Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muslima. For Pete's sake. Mohammed's first wife owned property before Islam even appeared. Islam did not "grant property rights to women." Why do you keep saying that?

Also, you're the one who is so big on using context to interpret the Quran, yet in this case you insist on ignoring context. You're talking about people who were acting 1400 years ago in a context of establishing relations with another tribe. Nor does pledging allegiance to the ruler of another tribe have anything to do with *choosing* the ruler that you pledge to or the "ballots" you kept referring to.

Read, woman, read. Nasty Little Muslim here. We just got through telling you that in Sura Ash Shurra there is a verse on the requirement of mutual consultations to decide all matters that require a collective opinion. It clearly makes this statement to both men and women. This means even in political matters, women's opinion mattered because usually political matters require a collective vote or opinion. But this ruling goes for everything from voting on a ruler to deciding who should clean the mosque that week.

Dear Nasty a Little a Sidekick (you changed it to Muslim yourself): I just read the Sura Ash Shurra several times. I saw eye-for-eye there. (Did you know Jesus got rid of eye-for-eye? When Muslims tell potential converts they follow the same Jesus, that's not strictly true.) I saw some gruesome punishments for non-believers. And I saw this, which seems to be the closest to what you're saying:

Sahih International
And in anything over which you disagree - its ruling is [to be referred] to Allah . [Say], "That is Allah , my Lord; upon Him I have relied, and to Him I turn back."

Perhaps instead of waving your hands about passages in the Quran, in an abusive tone of voice no less, you need to cut and paste the exact lines. Both you and Muslima are really good with the cut and paste feature, so surely you can do this.

Read, Read, Read again. Keep Reading, you might just get it

Not gonna happen, I have zero appetite for reading again about the punishments for non-believers. Also, reading about eye-for-eye is just plain depressing.

As multiple posters have told you multiple times before, the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim.

If you refuse to do something as easy as clipping and pasting this mystery quote -- especially given your facility with dregging through the PBS archives -- we'll just have to go to bed assuming you made yet another claim up out of whole cloth.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wow. What a hateful post. It says a lot more about you, dear little sidekick, than it says about anybody you are attacking.

There are at least three, and probably 4 or 5, posters here who are sick of Muslima's conversion efforts. Still, nobody here has called for Muslima to be "banned," you just made that up. However, another Muslim -- who is probably you -- repeatedly threatened various non-Muslim posters with removal by the moderator. Once one person, one single time and several threads ago, and who is not me, told Muslima to returned to her country. But on the other side of the scales, let's review the insults you've hurled at people:
- gap-toothed redneck
- bad cook
- husband about to divorce non-Muslim poster
- unemployed and unemployable
- drug-addicted son
- porn-addicted son
- Christian-evalngelical-crusader-Islamophobe.
- miniskirt-wearing granny
- stupid, ignorant, various synonyms for dumb

Looks like most of the bad behavior came straight from you!


The point is, there is no excuse for Muslima to say things like "Islam provides equal rights for women" when she knows very well that this will be misunderstood by Western ears. There is no excuse for Muslima to claim converts exceed immigrants when the facts, provided by you or by her, prove quite the opposite. There is no excuse for Muslima's insulting, abusive behavior whenever anybody questions her. If she wants to clean up her act, I'm sure many people here would welcome her. Same goes for you.

Maybe those western ears need to stop trying to hear that which the western mind simply can not understand. Google articles on "Equal rights for women in Islam" and you will see most Muslim authors consider rights between men and women to not only be equitable, but equal also. Muslima is simply like every other Muslim expressing the same view. You have invested far too much time on harassing Muslima and vilifying my religion. The insults were deserved. You accuse Muslima and I of proselytizing. DCUM is not the place to proselytize. I sure as hell hope nobody contemplates life altering conversion based on information collected on DCUM. However, you and your one toothed back woods gang of three to five people do have an agenda, which is to trash Islam by publishing false information and you have incurred my wrath. You keep deliberately publishing false or misleading info because of your personal hatred toward Islam and I will most certainly reserve special language for you. As the western saying goes, if the shoe fits.

Your agenda is to push statements like "Islam gives 'equal' rights to women" and "Islam gives divorce rights to women" and "Islam treats female captives well" to a DCUM readership that you hope will swallow it whole without asking any questions.

My only agenda, if I can be said to have one, is to help get the facts out there. It took several whole threads to get there, but you and Muslima finally agreed on this thread that your idea of "equal" is almost the polar opposite of how your American audience hears it - which, of course, you knew all along. Similarly, when Muslima brags about Islamic "divorce rights for women," don't you think it's helpful to point out that a man can get a divorce by saying "talak" to her, but a woman has to go through the courts and her alimony is limited to three months. It almost seems like you deliberately omitted these details....

There are basically three ways for a wife can seek a divorce:
1)Ask her husband that she no longer wishes to remain his wife, and the husband accedes to her request and pronounces a divorce on her.
2)If the husband refuses to divorce her, she has the right to Initiate a divorce proceedings in a Shariah Court, whereby the Judge will study the conditions and reasons for seeking divorce, and then summon the husband and give him an option: either he accedes to the wife’s divorce request and pronounces divorce on her, or the Court will use its authority and divorce the couple.
3) If the husband does not pronounce the divorce and the Judge sees valid reason for divorce, the Shariah Judge has the authority to divorce the couple

a woman came to the Prophet Muhammad seeking the dissolution of her marriage, she told the Prophet that she did not have any complaints against her husband's character or manners. Her only problem was that she honestly did not like him to the extent of not being able to live with him any longer. The Prophet asked her: "Would you give him his garden (the marriage gift he had given her) back?" she said: "Yes". The Prophet then instructed the man to take back his garden and accept the dissolution of the marriage (Bukhari).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muslima. For Pete's sake. Mohammed's first wife owned property before Islam even appeared. Islam did not "grant property rights to women." Why do you keep saying that?

Also, you're the one who is so big on using context to interpret the Quran, yet in this case you insist on ignoring context. You're talking about people who were acting 1400 years ago in a context of establishing relations with another tribe. Nor does pledging allegiance to the ruler of another tribe have anything to do with *choosing* the ruler that you pledge to or the "ballots" you kept referring to.

Read, woman, read. Nasty Little Muslim here. We just got through telling you that in Sura Ash Shurra there is a verse on the requirement of mutual consultations to decide all matters that require a collective opinion. It clearly makes this statement to both men and women. This means even in political matters, women's opinion mattered because usually political matters require a collective vote or opinion. But this ruling goes for everything from voting on a ruler to deciding who should clean the mosque that week.

If that's the case, can you tell us why no Muslim scholar declared all subsequent rulers un-Islamic, since they ascended to power without popular consultations? When Mr. Abu Bakr, ruler #1 appointed Mr. Umar, ruler #2, IN HIS WILL, forget consulting anyone, why didn't anyone say hey! that's un-Islamic!

Before Abu Bakr (???? ???? ???) finalized his decision to appoint Umar (???? ???? ???) , he in fact mutually consulted the prominent Muslims, including Abdur Rahman ibn Awf (???? ???? ???) , Uthman bin Affan (???? ???? ???) , Ali ibn Abi Talib (???? ???? ???) , and Talhah ibn Ubayd-Allah (???? ???? ???) .
During the process of Shura, it was only Abdur Rahman bin Awf (???? ???? ???) and Talhah (???? ???? ???) who raised any objections to Umar (???? ???? ???) , but then Abu Bakr (???? ???? ???) countered these points of contention, and then Abdur Rahman (???? ???? ???) and Talhah (???? ???? ???) both agreed with Abu Bakr’s rebuttal, so the matter was settled. As for Uthman (???? ???? ???) and Ali (???? ???? ???) , they both favored Umar (???? ???? ???) .

Therefore, we have established that the principle of Shura was very much involved in the nomination of Umar (???? ???? ???) ; the prominent representatives–including all the major figures of the Ansars and Muhajirs–selected Umar (???? ???? ???) after mutual consultation. Furthermore, Umar (???? ???? ???) secured the “consent of the governed”.

bu Bakr (???? ???? ???) would even ask the people’s permission before finalizing his will. After writing in his will that Umar (???? ???? ???) was to be the Caliph, he asked Uthman (???? ???? ???) to read the will outloud to the people (i.e. the masses) and ask if they approved of it. We read:

(Uthman said): “Will you (all) pledge allegiance to the person in whose favor a will has been made in this letter?

The people said: “Yes.” …All accepted and agreed to pledge allegiance to Umar. Then Abu Bakr called Umar in solitude and gave him whatever advice he wanted to.

(Ibn Saad; Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra, Vol.3, p.200)

Similarly, we read:

Then the Caliph (Abu Bakr) summoned all the people of Medinah to assemble in the court of the Mosque. He addressed them from the window of his house which opened into the court. (Abu Bakr said): “O people! I have appointed Umar ibn al-Khattab as my successor. He is not my relative, but he is the best among you. Are you satisfied with him? Will you obey him?” The people answered with one accord, “yes, we will obey him.” The Caliph was pleased and prayed for God’s favour on Umar and the Muslims.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muslima. For Pete's sake. Mohammed's first wife owned property before Islam even appeared. Islam did not "grant property rights to women." Why do you keep saying that?

Also, you're the one who is so big on using context to interpret the Quran, yet in this case you insist on ignoring context. You're talking about people who were acting 1400 years ago in a context of establishing relations with another tribe. Nor does pledging allegiance to the ruler of another tribe have anything to do with *choosing* the ruler that you pledge to or the "ballots" you kept referring to.

Read, woman, read. Nasty Little Muslim here. We just got through telling you that in Sura Ash Shurra there is a verse on the requirement of mutual consultations to decide all matters that require a collective opinion. It clearly makes this statement to both men and women. This means even in political matters, women's opinion mattered because usually political matters require a collective vote or opinion. But this ruling goes for everything from voting on a ruler to deciding who should clean the mosque that week.

Dear Nasty a Little a Sidekick (you changed it to Muslim yourself): I just read the Sura Ash Shurra several times. I saw eye-for-eye there. (Did you know Jesus got rid of eye-for-eye? When Muslims tell potential converts they follow the same Jesus, that's not strictly true.) I saw some gruesome punishments for non-believers. And I saw this, which seems to be the closest to what you're saying:

Sahih International
And in anything over which you disagree - its ruling is [to be referred] to Allah . [Say], "That is Allah , my Lord; upon Him I have relied, and to Him I turn back."

Perhaps instead of waving your hands about passages in the Quran, in an abusive tone of voice no less, you need to cut and paste the exact lines. Both you and Muslima are really good with the cut and paste feature, so surely you can do this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Maybe those western ears need to stop trying to hear that which the western mind simply can not understand. Google articles on "Equal rights for women in Islam" and you will see most Muslim authors consider rights between men and women to not only be equitable, but equal also. Muslima is simply like every other Muslim expressing the same view. You have invested far too much time on harassing Muslima and vilifying my religion. The insults were deserved. You accuse Muslima and I of proselytizing. DCUM is not the place to proselytize. I sure as hell hope nobody contemplates life altering conversion based on information collected on DCUM. However, you and your one toothed back woods gang of three to five people do have an agenda, which is to trash Islam by publishing false information and you have incurred my wrath. You keep deliberately publishing false or misleading info because of your personal hatred toward Islam and I will most certainly reserve special language for you. As the western saying goes, if the shoe fits.

You're an embarrassment to your religion, and a very unskilled debater.

Pick better parts of Islam, there are many, and focus on them. Women's rights and other unlovely bits won't take you to victory.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Maybe those western ears need to stop trying to hear that which the western mind simply can not understand. Google articles on "Equal rights for women in Islam" and you will see most Muslim authors consider rights between men and women to not only be equitable, but equal also. Muslima is simply like every other Muslim expressing the same view.

Most of these article were written by Muslims. They would say that, wouldn't they. What does it matter that most Muslim authors consider men/women rights to be equal? You aren't trying to make your case to Muslim authors.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It really is sad and pathetic how liberals such as yourself use variation in the individuals who identify themselves as Muslims to ignore the things that Islam painly says and the effect those things have on people's behavior. Here is an article written with people like you in mind:

https://richarddawkins.net/2014/10/can-liberalism-be-saved-from-itself/

Yes, I understand that you believe that every Muslim should be blamed for every idea or action that any other Muslim has. The pride you take in your bigotry is familiar to us. You proudly call yourself an atheist, while just as proudly tout your particular dislike for Islam. When we are in need of atheist Islamophobes to advise us on Islam, I'm sure you will be the first we call.

As usual you completely fail to understand the distinction between the person and the belief system. I am saying that Islam should be blamed when Muslims act in accordance with the reactionary, illiberal, violent dictates of Islam, particularly when those same Muslims cite Islam as the justification for their actions. Islam is not an identity. It is a belief system that anyone can choose, or reject. Unless, of course, you are surrounded by Muslims who will cut your head off if you leave the religion because Islam tells them to do just that.

‘The Muslim faith is not to blame’: Mike Haines reads from Koran to tell the world that his brother David was butchered by ISIS because of extremism, not Islam

Source : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2755617/Brother-ISIS-beheading-victim-David-Haines-reads-Koran-pleads-society-repel-evil-better.html#ixzz3FhhvumCc

Anonymous wrote:Muslima. For Pete's sake. Mohammed's first wife owned property before Islam even appeared. Islam did not "grant property rights to women." Why do you keep saying that?

Also, you're the one who is so big on using context to interpret the Quran, yet in this case you insist on ignoring context. You're talking about people who were acting 1400 years ago in a context of establishing relations with another tribe. Nor does pledging allegiance to the ruler of another tribe have anything to do with *choosing* the ruler that you pledge to or the "ballots" you kept referring to.

The Quran explicitly states that men and women are equal in the eyes of God. Furthermore, the Quran:

forbids female infanticide (practiced in pre-Islamic Arabia and other parts of the world)
instructs Muslims to educate daughters as well as sons
insists that women have the right to refuse a prospective husband
gives women rights if they are divorced by their husband
gives women the right to divorce in certain cases
gives women the right to own and inherit property (though in Sunni Islam they get only half of what men inherit. Men are expected to care for their mothers and any unmarried female relatives, and would, it is reasoned, need greater resources for this purpose.)
While polygyny is permissible, it is discouraged and on the whole practiced less frequently than imagined by Westerners. It is more frequent in the Gulf, including Saudi Arabia. Many Muslims cite the Quranic phrase "But treat them equally... and if you cannot, then one [wife] is better" and argue that monogamy is preferable, or even mandatory.

In fact, Islam gives women a number of rights, some of which were not enjoyed by Western women until the 19th century. For example, until 1882, the property of women in England was given to their husbands when they married, but Muslim women always retained their own assets. Muslim women could specify conditions in their marriage contracts, such as the right to divorce should their husband take another wife. Also, Muslim women in many countries keep their own last name after marriage.

Aisha, the favored wife of Muhammad, had great political clout and even participated in battle (the Battle of Camel).
Razia was a Muslim woman ruler of 13th-century India.
Amina was a 16th-century queen of Zaria in present-day Nigeria.
Shajarat al-Durr was briefly sultan in Mamluk Egypt, but was the power behind the throne for even longer.
The so-called "sultanate of women" in the Ottoman Empire during the 17th century was a period when several strong women had enormous power over affairs of state.
Huda Shaarawi, who became famous for discarding her face veil, also established a women's political party and worked for Egyptian independence from Britain in the first half of the 20th century.

Anonymous wrote:PP, you are almost single handedly engaging in a modern day lynching, except you don't have access to a rope and tree so you are doing it online.

As a Muslim woman, I can validate the truth of what Muslima has published thus far in defense of her statement support Islam granted women voting rights over 1400 years ago.

The sura Ash Shura means "consultation" and the verses she quoted are evidence that women had political say, they had the right to offer their oath of allegiance to rulers if they wanted and this was independent of their father or husband making an oath.

You said this oath of allegiance is different from voting. Not necessarily. Ash Shura, the Sura in the Quran, states those who believe in Allah will rely on consultations for deciding any matter that requires a collective opinion. This hints at the importance of democratic decisions. The language does not only refer to males, either. This requirement to come to a decision collectively applies to men and women. This is powerful evidence that women were not excluded from political decision making. Their opinion counted too.

You asked why muslim countries took so long to give Muslim women voting rights. Its a logical question and has a simple answer that any intelligent person should be able to deduce. After the Prophet died, the condition and treatment of women deteriorated, and slowly returned to pre-Islamic times. Muslima tried to explain to you, numerous times, that Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries do not fairly reflect Islamic practice. Your misunderstanding of Islam stems basically from your inability to distinguish Islamic faith from Muslim practice.

Now you want Muslima to be banned from DCUM when you have done nothing but engaged in a modern day, online lynching of her? You follow her from thread to thread. One member of your racist group told her to go back to her country. Yet, you want HER banned?

You represent the ugly, disgusting, loathsome minority with your hatred of Islam and vendetta against religious Muslims. Very few people have come to your defense because your exposed yourself to be a promoter of hate. On the other hand, the reason more people have not come to Muslima's defense is because they recognize you may have a psychiatric disorder and explaining anything to you is pointless when you are on a one-woman-atheist-Islam-hating-racist mission.

Subject: [Masjid Tucson] Submission weekly reminder

In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

Peace be upon you,

What does the Quran say about women and government? Do women have equal rights to vote? Can they run for president?

From the Quran we know men and women are equal (Quran 33:35), and God tells us that our leaders make decisions after due consultation (Quran 42:38) of those involved (i.e., both men and women). Thus women and men are equal in their vote.

The Quran further gives us an example of a woman ruler, who followed the principle of consultation -- the Queen of Sheba (Quran 27:29-35).
Source: http://www.masjidtucson.org/publications/books/weekly/2012/jan/jan12_women_society.txt

[Quran 42:38] They respond to their Lord by observing the Contact Prayers (Salat). Their affairs are decided after due consultation among themselves, and from our provisions to them they give (to charity).

Anonymous wrote:I am 0:38 and not Muslima. As a Muslim I can confirm she spoke the truth about Islam. If her information is insufficient to convince you that Islam is a peaceful religion, its time for you to let it go. Look at the pages and pages of crap you publish to vilify Islam. Muslima is not a scholar but she is devout. Faith is not determined by knowledge. It exists based on trust. You need knowledge to believe. Muslima does not.

If you need specific answers, why don't you call a couple scholars? Dr. Jamal Badawi lives in Nova Scotia and is the most knowledgeable person I know.

If answers are what you want, you will call. If arguing is your goal, you'll continue with your islsmophobic diatribes.

I hope to God Muslima does not engage you anymore. You clearly have some type of mental impairment. There is a psychiatric disorder in which patients argue incessantly and create disputes with people because ot stimulates a part of their brain that is understimulated. They crave arguing. They live for it. You may suffer from this disorder. Please get yourself checked out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not really why people bring up the conditions of women in Saudi Arabia as an example of a "Muslim Country", Saudi Arabia is a Monarchy. It is not the whole of the Islamic World.
Since you love links here is one for you:
http://www.theguardian.com/society/gallery/2009/mar/25/muslim-women-power-list

and here is a post about women's rights in Ancient Persia, they did enjoy far more rights than they do today.
Somehow men have once again twisted a religion to subjugate women as America did.
http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/Women_s_Rights_in_Ancient_Persia.htm

The link about Persia is interesting, and I say that as a history buff. But those were Zorastrians.

For the record, the starting point for these last 7 pages was Muslima's claim (page 23 of this thread) that Islam granted voting rights to women 1400 years, ago, way before the West did.

We did bring up lots of Muslim countries (page 26 of this thread) but Muslima chose to ignore them and to focus on the narrow KSA point.

If you're interested, here's the link from page 26 of this thread, showing women's voting rights in Muslim countries: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_first_w...e_in_majority-Muslim_countries . The link below shows Turkey, under pro-western Attaturk, was the first non-Communist, majority Muslim country to grant voting rights to women in 1930. In 1945, Senegal and Indonesia (both still colonies at the time) became the 2nd and 3rd non-Communist, Muslim-majority states to grant voting rights to women. So, all are later than the US which granted women's voting rights in 1920.

Anonymous wrote:Not getting into all of this ONCE again. Muslima, this is not the forum for you - and YES I AM an ISLAMAPHOBE because you cannot clearly explain your religion as being PEACEFUL with any credibility in three bullet points or less (no pun intended).

EXPLAIN ISIS, MUSLIMA.

Please, and once again, I'll call you out - you do NOT live in the District of Columbia as you have claimed so many times.

A liar. That is what you are.

Go on, tell us where you live and tell the truth.

And stop with your whining. Even your whining tone resonates through your writing. That is how much of a whiner you are.

Please, respond with a seven paragraph tome on allah.

You are a fraud and a farce. A little boy, probably posting under the name of Muslima!

Anonymous wrote:O my little dissembler. Clearly, you're counting on finding a roomful of non-Muslims who have no idea what it is that you're quoting. Let us review the surah you brought:

O Prophet! When the believing women come to you—pledging allegiance to you that they shall not associate anything ?as a god? with God; nor shall they steal; nor shall they commit illicit sexual intercourse; nor shall they kill their children; nor shall they come forth with ?a previously conceived child in? a calumny they forge between their own hands and legs; nor shall they disobey you in any rightful thing—then accept their allegiance, and seek God’s forgiveness for them. Indeed, God is all-forgiving, mercy-giving. — Ahmad Zaki

Now, what exactly is the Quran talking about here?

When Muhammad was still nowhere as powerful as he would become, he and his followers camped out at Medina. At the time, Mecca was controlled by the Quraish, a pagan tribe. The relations between the two were often strained. The hostilities, though, ended by concluding a Treaty of Hudaibiya, the conditions of which were seen as burdensome by many Muslims. One of them was that anyone from Mecca entering Medina was subject to being returned to Meccans (even if the escapee claimed to be a Muslim and not pagan - remember, at the time Islam was still a new thing), while the reverse wasn't true for the other party. Eventually, the matter was resolved by the revelation that if women claiming to be Muslim emigrate to Medina seeking refuge, they should be examined by the ruler (Muhammad), and if found to be of good character and not Meccan spies, they should be admitted to residence. Call it an expedited background check for the Medinan green card. That's why the conditions that they should not lie, steal, kill their children or associate others with God. It's not to vote. It's to prove that they are in fact Muslim as they claim to be. (Have you heard of any test of character before voting? Huh? Bad people vote too, you know).

This has nothing at all to do with voting. It has to do with one tribe attracting followers from another. And shame on you for trying to sell it as a semblance of voting.

Women in Society: Political Participation



Social responsibility in Islam is derived from the Quranic verse which states: "And [as for] the believers, both men and women - they are friends and protectors of one another: they [all] enjoin the doing of what is right and forbid the doing of what is wrong, and are constant in prayer, and render the purifying dues, and pay heed unto God and His apostle. It is they upon whom God will bestow His grace: verily, God is almighty, wise." (Quran 9:71). This verse shows that women and men are to work together in the religious realm (the reference to prayer), in the social realm (rendering purifying dues, presumably to help the needy), and in the political and educational realm (the reference to heeding God and His apostle -- one must understand what God commands and have a voice in society to heed God’s teachings). The references in the verse to the activities required, e.g. enjoining the right, prayer, etc. show that both women and men are to take an active role in society rather than merely a passive one.

Political involvement is a means to fulfill one’s obligations to society. Involvement in the political system can take many forms, from voting in elections, to holding a position as a legislator or a judge, to being a head of state. Islamic history provides precedents for each of these roles for women.

Women's Participation in the Bai'ah

The leader of an Islamic state is confirmed by the people through a process known as bai’ah; a symbolic contract between the leader and the people wherein the leader promises to obey Islamic law and the people, in exchange, promise their allegiance. Iqbal, Justice Javid, "The Concept of State in Islam" State, Politics, and Islam (ed. Mumtaz Ahmed, American Trust Publications 1986, p. 38). In essence, bai’ah is the election of a leader, for without the bai’ah the purported leader has no legitimacy and thus cannot act as the head of state. M.F. Osman, Human Rights Between Islamic Sharia and Western Legal Thought, Dar al Shuruq, 1982, p. 110 (citing Abdelwahab Khallaf’s Political Sharia). Ibn Taymiya in his work Minhaj al Sunna stresses the requirement of bai’ah by the people for a leader to be legitimate. Ibn Taymiya discusses the occurrence where Abu Bakr nominated Umar ibn al Khattab to succeed him as caliph. Ibn Taymiya stated that Umar became the caliph only when he received the bai’ah from the people. Ibn Taymiya further stated that if Umar had not received the bai’ah, he would not have become the leader, despite his nomination by Abu Bakr M.F. Osman, Human Rights Between Islamic Sharia and Western Legal Thought, Dar al Shuruq, 1982, p. 111.

In early Islam women were included in the giving of the bai’ah. Prophet Muhammad received the bai’ah from the people. The Quran addresses the issue of women giving the bai’ah to Prophet Muhammad and God tells Muhammad to accept the pledge of the women. "O Prophet! Whenever believing women come unto thee to pledge their allegiance to thee...then accept their pledge of allegiance." (Quran 60:12). In 645 A.D. (23 A.H.) Umar, the second head of state after the death of Prophet Muhammad, convened a group to determine his successor. One of the group, Abdul Rahman, went to the people to consult with them as to who should be the next leader. Abdul Rahman consulted both women and men, thus women had a say in who would be their leader. Through this process Uthman was selected to succeed Umar. Iqbal, Justice Javid, "The Concept of State in Islam" State, Politics, and Islam (ed. Mumtaz Ahmed, American Trust Publications 1986, p. 43).

Women and Shura

In addition to participation in the electoral process, women have also been involved in political activities. These activities appear to be sanctioned by Islamic law. In Islam, community decisions must be made through a process of consultation (shura). The Quran, in describing the qualifications of true believers, states "...and whose rule in all matters of common concern is consultation among themselves." (Quran 42:38). Muhammad Asad argues that this verse reaches into all aspects of political life and that to fulfill the requirements of this verse, a legislative assembly should be formed. Muhammad Asad, The Principles of State and Government in Islam, Dar Al-Andalus, 1980, pp. 44-45. He further argues that the verse refers to the entire community; therefore, the legislative assembly must be representative of the entire community, women and men and that to achieve true representation, the members of the legislative assembly must be elected through free elections with wide suffrage, including both women and men. Muhammad Asad, The Principles of State and Government in Islam, Dar Al-Andalus, 1980, pp. 45.

Women as Judges

The traditional Islamic scholar Ibn Hazm was of the opinion that women could be judges in all cases. (Ibn Hazm, Al-Muhalla bil Athar, vol. 8 Dar Al-Kutub Al-Ilmiya, 1988, p. 528). Ibn Hazm cites the verse: "Behold, God bids you to deliver all that you have been entrusted with unto those who are entitled thereto, and whenever you judge between people, to judge with justice. Verily, most excellent is what God exhorts you to do: verily, God is all-hearing, all-seeing!" (Quran 4:58) and argues that this verse is addressed to both men and women and that there is no reason to discriminate between a man or woman (or a free person or a slave) as to who can judge between people. (Ibn Hazm, Al-Muhalla bil Athar, vol. 8 Dar Al-Kutub Al-Ilmiya, 1988, p. 528). Likewise, Imam al -Tabari believed that women could be judges in all cases. (M.H. Sherif, The Muslim Woman Between the Truth of Sharia and the Fallacy of Falsification, Dar al Marifa al Jamiyya, 1987, p. 142). Imam Abu Hanifa believed that women could be judges on issues related to family law. (Ibn Hazm, Al-Muhalla bil Athar, vol. 8, Dar Al-Kutub Al-Ilmiya, 1988, p. 527). In addition, Umar, the second head of state after the death of Prophet Mohammad, appointed a woman named Al Shafa bint Abdullah ibn abd Shams as the manager over the market of Medina. (Ibn Hazm, Al-Muhalla bil Athar, vol. 8 Dar Al-Kitab Al-Ilmiya 1988, p.527).

Traditionally, an aspect of leadership in Islam is the ability of the leader to lead the Muslims in prayer, i.e. act as the imam. (Fatima Mernissi, The Forgotten Queens of Islam, University of Minnesota Press, 1993, p. 32). Some argue that women cannot hold positions of leadership because women cannot lead men in prayer. (Fatima Mernissi, The Forgotten Queens of Islam, University of Minnesota Press, 1993, p. 32). However, this argument requires two assumptions which may be invalid. First, one must assume that the leader himself or herself is obligated to lead prayer. Second, one must assume that women cannot lead men in prayer.

Women as Imams

The word imam as used in the Quran means a source of guidance (e.g. Quran 2:124). The meaning is not limited only to prayer. Thus, the leader should guide the people along the path of Islam. In other words, the role of the leader is to follow the teachings of Islam and to act as a role model. (M.F. Osman, "The Contract for the Appointment of the Head of an Islamic State", State, Politics, and Islam, ed. Mumtaz Ahmed, 1986, p. 56). Leading prayer is not a necessary criterion for leadership, although it may be symbolically desirable. The leader himself or herself need not actually lead prayer. The leader can delegate this function to another. Prophet Muhammad, on two occasions, assigned Ibn Umm Maktum to lead prayer in Medina. (As-Sayyid Sabiq, Fiqh us-Sunna, American Trust Publications, 1989, vol. 2, p. 57). On more than one occasion Muadh would pray isha with the Prophet and when he was finished he would return to his people and, with the Prophet’s permission, he would lead them in prayer. (As-Sayyid Sabiq, Fiqh us-Sunna, American Trust Publications, 1989, vol. 2, p. 57). Thus, the assumption that the leader must actually lead the prayer is not necessarily valid.

Several ahadith set forth the criteria for leading prayer: an ability to read the Quran, knowledge of the Quran, knowledge of the teachings of Prophet Muhammad, and being accepted by the congregation. The following hadith, related by Ahmad and Muslim and reported by Ibn Masud, states that the Prophet said: "The imam of a people should be the one who is the most versed in the Quran. If they are equal in their recital, then the one who is most knowledgeable of the sunnah. If they are equal in the sunnah, then it is the one who migrated first. If they are equal in that, then it is the eldest. And one should not lead prayer in another’s house without permission." (As-Sayyid Sabiq, Fiqh us-Sunna, American Trust Publications, 1989, vol. 2, p. 56). As-Sayyid Sabiq, a renowned Islamic scholar from al-Azhar, states that the following people are prohibited from leading prayer: someone with a legitimate excuse not to pray and an incapacitated person. He further states that the following people are discouraged from leading prayer: an evildoer and someone who changes the religion. (As-Sayyid Sabiq, Fiqh us-Sunna, American Trust Publications, 1989, vol. 2, pp. 56-58).

Thus, maleness was not mentioned as a criterion. Moreover As-Sayyid Sabiq states that it is preferable for a woman to lead other women in prayer and he states that Aishah used to lead the women in prayer. (As-Sayyid Sabiq, Fiqh us-Sunna, American Trust Publications, 1989, vol. 2, p. 58). According to Ibn Rushd, Imam al-Shafii believed that a woman could lead other women in prayer; however, both al-Tabari and Abu Thawr believed that a woman could lead both men and women in prayer. (Fatima Mernissi, The Forgotten Queens of Islam, University of Minnesota Press, 1993, p.33 (citing Ibn Rushd, Bidaya al-Mujtahid wa Nihaya al-Muqtasid, Dar al-Fikr, vol. 1, p. 105)). Furthermore, Umm Waraqa bint Abdallah, an Ansari woman who was well versed in the Quran, was instructed by Prophet Muhammad to lead ahl dariha (ahl dariha means the people of her home where dar means home and can refer to one’s residence, neighborhood, or village), which consisted of both men and women, in prayer. Wiebke Walther, Women in Islam, Markus Wiener Publishing, 1981, p. 111 (citing Ibn Sad, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, vol. 8, p. 335). The "people of Umm Waraqa’s home" were so numerous that Prophet Muhammad appointed a muezzin for her. (Ibid). Umm Waraqa was one of the few to hand down the Quran before it was written. (Ibid). Also, Umm Waraqa wished to be known as a martyr so she asked Prophet Muhammad to allow her to participate in the Battle of Badr (624 A.D./ 2 A.H.) so that she could take care of the wounded; from that time on Prophet Muhammad referred to her as "the female martyr." (Ibid). In 699 A.D. (77 A.H.) a woman named Ghazala led her male warriors in prayer in Kufa after having controlled the city for a day. (al-Tabari, History of Messengers and Kings, 51:80; Ali Masudi, Gardens of Gold, Dar al-Andalus, Beirut, 1965, 3:139). Not only did she lead Muslim men in prayer, she recited the two longest chapters in the Quran during that prayer. (Ibid). (It should be noted that many traditional imams do not accept Ghazala as legitimate precedent because she belonged to the Kharijite sect, a group of puritans, known for their piety, who revolted against Ali and Muawiya; however, this does not necessarily invalidate her actions). Thus, although the practice of women leading prayer is not commonly accepted, one cannot simply conclude that it is prohibited without first conducting honest and unbiased research.

More Examples of Politically Active Women

Furthermore, Islamic history is filled with women who undertook various forms of political activism. Unfortunately, however, much of this history has been ignored. The first martyr in Islam was a woman, Sumaya zawgat Yasir. Sumaya was tortured and killed in the early period of Islam because of her belief in Prophet Muhammad and the message he brought of one God. Jane Smith, "Women, Religion, and Social Change in Early Islam", Women, Religion, and Social Change, ed. Yvonne Haddad and Elison Findly, State University of New York Press, 1985, p. 25; Muhammad al-Khudari, Noor al Yakin fi Sirat Sayid al-Mursalin, 1935, p.47.

Asma bint Umais was a woman who traveled by sea and emigrated to Abyssinia when the Muslims were being persecuted in Mecca. Abu Musa narrated the following: Asma visited Hafsa, the Prophet’s wife. During her visit Umar ibn al-Khattab arrived and upon seeing Asma he inquired who she was. Hafsa told him Asma’s name whereupon Umar asked if she was the Abyssinian sea traveler and Asma replied that she was. Umar then said "We did hijra before you, so we are closer to the Prophet (PBUH)." Later, the Prophet arrived and Asma related to him what Umar said. The Prophet said to her "Nobody is closer to me than you. Umar and his companions have one hijra, but for you, people of the sea, you have two." Asma later said that others who had emigrated by sea would ask her about this event. Abdelhalim abu Shaqa, Emancipation of Woman at the Time of the Prophet, 1990, vol. 2, p. 37 (citing Bukhari 13:245 and Muslim, The Book of Pilgrimage, 4:101). This story is significant in that Asma bint Umais and her travels in search of religious freedom appeared to be common knowledge and were noteworthy enough to receive praise from the Prophet.

Women also fought in battles to defend Islam. Umm Imara defended the Prophet during the Battle of Uhud after the Muslims were defeated. Umar ibn al-Khattab said "I heard the Prophet (PBUH) saying ‘On the day of Uhud, I never looked right or left without seeing Umm Imara fighting to defend me.’" Abdelhalim abu Shaqa, Emancipation of Woman at the Time of the Prophet, 1990, vol. 2, p. 53 (citing Ibn Sad, Tabaqat).

Another famous female warrior was Nasiba bint Kaab who fought with the Prophet in the Battle of Uhud (625 A.D./ 3 A.H.) and later on with Caliph Abu Bakr in the Ridda war (632 A.D./ 10 A.H.). She was known as such a courageous and dedicated warrior that Abu Bakr himself attended her reception upon her return to Medina. M.H. Sherif, The Muslim Woman Between the Truth of Sharia and the Fallacy of Falsification, Dar al-Marifa al-Jamiyiya, 1987, p. 78 (citing Ibn Sad, Tabakat 4:302-304).

Umm Salama, one of the Prophet’s wives, was instrumental in advising the Prophet during the crisis at Hudaybiya in 628 A.D. (6 A.H.). Muhammad al-Ghazali, Fiqh al-Sira, Alim al-Marifa, p. 363. Her advice prevented disunity among the Muslims after the Treaty of Hudaybiya and her opinion prevailed over that of many men, including Umar ibn al-Khattab. Muhammad al-Ghazali, Fiqh al-Sira, Alim al-Marifa, p. 363. Umm Salama was also an inquisitive student of Islam. She asked the Prophet why only men were mentioned in the Quran and in response God revealed the following verse: "Verily, for all men and women who have surrendered themselves unto God, and all believing men and believing women, and all truly devout men and truly devout women, and all men and women who are true to their word, and all men and women who are patient in adversity, and all men and women who humble themselves before God, and all men and women who give in charity, and all self-denying men and self-denying women, and all men and women who are mindful of their chastity, and all men and women who remember God unceasingly: for all of them has God readied forgiveness of sins and a mighty reward." (Quran 33:35). Fatima Mernissi, The Veil and the Male Elite, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1987, p. 118 (citing al-Tabari, Tafsir, vol. 22, p. 10).

Umm Hani bint Abi Talib offered refuge to two non-Muslim men who sought protection after the opening of Mecca. After she offered them refuge she went to the Prophet and told him what she had done. He said to her, "We offer refuge to whomever you offered and we guarantee the safety to whom you guaranteed safety." M.H. Sherif, The Muslim Woman Between the Truth of Sharia and the Fallacy of Falsification, Dar al-Marifa al-Jamiyiya, 1987, p. 71-72. (citing Sirat Ibn Hisham, 4:39-40). Thus, in essence, Umm Hani bint Abi Talib performed a significant political function, one often reserved only for the ruler, when she granted political asylum to these men.

Aisha, a wife of Prophet Muhammad, was also politically active. In the year 658 A.D. (36 A.H.) she played a major role in the armed resistance against Ali, the fourth successor after the death of Prophet Muhammad. (Fatima Mernissi, The Forgotten Queens of Islam, University of Minnesota Press, 1993, p. 66.) Aisha went to mosques and rallied people to take up arms against Ali. (Ibid). Aisha, the only woman on the battlefield, led thousands of men into the "Battle of the Camel." (Ibid). Aisha was clearly an influential leader as shown by the following statement made by Hasan the son of Ali after Aisha traveled to Basra with Talha and al-Zubayr, members of Ali’s opposition, to rally support. Hasan, in a speech made in Kufa, stated, "I swear by God, surely she is the wife of your Prophet, in this life and the hereafter. But it is a test from God to know whether you will obey Him or her." (Abdelhalim Abu Shaka, The Emancipation of Woman at the Time of the Prophet, 1990, p. 151 (citing Bukhari).

Arguments Against Political Participation

Despite the evidence to the contrary, some argue that in Islam women cannot or should not hold positions of leadership. This argument is based primarily on the interpretation given to one hadith and to two Quranic verses. The hadith, related by Abu Bakra, states "God has benefited me from a word I heard from the Prophet (PBUH) on the day of the Camel, after I had been about to join the ranks of the people of the Camel. [Abu Bakra] said ‘When the Prophet was informed that the people of Persia had crowned the daughter of Kisra as their ruler, he said: No people will ever succeed if they hand their affairs to a woman.’" Sahih al-Bukhari, trans. by M.M. Khan, Kazi Publications, 1983, vol. 5, p. 508, no. 508; vol. 9, p. 170-171, no. 219. [SEE SOURCES CHAPTER FOR DISCUSSION OF THIS HADITH] Ibn Hazm understood the hadith to mean that a woman can hold any position of leadership other than actually being the head of state. Muhammad al-Ghazali, Sunna al-Nabawiya Bayna Ahl al-Fiqh wa Ahl al-Hadith, Dar al-Shuruq, 1989, p.56. Muhammad al-Ghazali states that this hadith must be closely scrutinized and while he has no particular desire to have a woman act as head of state, he is adamant that the state be headed by the most capable person. Muhammad al-Ghazali, Sunna al-Nabawiya Bayna Ahl al-Fiqh wa Ahl al-Hadith, Dar al-Shuruq, 1989, p.56. Al-Ghazali also argued that narrowly interpreting this hadith would contradict historical realities, e.g. England under Queen Victoria, India under Indira Ghandi, and Israel under Golda Meir. Muhammad al-Ghazali, Sunna al-Nabawiya Bayna Ahl al-Fiqh wa Ahl al-Hadith, Dar al-Shuruq, 1989, p.58. Al-Ghazali also argues that femininity or masculinity is irrelevant in this regard and he goes on to state that a pious woman is better than a bearded man who has gone astray. (Ibid).

A Quranic verse used to justify excluding women from political leadership states: " And the divorced women shall undergo, without remarrying, a waiting period of three monthly courses: for it is not lawful for them to conceal what God may have created in their wombs, if they believe in God and the Last Day. And during this period their husbands are fully entitled to take them back, if they desire reconciliation; but, in accordance with justice, the rights of the wives with regard to their husbands are equal to the husbands’ rights with regard to them, although men have a degree (darajah) over them. And God is almighty, wise. (Quran 2:228). Imam al-Tabari argued that the degree referred to in this verse exhorts men to treat their wives better than they expect to be treated; in other words, the husband should not require his wife to fulfill all of her obligations to him, but he should still fulfill all of his obligations to her. M.H. Sherif, The Muslim Woman Between the Truth of Sharia and the Fallacy of Falsification, Dar al-Marifa al-Jamiyiya, 1987, p. 141 (citing al-Tabari, Tafsir, 1954, vol. 2, p. 454). The view held by Imam al-Tabari, that husbands should treat their wives better than they expect to be treated by them, was apparently the interpretation given to this verse in the early years of Islam. Abdullah ibn Abbas (d. 788 A.D./ 69 A.H.), the Prophet’s cousin, said: "I adorn myself for my wife as she adorns herself for me, and I would not like to exact all my rights that she owes me, so that she also would not claim all what is due to her...The ‘degree’ is a cue to invite men to pleasant cohabitation and to extend to women more money and good manners, because the one with more gifts should impose more upon himself." M.H. Sherif, "Women and Political Power in Muslim Thought", Lecture, Cornell University, 1987 (citing al-Tabari, Tafsir, 1954, vol. 2, p. 454). In later years, scholars began to view the "degree" as equivalent to the advantages of men and linked the alleged superiority to men’s advantages in jihad, inheritance, and whatever else men had in abundance over women. M.H. Sherif, "Women and Political Power in Muslim Thought", Lecture, Cornell University, 1987 (citing al-Tabari, Tafsir, 1954, vol. 2, p. 454). This supposed superiority was then used as the basis for the argument that wives must obey their husbands. (Ibid). Sayyid Qutb argues that this verse relates to the divorce context where the husband, who has initiated the divorce, has the right to reconcile with his wife during the waiting period. Sayyid Qutb further states: "The nature of the situation imposes this right and the degree is restricted to this situation and cannot be construed as of a general nature, as many misunderstand and then adduce it to situations in which it is not applicable." M.H. Sherif, "Women and Political Power in Muslim Thought", Lecture, Cornell University, 1987 (citing Sayyid Qutb, Fi Dhilal al-Quran, 1973, vol. 2, pp. 246-247). Another argument, again restricting this verse to the divorce setting, holds that the degree or advantage men have is the ability to pronounce divorce without the need for arbitration. Amina Wadud-Muhsin, Quran and Woman, Penerbit Fajar Bakti Sdn. Bhd., 1992, p.68. Thus, based on the above, this verse need not be interpreted to hold that all men are superior to all women in all situations, thereby denying women political roles.

The other oft quoted verse used to justify the subjugation of women states: "Men shall take full care (qawamuna) of women with the bounties which God has bestowed more abundantly[preferred] (faddala) on some of the former than on some of the latter, and with what they may spend out of their possessions. And the righteous women are the truly devout ones, who guard the intimacy which God has ordained to be guarded." (Quran 4: 34). This verse states a conditional proposition. Men are to take full care of women if two conditions are met: first, if the man’s bounties are more abundant than the woman’s and second, if the man supports the woman from his means. Amina Wadud-Muhsin, Quran and Woman, Penerbit Fajar Bakti Sdn. Bhd., 1992, p.70. In terms of more abundant material bounties, the only Quranic reference where men receive a greater share than women is inheritance (Quran 4:7). Thus, men are responsible to spend of their property on women and so they are given a larger share in inheritance. Amina Wadud-Muhsin, Quran and Woman, Penerbit Fajar Bakti Sdn. Bhd., 1992, p.71. The verse gives no indication of men’s superiority over women in regards to intelligence, piety, or any other attribute; therefore, it makes little sense to interpret this verse to mean that men are superior to women. Furthermore, the verse states that some have been given more bounties than some; thus, men as a class are not quawamuna over women as a class. Amina Wadud-Muhsin, Quran and Woman, Penerbit Fajar Bakti Sdn. Bhd., 1992, p.71 (citing Aziza al-Hibri, "A Study of Islamic Herstory", Women and Islam: Women’s Studies International Forum Magazine, 1982, 5:218). To fully understand the import of the interpretation of this verse in the subjugation of women, one must look at the various interpretations given to qawamuna. Various translations render it as "in charge of", "in charge of the affairs of", or "managers of the affairs of." Amina Wadud-Muhsin, Quran and Woman, Penerbit Fajar Bakti Sdn. Bhd., 1992, p.71. Another plausible interpretation is "in charge of the service of" because the word quwamuna includes the concepts of taking care of another, maintaining another, and moral responsibility for another (Muhammad Asad, The Mesage of the Quran, Dar Al-Andalus, 1980, p. 109, nt. 42); taken together, these concepts refer to meeting the needs of another. Whether the concept of qawamuna applies only in the family setting or whether it applies to society as a whole is an issue of debate among scholars. (Id. at p. 72). Some argue that the concept applies to the family setting, specifically, it addresses the responsibility of the man to ensure that the woman is not burdened with other responsibilities while she is fulfilling her child-bearing function, thereby equalizing their responsibilities to the family. (Id. at p. 73). Thus, this verse does not hold that men have authority over women or that all men are superior to all women; therefore, it cannot be used as a categorical justification to deprive women of political involvement.

Conclusion

The Quran, sunnah, and Islamic history provide ample evidence of women undertaking various forms of political involvement from the bai’ah to fighting in battles to influencing political decisions. Ignoring the contributions of Muslim women deprives our Islamic heritage of valuable role models while continuing the stagnation of Islamic thought. To exclude women from political involvement simply because they are women is an act of tribalism based on gender. The Prophet stated: "He is not of us who proclaims the cause of tribal partisanship..."Muhammad Asad, The Principles of State and Government in Islam, Dar Al-Andalus, 1980, p. 32 (citing Abu Dawud).

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:
yehhhhhh, you asked for a source, woman/man whatever you are. Once you get the source , your argument is "you brought what you think Islam should be like" ahhahahaha WELL, the problem is I didn't write this piece, and I did not write the Quran. Really, this is Islam, sorry to burst your bubble! nOW YOU also want evidence, because what i brought wasn't 'evidence" enough ahha, this is why I refused to "educate" you in the first place. See , I don't argue just for the sake of arguments, I have no interest in sterile discussions. I have shown you clear sources that show how muslim women voted 1400 years ago, sorry I couldn't resuscitate the dead bodies of all of those muslim women as evidence so they could bear witness about how they casted ballots way back when #MuslimApologies

You didn't show any "clear sources". You brought a story about Umar, or was it Uthman's ascent to power, and the story you brought isn't the only version of how he got to power.

Then you brought Muhammad Asad's opinion of how things ought to be. We already know where all that opining got him.

You didn't bring any actual historical records or sources of Muslim women participating in elections en masse. You didn't even bring any Quranic sources confirming that women had a right to vote. You just brought your assumptions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Please tell me you are not so ignorant that you think 1400 years ago, arabs int he desert use to cast ballots to vote You have got to be kidding me! Bai'ah was their way to elect a leader whether you like it or not, whether it is to your satisfaction or not, is quite frankly irrelevant!

You're the one who keeps talking about casting ballots. Don't blame anyone else.

The point is, pledging allegiance is very different from VOTING.

To spell it out for you, you pledge allegiance to a guy WHO IS ALREADY IN POWER. Too late for any voting.