bolded above but where is the expansion on that? Why is it incompetent? Just because you feel some hadiths are not applicable to this time? Is that all? That is not enough, really that is not. As they say you cannot demolish all buildings and not make one yourself. Think about it.

Tolerance goes two ways. Macisaac is not exactly the most tolerant person around here. This is not exactly the first time where he has come into a thread on a contentious, subtle, complex topic, dropped some ahadith, without notes on grading, without notes on the context of the narrations. And it is not the first time, when challenged about this, that he has responded in some glib manner along the lines of, "I'm just reporting 'what the religion says.' I take my religion seriously and believe what it says. Maybe you should too." Where is your response to this arrogant behaviour?

As to why the accusations of incompetence, the basic problem I see is this. Macisaac is trying to step out above his paygrade here.

He has some junior level hawza education (which basically means you learn Arabic and take a few generalist classes) and seems to think that is enough to go directly from the narrations to his own personal fatwas.

The real jurisprudential scholars however take into account all these contextual complexities that Macisaac likes to ignore.

You may not like the judgement of incompetence. Well, it's strong, but I can't really see any other way to call it. Assuming nothing meaningful has changed or progressed with women in the past 1400 years is plain just ignorant.

Trying to conflate women getting respect commensurate to their God-given intellectual potentials with prostitution, sexual promiscuity, and family breakdown is obscene.

[A follower]

Tolerance goes two ways. Macisaac is not exactly the most tolerant person around here. This is not exactly the first time where he has come into a thread on a contentious, subtle, complex topic, dropped some ahadith, without notes on grading, without notes on the context of the narrations. And it is not the first time, when challenged about this, that he has responded in some glib manner along the lines of, "I'm just reporting 'what the religion says.' I take my religion seriously and believe what it says. Maybe you should too." Where is your response to this arrogant behaviour?

Suffice to say you missed the point I was making. Macisaac posts his response because he may genuinely feel that is what the hadith implies, that is his outlook on them. You differ on your outlook on those hadiths but does that mean you should negate it? You do this pretty much in every thread where you differ with others when it comes to different outlooks, not just Macisaac. My point is more in line with what DDF said, you have your interpretation others have theirs, it does not necessarily means that you and others have to be on the same par, people differ and see things differently. However if you feel that the interpretations present are wrong then give an alternative which is more competent. As I said you cannot demolish every building and not make one.

As I see it, he posted the hadiths, Fyst posted the gradings, OP made a comment of finding the hadiths to be wrong and incompatible and he merely posted his view. You came with the point of negation on his view trying to make out he is wrong well okay, just because people are different does not mean they are wrong, that is how he sees things.

As to why the accusations of incompetence, the basic problem I see is this. Macisaac is trying to step out above his paygrade here.

He has some junior level hawza education (which basically means you learn Arabic and take a few generalist classes) and seems to think that is enough to go directly from the narrations to his own personal fatwas.

The real jurisprudential scholars however take into account all these contextual complexities that Macisaac likes to ignore.

You may not like the judgement of incompetence. Well, it's strong, but I can't really see any other way to call it. Assuming nothing meaningful has changed or progressed with women in the past 1400 years is plain just ignorant.

Trying to conflate women getting respect commensurate to their God-given intellectual potentials with prostitution, sexual promiscuity, and family breakdown is obscene.

What he has or does not have, Allah knows best. He quotes the hadith and gives his view. That is his opinion, no one is asking you or others to follow it. Even Macisaac has never asked people to follow his opinions so lets not get carried away.

As for the real Jurisprudential Scholars, tell me Kadhim have you studied any books of Fiqh by these real jurisprudential scholars that you bring up? Or let alone that have you gone through basic books of Uool al-Fiqh such as al-Halaqa al-ula of Shaheed Sadr? I can assure you when you start reading these things you will realise that your view and their view would not necessarily match.

As for the contextual complexities, I gave you an example in my previous post. Would you say that Ayatollah Khoei [r] was ignoring such complexities when he concluded his view regarding women being judges etc?

[Al-Mufeed]

If you believe these things have a context, fine here is what one of our biggest contemporary scholars has to say regarding these issues:

Grand Ayatollah Lotfollah Safi-Golpayegani has lashed out at Iran's Interior Minister Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar for suggesting the appointment of female governors.

The criticism came after Mohammad-Najjar talked about the possibility of appointing female governors for a number of provinces last week.

"Unfortunately we see them [Najjar] come to the center of Shia Islam in Qom and announce that female governors will be appointed for a number of provinces," Grand Ayatollah Golpayegani said in a meeting with a number of cleric lawmakers.

"Who are you trying to oppose? Are you trying to go against the laws of God and the fundamentals of religion?," IRNA quoted the Ayatollah Golpayegani as saying.

Ayatollah Golpayegani added, "No other religion has placed such great value on women and it is only Islam that has bestowed the highest level of dignity on women and orders men to serve them."

"Serving women doesn't mean giving them men's work [responsibilities] and our Islamic culture has many differences with the culture of the East and the West."

The Ahmadinejad administration also faced oppositions when it nominated three women for ministerial positions.

In September, Iranian lawmakers gave their votes of confidence to one of the three female ministers proposed by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad making Marziyeh Vahid-Dastjerdi the first woman minister in the 30-year history of the Islamic Republic.

"If certain parties decide to alter the sacred values of the Islamic Revolution, without taking into consideration the views of the scholars and those devoted to the Revolution,… they will face the wrath of God and the rage of the nation," the Grand Ayatollah concluded.

DB/HGH

Ayatullah Safi Gulpayghani is one of the highest ranking Shia scholars alive, and has been teaching fiqh classes of the highest levels in the city of Qum for several decades.

[kadhim]

Suffice to say you missed the point I was making. Macisaac posts his response because he may genuinely feel that is what the hadith implies, that is his outlook on them.

I got your point precisely, but you seem to be missing mine that you apply your criticism inconsistently.

Macisaac does not just drop the ahadith and state his opinion. He does this and then accuses anyone who disagrees with not only of being foolish, but irreligious, heretics, etc. He does this a lot.

He does this even in issues where there is scholarly disagreement at the highest level. The opinion exists, for example, amongst our own maraja, that women can certainly be leaders, marjas, judges, etc. Macisaac is implicitly calling these scholars heretics for disagreeing with him. Where is your criticism of Macisaac's intolerance? I am not seeing it anywhere. Please clarify whether you wish to apply your principles consistently.

However if you feel that the interpretations present are wrong then give an alternative which is more competent.

I've done so in depth on this site very recently.

As for the contextual complexities, I gave you an example in my previous post. Would you say that Ayatollah Khoei [r] was ignoring such complexities when he concluded his view regarding women being judges etc?

I generally respect the institution of marjaiyyah but reserve judgement on the stands of individual, human, imperfect scholarws. These scholars are all well-educated people, but they have human weaknesses as well as strengths.

From your description of him "demolishing" the lame "rational" arguments usually used by those who deny that women can be leaders, it sounds like he had some courage to a certain extent. I aplaud him for that. But for him to prove that there is no rational basis to deny women leadership todayy, and yet to persist in the position that women should nevertheless be denied leadership is in my view a failure in courage. That's the only way I can characterize it.

But I aplaud him to the extent that his courage in refutating bad pseudo-rational arguments against women as leaders paved the way for others to step out and go a step farther. I recognize that these scholars are constrained to some extent in their exercise of ijtihad by a highly conservative, ignorant, and reactionary population that will often lash out at change, whether it is well-reasoned or not. I recognize the burden of leadership, and the various motivations for them to err on the side of caution. Many will scoff at the notion, but I am convinced that a lot of the maraja are much more ""liberal"" on these "modern issues" than they generally let on, but stay silent due to fear of backlash if they step forward too far ahead of what the lay religious followers are ready to hear.

One of the reasons I speak so strongly in favor of reform is to encourage those who think the same to make themselves heard, so that there is enough visible support for our maraja to feel comfortable stepping forward to exercise their ijtihad freely, without fear of being cut down by ultra-conservative reactionaries.

If you believe these things have a context, fine here is what one of our biggest contemporary scholars has to say regarding these issues:

Ayatullah Safi Gulpayghani is one of the highest ranking Shia scholars alive, and has been teaching fiqh classes of the highest levels in the city of Qum for several decades.

Ibrahim Jannaati and Yusuf Saanei are similarly up there in the ranks, and have similarly been teaching for decades. They have no problem with women as political leaders, judges, or even maraja. There is clearly a legitimate difference in scholarly opinion on this matter, and my point of view obviously has some basis.

By the way, I have been quite harsh on Ahmadinejad in recent days. Let me give him however, some credit where credit is due for the putting forward of several women as ministerial candidates. Kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight, Mahmoud.

The Ahmadinejad administration also faced oppositions when it nominated three women for ministerial positions.

Edited November 26, 2009 by kadhim

[A follower]

I got your point precisely, but you seem to be missing mine that you apply your criticism inconsistently.

Macisaac does not just drop the ahadith and state his opinion. He does this and then accuses anyone who disagrees with not only of being foolish, but irreligious, heretics, etc. He does this a lot.

He does this even in issues where there is scholarly disagreement at the highest level. The opinion exists, for example, amongst our own maraja, that women can certainly be leaders, marjas, judges, etc. Macisaac is implicitly calling these scholars heretics for disagreeing with him. Where is your criticism of Macisaac's intolerance? I am not seeing it anywhere. Please clarify whether you wish to apply your principles consistently.

Really? [referring to the bold parts] If what you say is true then please do link me those posts and if it is not true then you have attributed things falsely.

And you failed to answer my question regarding the Fiqh books of the Ulema. I take it as a no then?

I've done so in depth on this site very recently.

See, this is the difference between you and Macisaac. Macisaac posts the hadiths to back his view or vice versa, where as you are all about rationality. You do not even consider the existence of a daleel necessary in order to back up your point. You state that you have given alternatives then sure direct me to a thread where you stated a view which was different to others and you provided hadiths to show that view was correct.

I generally respect the institution of marjaiyyah but reserve judgement on the stands of individual, human, imperfect scholarws. These scholars are all well-educated people, but they have human weaknesses as well as strengths.

From your description of him "demolishing" the lame "rational" arguments usually used by those who deny that women can be leaders, it sounds like he had some courage to a certain extent. I aplaud him for that. But for him to prove that there is no rational basis to deny women leadership todayy, and yet to persist in the position that women should nevertheless be denied leadership is in my view a failure in courage. That's the only way I can characterize it.

But I aplaud him to the extent that his courage in refutating bad pseudo-rational arguments against women as leaders paved the way for others to step out and go a step farther. I recognize that these scholars are constrained to some extent in their exercise of ijtihad by a highly conservative, ignorant, and reactionary population that will often lash out at change, whether it is well-reasoned or not. I recognize the burden of leadership, and the various motivations for them to err on the side of caution. Many will scoff at the notion, but I am convinced that a lot of the maraja are much more ""liberal"" on these "modern issues" than they generally let on, but stay silent due to fear of backlash if they step forward too far ahead of what the lay religious followers are ready to hear.

One of the reasons I speak so strongly in favor of reform is to encourage those who think the same to make themselves heard, so that there is enough visible support for our maraja to feel comfortable stepping forward to exercise their ijtihad freely, without fear of being cut down by ultra-conservative reactionaries.

Failure in courage? Err again you did not grasp what was meant in my post. It is to do with his methodology, he believes in existence of a daleel for something to be permissible. For example, rationally we can say that yes woman can be judges etc but if there is no daleel on this subject it is nothing but opinion of the individual. That is what is the limiting factor, I do not know if you understand but in Fiqh many things depend on having a daleel to establish them as being permissible.

And this is well known of the Fuqaha of before such as Shaykh Murtadha al Ansari, Shaykh Tusi and others. They were peopple who gave preference to having a textual evidence rather than going on rationality alone.

As for them practising their ijtehad or rather lack of due to fear of backlash, I am sorry I do not buy that arguement at all. Having met with various Marjas, and talked to them regarding different issues one thing is evident that the Marjas do not fear the backlash because their duty is between them and Allah and they feel obligated in that hence there is no compromise. And the end of the day it is all about methodologies, some feel having a daleel is of importance while others do not, which can be argued as being part of their Ijtehad itself by certain individuals.

[Al-Mufeed]

Ibrahim Jannaati and Yusuf Saanei are similarly up there in the ranks, and have similarly been teaching for decades. They have no problem with women as political leaders, judges, or even maraja. There is clearly a legitimate difference in scholarly opinion on this matter, and my point of view obviously has some basis.

By the way, I have been quite harsh on Ahmadinejad in recent days. Let me give him however, some credit where credit is due for the putting forward of several women as ministerial candidates. Kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight, Mahmoud.

Im not even aware that Ahmad Jannati has that view, but I know that Saanei does. God only knows what Saanei bases his rulings off of, like his acceptance of kosher meat. Safe to say that he is virtually alone not just among contemporary scholars but among all scholars in history in most of his views.

I really don't think you can compare some one like Gulpayghani to Saanei, in terms of scholarship.

By the way so you are now an Ahamdinijad fan? This is the issue that actually made me stop supporting him. How different we are.