Pakistan had a PM, Bangaladesh too, is it possible that in our Arab world a woman could reach office? Yes? No? Maybe?
Posted by misfit (Member # 8880) on :
Apart from the religious and social considerations, the question is: can a woman set a coup or become a general in the military? of course not. Then the answer is no!
Posted by Sub-zero (Member # 9691) on :
Bhutto didn't make a coup? But you are right Misfit, in this part of the world usually what is needed to take office is a military coup. Is it acceptable at least for our masses if a woman runs and "leads"?
Posted by Vesuvius (Member # 16853) on :
I doubt it will happen anytime soon, because women are not even represented so much at the top of professions.
I think this is a long way off Posted by ** Ahmad** (Member # 16703) on :
Islam do not forbid women to be president ,But I will not vote for her
Posted by Vesuvius (Member # 16853) on :
quote:Originally posted by ** Ahmad**: Islam do not forbid women to be president ,But I will not vote for her
Why not Ahmed? Wouldn't it depend on her views, opinions and what she stood for?
Posted by Sub-zero (Member # 9691) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vesuvius: Why not Ahmed? Wouldn't it depend on her views, opinions and what she stood for?
I think her views and opinions and what she stands for, though might be very valid and strong, are the last thing to be judged. There are other more "elivated" reasons as to why she won't get votes from Ahl Al Sunna wa al gama'aa. Let's see.
Posted by Questionmarks (Member # 12336) on :
The first female prime-minister was in 1960, Sri Lanka.She was the widow of the former prime-minister,and took over his job. First of all, not being male of female is important, but the right person on the right place; qualifications, skills, talents, personality, ambition, knowledge, expierence etc. So, in a country where there are hardly female politicians, it will be difficult to find someone who is suitable for becoming a president or prime-minister...
Posted by Sub-zero (Member # 9691) on :
quote:Originally posted by Questionmarks: the right person on the right place; qualifications, skills, talents, personality, ambition, knowledge, expierence etc.
I agree to that QM.
quote:Originally posted by Questionmarks: So, in a country where there are hardly female politicians, it will be difficult to find someone who is suitable for becoming a president or prime-minister...
I guess the same reasons that kept women from achieving any political career, are the same reasons that are keeping them from becoming presidents, I'm trying to probe the initial hurdle.
Posted by ** Ahmad** (Member # 16703) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vesuvius:
quote:Originally posted by ** Ahmad**: Islam do not forbid women to be president ,But I will not vote for her
Why not Ahmed? Wouldn't it depend on her views, opinions and what she stood for?
I said islam do not forbid them from being president ,but simply I can not imagine a women being a president ,when I look at women I ask myself why such beatiful and soft creatures would bother and go to the elections?
After All ,Allah did not order Eve to work only Adam was ordered to work and take care of here
verse 20:117 "Then We said: "0 Adam! Verily, this is an enemy to you and to your wife. So let him not get you both out of Paradise, so that you will be distressed."
Allah said to Adam "فَتَشْقَى" Allah did not say "فَتَشْقَيان"
when Allah said distressed he only talked to Adam not to Eve,so Eve is not supposed to get distressed
so it is only Adam who will be distressed not his wife pray and blessing be upon them ,of course some women are so intelligent and so smart even more that men but they are not supposed to be distressed,that is it
Posted by unfinished thought. (Member # 16076) on :
Some people say that Muslim women have the right to work outside the home. I would like to ask them how a woman can work outside the home when she can’t be in a room alone with a man and can’t travel alone without a male kin (mahram). Muhammad discouraged women from going out of their home and in fact he said that it is better for them to pray in the privacy of their home (read prisons) than pray in the mosque. In some Islamic countries women are not even allowed to drive a car. How they are supposed to go to work if they can’t even get there unless someone drives them to and from work?
Posted by unfinished thought. (Member # 16076) on :
Posted by 'Shahrazat (Member # 12769) on :
quote:Originally posted by unfinished thought.: and can’t travel alone without a male kin (mahram).
No verse on that. And the hadiths about the subject are for precaution, not prohibition.
Posted by misfit (Member # 8880) on :
Of course women in the west can become presidents or anything else they wanna be, but women in muslim countries are cinvinced they need male protection 24/7 and can't travel alone, they agree they are lesser minded creatures whose testimony is only equal to half of a man, and what's more.. they're not a bit offended by it, some of them even parise and enjoy their situation! how can such women rule? thank God they don't stand a chance, for that would be a total disaster!
Posted by Sub-zero (Member # 9691) on :
quote: islam do not forbid them from being president
If Ahl El Sunna believe in Ahadeeth as well as Quran, there are several Ahadeeth of the Prophet that deny the leadership of women. "Lest no nation that is led by a woman would succeed". Is that denied?
Posted by Tibe still working (Member # 16647) on :
quote:Originally posted by ** Ahmad**:
quote:Originally posted by Vesuvius:
quote:Originally posted by ** Ahmad**: Islam do not forbid women to be president ,But I will not vote for her
Why not Ahmed? Wouldn't it depend on her views, opinions and what she stood for?
I said islam do not forbid them from being president ,but simply I can not imagine a women being a president ,when I look at women I ask myself why such beatiful and soft creatures would bother and go to the elections?
After All ,Allah did not order Eve to work only Adam was ordered to work and take care of here
verse 20:117 "Then We said: "0 Adam! Verily, this is an enemy to you and to your wife. So let him not get you both out of Paradise, so that you will be distressed."
Allah said to Adam "فَتَشْقَى" Allah did not say "فَتَشْقَيان"
when Allah said distressed he only talked to Adam not to Eve,so Eve is not supposed to get distressed
so it is only Adam who will be distressed not his wife pray and blessing be upon them ,of course some women are so intelligent and so smart even more that men but they are not supposed to be distressed,that is it
Have it ever accurred to y that women do this out of free will and likes to work and be independent???
No offcourse it hasnt. Where y come from women are totally veiled "for their own good", stays in the kichen and bedroom or else the get lashed or murdered because traduition demands y to do so. Really your a islamist that would be so much better living with your fellow taliban brothers.
Posted by happybunny (Member # 14224) on :
Do you think women shouldn't vote either Ahmad?
Quote:when I look at women I ask myself why such beatiful and soft creatures would bother and go to the elections? -----------------------------------------------
Posted by Tibe still working (Member # 16647) on :
quote:Originally posted by happybunny: Do you think women shouldn't vote either Ahmad?
Quote:when I look at women I ask myself why such beatiful and soft creatures would bother and go to the elections? -----------------------------------------------
double and ad a Posted by messenger (Member # 15059) on :
quote:Originally posted by ** Ahmad**:
quote:Originally posted by Vesuvius:
quote:Originally posted by ** Ahmad**: Islam do not forbid women to be president ,But I will not vote for her
Why not Ahmed? Wouldn't it depend on her views, opinions and what she stood for?
I said islam do not forbid them from being president ,but simply I can not imagine a women being a president ,when I look at women I ask myself why such beatiful and soft creatures would bother and go to the elections?
What if she's ugly and hard?
Posted by ** Ahmad** (Member # 16703) on :
quote:Originally posted by happybunny: Do you think women shouldn't vote either Ahmad?
Quote:when I look at women I ask myself why such beatiful and soft creatures would bother and go to the elections? -----------------------------------------------
sorry i f I did not point this out ,I mean by elections to be president or go to the parliament
and Yes she should go to vote
Posted by happybunny (Member # 14224) on :
Ahhhh ok, thank you Ahmad.
Posted by ** Ahmad** (Member # 16703) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sub-zero:
quote: islam do not forbid them from being president
If Ahl El Sunna believe in Ahadeeth as well as Quran, there are several Ahadeeth of the Prophet that deny the leadership of women. "Lest no nation that is led by a woman would succeed". Is that denied?
I was sure that you would bring this up!
I know about this hadith and others too ,but the hadith you are talking about was said in a special occasion about Al-Fors(Iran) ,sharawwy said the hadith is so general because of its general words but However Al-Ghazaly,Mamhoud Shaltot,Mohammad Abdo (both of the last were sheikh Al-Azhar)said that hadith is npt general and they gave excellent and outstanding arguement about this Hadith and others ,I advise you to read it or I can give you the link or the book or the sources mone of their reasons is the story of Belqis Queen of Saba'(Saba2) ,Allah mentions the woem and says she is great ,wise and just ,....in her story with prophet Solmon ,and Allah tells us in another place
"Indeed in their stories, there is a lesson for men of understanding. It (the Qur'an) is not a forged statement"
so we must use these stories as guides
btw,Qaradawi supports this opinion too Posted by ** Ahmad** (Member # 16703) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tibe still working: Really your a islamist that would be so much better living with your fellow taliban brothers.
and of course you go with your freinds to the nudity beaches and the topless feminism movement in Denmark
Rofl Posted by Sub-zero (Member # 9691) on :
quote: “The Hadith is general”.
It should be! We weren’t talking about a specific woman to demand a specific ruling. So if we accept generality as said, we conclude that “women” in general wouldn’t be fit to lead as the Prophet said. If we want to use guides, why not use plenty of guides that describe women as being less of mind and religion, that their testimony equals half of the man’s, by them inheriting half of what a man inherits? By ordering them to stay in their houses? Doesn’t the said Hadeeth make more sense then instead of the story of Belquis?
It is a cost and effect relation, how could a woman with all the restrictions given above stand a chance to compete for presidency?
Posted by *Dalia* (Member # 13012) on :
I actually agree with Ahmad. The story of the Queen of Shebah is one of my favourite stories in the Qur'an, and when I first came across it, it seemed crystal clear to me. God tells us the story of a powerful, spiritual and wise woman, a woman in a leadership position, a very positive example.
So when I read countless texts and fatawa claiming a woman can never hold any sort of leading position, neither in her family, nor in a company or a state, I was dumbstruck. Why did all those scholars completely ignore the story but refer to that obnoxious hadith instead? I think the answer is clear, but still it is sad that a story with a very clear message, a story directly from the Qur'an is being neglected in favour of a hadith, just because too many people do not like the idea of a woman in a position of leadership.
“Can a woman take the leadership role? Is it prohibited? The answer will be different if you look at the Quran, or if you look at the Hadiths, that most of them were written about 200 years after the Prophet's death. When God tells us a story in he Quran, He does not do so just for entertaining us, but to teach us a lesson.
"We narrate to you the most accurate history through the revelation of this Quran. Before this, you were totally unaware." 12:3. "In their history, there is a lesson for those who possess intelligence ..." 12:111.
The role of an important woman in the history of the old world, as much as Muslims are concerned, is shown in the story of Belquees, the Queen of Sheba. See 27:22-44. God mentioned her history in the Quran to let us know that a woman in a ruling position is not offensive as far as God is concerned.
She represented a democratic ruler who consulted with her people before making important decisions, See 27:29. She visited Solomon, talked to him, made decisions for herself and her people, not hiding behind walls, or shying behind another man. After witnessing what God gave Solomon, she became a submitter (Muslim), while still the Queen of Sheba. "She was told, "Go inside the palace." When she saw its interior, she thought it was a pool of water, and she (pulled up her dress) exposing her legs. He said, "This interior is now paved with crystal." She said, 'My Lord, I have wronged my soul. I now submit with Solomon to God, Lord of the universe".
Here we witness one of the first Muslim women in charge of a nation, ruling them as a queen of Sheba. Can we learn a lesson from the Quran? we should. The lesson is that, God in the Quran never put restrictions on a woman in a ruling position. Contrary to what the traditional Muslim scholars and Hadiths teach, a woman in a leading political position is not against God's system or against the Quran. It might be against the chauvinistic views of the men who wrote the corrupted history of Hadiths.
What did the books of man, the Hadith books ,teach about women in leadership positions? Completely the opposite, and then they claim that Hadiths do not contradict the Quran.. Of course the reason is that, the Prophet Muhammed would have never contradicted the Quran, but those who invented these stories about him did.
In one of the most famous Hadiths that is often raised in the face of any Muslim woman seeking higher education or higher position in her career is one by a man called Abu Bakra who narrated a Hadith reported in Bukhary that states that any community ruled by a woman will never succeed. The fallacy of this Hadith is not only proven in history but in the fact that Abu Bakra himself was reported in the Muslim history books to be punished publicly for bearing false witness. Despite this known story of his bearing false witness, Bukhary did not remove his Hadith from among his collected Hadiths according to the rules that Bukhary himself claimed to follow. Such a bearer of false witness should never be allowed or accepted as a witness ever, according to the Quran (24:4).
It should be! We weren’t talking about a specific woman to demand a specific ruling. So if we accept generality as said, we conclude that “women” in general wouldn’t be fit to lead as the Prophet said. If we want to use guides, why not use plenty of guides that describe women as being less of mind and religion, that their testimony equals half of the man’s, by them inheriting half of what a man inherits? By ordering them to stay in their houses? Doesn’t the said Hadeeth make more sense then instead of the story of Belquis?
It is a cost and effect relation, how could a woman with all the restrictions given above stand a chance to compete for presidency?
Do you want me to go and type the whole disscusion that happened in the book!
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
I can give you the books and the sources and you can look at and reflect upon them ,you can read Arabic do not ya? Posted by ** Ahmad** (Member # 16703) on :
@Dalia
why Did I mention Qaradawi!?
to press the button Posted by ** Ahmad** (Member # 16703) on :
@ Dalia i have read in your Article tha you say that the narrator of the hadith is not good
Actually this is not true ,the hadit has many narrators and and it is Sahih 300%,it is about using our minds in a right manner to understand hadith and know what is true and what is wrong,even if the narrator of Haadith is not a good person ,some others support this Hadith and point to it
Posted by weirdkitty (Member # 15365) on :
[qoute] Islam do not forbid women to be president ,But I will not vote for her [/quote] Bit of a sexist idiot aren't you? So you wouldn't vote for her purely on the basis that she is a woman, no matter if she was the better candidate for the job. So so sad.
quote: when I look at women I ask myself why such beatiful and soft creatures would bother and go to the elections?
quote:Originally posted by weirdkitty: [qoute] Islam do not forbid women to be president ,But I will not vote for her
Bit of a sexist idiot aren't you? So you wouldn't vote for her purely on the basis that she is a woman, no matter if she was the better candidate for the job. So so sad.
quote: when I look at women I ask myself why such beatiful and soft creatures would bother and go to the elections?
I Have decided that I am not going to lower myself to such person like you
*Caravn goes to its destination while dogs bark*
*Best reply to the idiots is silence*
Posted by 'Shahrazat (Member # 12769) on :
quote:Originally posted by *Dalia*: I actually agree with Ahmad.
Allahhh!!! Did it happen for the 1st time? Posted by Sub-zero (Member # 9691) on :
Just struck me that Margret Thatcher and Indira Gandhi's testimony combined together is equivalent to 3am Abdou my illiterate Portman’s testimony in a court of law.(Though I love the guy).
Posted by Tibe still working (Member # 16647) on :
quote:Originally posted by ** Ahmad**:
quote:Originally posted by Tibe still working: Really your a islamist that would be so much better living with your fellow taliban brothers.
and of course you go with your freinds to the nudity beaches and the topless feminism movement in Denmark
Rofl
Scared of the body fod gave y??? Since when do y know anything you haven't read in the quran?? Posted by tina kamal (Member # 13845) on :
quote:Originally posted by messenger:
quote:Originally posted by ** Ahmad**:
quote:Originally posted by Vesuvius:
quote:Originally posted by ** Ahmad**: Islam do not forbid women to be president ,But I will not vote for her
Why not Ahmed? Wouldn't it depend on her views, opinions and what she stood for?
I said islam do not forbid them from being president ,but simply I can not imagine a women being a president ,when I look at women I ask myself why such beatiful and soft creatures would bother and go to the elections?
What if she's ugly and hard?
hahaha that made me chuckle
Posted by *Dalia* (Member # 13012) on :
quote:Originally posted by 'Shahrazat: Allahhh!!! Did it happen for the 1st time?
I think it was the second time. Posted by Uncover (Member # 16892) on :
quote:Originally posted by *Dalia*: The story of the Queen of Shebah is one of my favourite stories in the Qur'an, and when I first came across it, it seemed crystal clear to me. God tells us the story of a powerful, spiritual and wise woman, a woman in a leadership position, a very positive example.
dalia says above that the holy quran is the word of god. why then is it so difficult for her to say she is a muslim? do Christians believe that the quran is the word of God? jews? why is dalia an in the closet quaranist? why does she attack sunni belief, yet refuse to state her own? i think I know the answer, but let's see how long she continues to ignore all questions on her religious beliefs is it honest to appear to deny you are a muslim, when you believe the quaran is the word of God? is it sane?
Posted by *Dalia* (Member # 13012) on :
When Women Rule
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
While no woman has been president of the United States — yet — the world does have several thousand years’ worth of experience with female leaders. And I have to acknowledge it: Their historical record puts men’s to shame.
A notable share of the great leaders in history have been women: Queen Hatshepsut and Cleopatra of Egypt, Empress Wu Zetian of China, Isabella of Castile, Queen Elizabeth I of England, Catherine the Great of Russia, and Maria Theresa of Austria. Granted, I’m neglecting the likes of Bloody Mary, but it’s still true that those women who climbed to power in monarchies had an astonishingly high success rate.
Research by political psychologists points to possible explanations. Scholars find that women, compared with men, tend to excel in consensus-building and certain other skills useful in leadership. If so, why have female political leaders been so much less impressive in the democratic era? Margaret Thatcher was a transformative figure, but women have been mediocre prime ministers or presidents in countries like Sri Lanka, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, the Philippines and Indonesia. Often, they haven’t even addressed the urgent needs of women in those countries.
I have a pet theory about what’s going on.
In monarchies, women who rose to the top dealt mostly with a narrow elite, so they could prove themselves and get on with governing. But in democracies in the television age, female leaders also have to navigate public prejudices — and these make democratic politics far more challenging for a woman than for a man.
In one common experiment, the “Goldberg paradigm,” people are asked to evaluate a particular article or speech, supposedly by a man. Others are asked to evaluate the identical presentation, but from a woman. Typically, in countries all over the world, the very same words are rated higher coming from a man.
In particular, one lesson from this research is that promoting their own successes is a helpful strategy for ambitious men. But experiments have demonstrated that when women highlight their accomplishments, that’s a turn-off. And women seem even more offended by self-promoting females than men are.
This creates a huge challenge for ambitious women in politics or business: If they’re self-effacing, people find them unimpressive, but if they talk up their accomplishments, they come across as pushy braggarts.
The broader conundrum is that for women, but not for men, there is a tradeoff in qualities associated with top leadership. A woman can be perceived as competent or as likable, but not both.
“It’s an uphill struggle, to be judged both a good woman and a good leader,” said Rosabeth Moss Kanter, a Harvard Business School professor who is an expert on women in leadership. Professor Kanter added that a pioneer in a man’s world, like Hillary Rodham Clinton, also faces scrutiny on many more dimensions than a man — witness the public debate about Mrs. Clinton’s allegedly “thick ankles,” or the headlines last year about cleavage.
Clothing and appearance generally matter more for women than for men, research shows. Surprisingly, several studies have found that it’s actually a disadvantage for a woman to be physically attractive when applying for a managerial job. Beautiful applicants received lower ratings, apparently because they were subconsciously pegged as stereotypically female and therefore unsuited for a job as a boss.
Female leaders face these impossible judgments all over the world. An M.I.T. economist, Esther Duflo, looked at India, which has required female leaders in one-third of village councils since the mid-1990s. Professor Duflo and her colleagues found that by objective standards, the women ran the villages better than men. For example, women constructed and maintained wells better, and took fewer bribes.
Yet ordinary villagers themselves judged the women as having done a worse job, and so most women were not re-elected. That seemed to result from simple prejudice. Professor Duflo asked villagers to listen to a speech, identical except that it was given by a man in some cases and by a woman in others. Villagers gave the speech much lower marks when it was given by a woman.
Such prejudices can be overridden after voters actually see female leaders in action. While the first ones received dismal evaluations, the second round of female leaders in the villages were rated the same as men. “Exposure reduces prejudice,” Professor Duflo suggested.
Women have often quipped that they have to be twice as good as men to get anywhere — but that, fortunately, is not difficult. In fact, it appears that it may be difficult after all. Modern democracies may empower deep prejudices and thus constrain female leaders in ways that ancient monarchies did not.
If Allah created M A N first then there must be a cause Posted by *Dalia* (Member # 13012) on :
SPIEGEL Interview with Nobel Laureate Muhammad Yunus
"Woman Are Better with Money"
Nobel Prize winner Muhammad Yunus, 66, discusses the failure of traditional development aid his successful use of microcredits in the battle against poverty.
SPIEGEL: Professor Yunus, the United Nations' goal to cut global poverty by half by the year 2015 remains as distant as ever. Meanwhile, the number of starving people rose this year from 840 to 854 Million. What is going wrong with development aid?
Yunus: I see it primarily as an achievement of the UN to have brought the global community to a consensus over this goal at the Millenium Summit 2000. For, just a few years before that summit, we had begun to notice that all hitherto attempts at tackling poverty had failed.
SPIEGEL: But that did nothing to alleviate hunger and poverty in the world.
Yunus: Because unfortunately, shortly after the UN declaration, terrorism, the Iraq war and the global war against terrorism threw everything into disarray. The policies of United States President George W. Bush derailed the entire process. Instead of concentrating on the war against poverty, global attention is now focused on another kind of slaughter -- on something that is intangible and yet being tackled by all the possible military means we can muster. And all the lofty declarations by world leaders about combatting poverty that were lauded by the General Assembly turned out to be damp squibs.
SPIEGEL: Despite more than $106 billion in development aid that was paid last year alone. You've settled for another path. What triggered your idea to make microcredit and microloans available to the poorest of the poor?
Yunus: At the university in Chittagong in southern Bangladesh, where I taught for a while, there were no advisors -- neither from Dhaka nor from abroad -- to tell us what to do. In the small village neighboring the university and along with our students, who themselves belonged to that village, we started a project against poverty in 1976. Very soon, we noticed that the people were all dependent on dubious money-lenders and loan sharks. We calculated their collective debt and found it to be $27 dollars. I was shocked. When we speak of development aid, we speak in terms of billions, but never about how $27 can drive an entire village into the clutches of loan sharks and keep them there in a state of dependence. And I thought, hey, I can solve this problem.
SPIEGEL: How?
Yunus: It wasn't really a big challenge academically. I gave them the $27 -- there was no need for any cost-benefit analysis or balance sheets. The people were freed of a burden and I thought to myself at the time, if it is so easy to end a dependence, why don’t more do it? Today, we see how simple village kids can set something moving, that wins them the Nobel Prize 30 years later.
SPIEGEL: How did the banks react?
Yunus: The bank refused, saying it was impossible to lend money to the poorest of the poor. I asked them, what’s the problem? Twenty-seven dollars? Are you worried you may never see your money again? The banks said it was a matter of principle not to give loans to the poor. So I offered myself as a guarantor for the micro-credits and signed the papers. Next we tried the same thing in two villages, then in five. When we realized it worked, I thought: Forget the banks, let’s open our own bank And the idea of Grameen Bank was born: micro-credits for the poor.
SPIEGEL: Do your micro-loans provide the kind of radical reinvention that critics of traditional developmental aid have long been asking for?
Yunus: Every concept can be improved, so why don’t we just review all our of experiences of the last years and consider all the promising ideas seriously? We could think of private ownership by poor people. For instance, the mega-port that Bangladesh is planning to build in southern Chittagong and with which it wants to revolutionize Bangladesh’s economy, does not have to belong automatically to the state or the public. International donors could finance a port authority, which would be owned by the poor women of the country.
SPIEGEL: That sounds ambitious.
Yunus: Why? We could wait to begin construction when the money has arrived and everything makes business sense and the investors are sure to get their money back. This would be not only an economic investment, but one in an idea, the very spirit of any policy. Nobody would have to worry about poverty in Bangladesh anymore.
SPIEGEL: Your own experience with the story of the micro-credits must have taught you, that it is best to first try out any revolutionary idea on a small scale.
Yunus: There are opportunities galore even to do just that. We all know what happens when, say, a German donor builds a bridge in Bangladesh and hands it over to the state: nobody bothers about its servicing and maintenance. So why can’t this bridge be handed over to a private company which belongs to the people? Who could collect a toll from its users and even build another new bridge with the profits? Now please don’t tell me that poor women cannot run a port economically. Poor women can run a bank profitably. All they need is a little help with management.
SPIEGEL: European bankers doubt that and most of all, the economic success story of Grameen Bank. How do you explain their skepticism?
Yunus: They don’t want to read anything, understand anything and would rather believe us to be imposters. But all our balance sheets are well documented in public, for instance on our Web site, and it is verified and certified by international auditors. Since it was foudned, Grameen Bank has disbursed loans totalling $5.8 billion and the pay-back rate is 98.9 percent. We have not needed subsidies since 1995, and with the exception of 1983, 1991 and 1992, we have registered profits every year.
SPIEGEL: Why are 97 percent of your loan-takers women?
Yunus:It took months and years to talk the women round, to convince them that they can handle money just as well as men or even better. After six years, we reached a man-woman ratio of 50-50. Then we noticed, that the families and households of female loan-takers enjoyed far greater benefits. So we changed our policy. Since then, we have focused entirely on women.
SPIEGEL: Does this mean that women hold the key to fighting poverty and hunger?
Yunus:We certainly noted that when given the opportunity, women handle money more efficiently. They have longterm vision, they manage money more carefully. Men are more callous with money. Their first reflex is to blow it by getting drunk in a pub, or on prostitutes or gambling. Women, on the other hand, are endowed with a tremendous sense of self-sacrifice and try to get the best out of the money, for their children, but also for their husbands.
SPIEGEL: Isn't it a logical corollary that development policies must concentrate to a far greater extent on womens rights and gender equality than they have done up to now?
Yunus: I am not making any political demands, for example, for gender equality. We've already had a 50-50 ratio. Our way works so much better. Today, all children of Grameen Bank are in school, many went further and are in high schools and universities, studying to become doctors or engineers. That is all because of their mothers. Mothers always focus on bringing benefits for the children.
SPIEGEL: Development experts and non-government organizations have been demanding a debt cancellation for the poorest countries. Do you support that demand?
Yunus: No. And in rejecting the idea, I speak in the name of the poor. We want to help the poorest of the poor, who cannot pay us in hard currency. So we need community funds or micro-credits, which would give the loan-taker the ability and therewith the dignity of being able to pay back his loans in his own currency, as and when he can. But one must give the people the feeling that it is their money, for their needs. If we just If you just forgive debts in a kind of blanket forgiveness, the money you forgive may be used for anything -- for weapons, luxury goods -- except for the poor.
SPIEGEL: The Nobel Prize committee holds poverty to be a far greater threat to world peace in poverty than fundamentalist terrorism. Is that right?
Yunus: Yes. The children who study in madrassas, or Koran schools, are from extremely poor families. Fathers send their sons there to be fed, looked after and spiritually educated and guided -- all for free. By giving one or two of their sons up to the faith, many poor parents feel almost as though a place were reserved for them in Heaven. This is how religious fanaticism is cultivated amidst the poor. This problem cannot be solved through military means, but only through global justice and equality.
SPIEGEL: Your countrymen have great expectations from their Nobel Peace Prize laureate and see you as the beacon of hope in the forthcoming elections. Are they right to do so?
Yunus: For several years now, we have been No. 1 on the list of the most-corrupt nations of the world. Elections are slated in early 2007 and we have a golden opportunity to reverse this statistic. It is for that reason that I am conducting a campaign against corruption. My aim is to ensure clean candidates, a clean government and clean politics. I would like to ensure that thieves have no more chances.
quote:Originally posted by ** Ahmad**: @ Dalia i have read in your Article tha you say that the narrator of the hadith is not good
Actually this is not true ,the hadit has many narrators
" ... it must be noted that this hadith is classified as an ahad (isolated) hadith. This means that the narrators of this hadith do not exceed two persons in each generation. A mutawatir hadith, on the other hand, is one that is reported by an indefinite number of people in such a way that precludes the possibility of its being false. ... "
quote:Originally posted by *Dalia*: This means that the narrators of this hadith do not exceed two persons in each generation.
I really do not know where you got these sites but A7ad has 3 different categories 1-Mashhour(famous):has 3 or more narrators in each generation but still did not reach the Motwater level 2-Al3aziz:has 2 or more narrators in each generation 3-Ghareeb:only one narrator in each generation.
And this hadith is not Ghareeb ,obviously the information in your article is completely wrong!
Posted by Sub-zero (Member # 9691) on :
Is the woman's voice "3oura" by the way?
Posted by ** Ahmad** (Member # 16703) on :
what a question!
I think you are spreading the Wahhabis' ideas ,don't you?
Posted by of_gold (Member # 13418) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dzosser: If Allah created M A N first then there must be a cause
Of course...the lower life form always comes first. Posted by Sub-zero (Member # 9691) on :
Although I'm a man, but that one was well played. Posted by Uncover (Member # 16892) on :
quote:Originally posted by Uncover:
quote:Originally posted by *Dalia*: The story of the Queen of Shebah is one of my favourite stories in the Qur'an, and when I first came across it, it seemed crystal clear to me. God tells us the story of a powerful, spiritual and wise woman, a woman in a leadership position, a very positive example.
dalia says above that the holy quran is the word of god. why then is it so difficult for her to say she is a muslim? do Christians believe that the quran is the word of God? jews? why is dalia an in the closet quaranist? why does she attack sunni belief, yet refuse to state her own? i think I know the answer, but let's see how long she continues to ignore all questions on her religious beliefs is it honest to appear to deny you are a muslim, when you believe the quaran is the word of God? is it sane?
bump
Posted by *Dalia* (Member # 13012) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sub-zero: Although I'm a man, but that one was well played.
There is also the saying "When God made men, She was only practising."
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by *Dalia*:
quote:Originally posted by Sub-zero: Although I'm a man, but that one was well played.
There is also the saying "When God made men, She was only practising."
I thought She was joking Posted by unfinished thought. (Member # 16076) on :
Iran: Grand Ayatollah misunderstands Islam, thinks Koran forbids women to hold governing roles:
TEHRAN, IRAN - A top hardline Iranian cleric said on Thursday that "God's fury" would be unleashed if Iran appoints women as governors of some provinces, as was raised as a possibility by a minister last week.
Golpayghani was reacting to remarks by interior minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar in the holy city of Qom last week, who when asked whether Iran would appoint women as governors of provinces, replied: "Yes. It is possible."
Golpayghani said the appointment of women in such top jobs was against sharia (Islamic) law.
"They come to Qom, the centre of Shiite Islam, and announce that they will appoint women as governors of some provinces. Do you want to fight with the Koran and the Prophet with such talks that go against sharia?" he asked.
"Who are you against? God's rule or the definite rules of religion?" Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has also faced stiff resistance from hardline clerics, including Golpayghani, in appointing women as cabinet ministers....
Isn't it amazing that someone presumably as well informed about Islam as the Grand Ayatollah Lotfollah Safi Golpayghani could actually be a Misunderstander of Islam? But it's true! Somehow he has missed how the Koran provides for "gender justice," and has gotten the crazy idea that women in governing roles would be contrary to Sharia.
Posted by *Dalia* (Member # 13012) on :
Women as Judges
The hadith that is often cited to deprive women of leadership positions is a hadith related by Abu Bakra to the effect that:
When the news reached the Prophet (saw) that the Persians had made the daughter of Chosroe their ruler he observed: That a nation can never prosper which has assigned its reign to a woman.
For hundreds of years, this hadith has been taken to mean by a majority juristic opinion that a woman cannot be a nation’s leader (khalifah), and as such she should not be allowed to be a judge (which is part of the function of a khalifah). This juristic opinion resulted in the regression of the status and position of women in society, to the extent that Muslim women were unable to equally enjoy the rights that were enjoyed by men. These rights included political rights and political participation, holding higher public offices, becoming witnesses, judges and leaders. Nevertheless, the other opinion which stems from this hadith allows women to be judges, but not leaders or heads of government.
Whatever the traditional interpretation, it must be noted that this hadith is classified as an ahad (isolated) hadith. This means that the narrators of this hadith do not exceed two persons in each generation. A mutawatir hadith, on the other hand, is one that is reported by an indefinite number of people in such a way that precludes the possibility of its being false.
The above hadith was narrated for the first time during the Battle of the Camel in which Aishah (ra) led her forces into Basrah. Her forces (which reportedly included Abu Bakra) were defeated. Many believers died in that battle.
Many modern-day commentators view this hadith as a fabricated hadith. If it had been a genuine hadith of the Prophet (saw), Abu Bakra would have obeyed the injunction by not going out to battle under Aishah’s banner. The other explanation may be that the report was in the nature of a khabar (information).
In the context of the Battle of the Camel, Aishah was in command of the army which included many illustrious companions of the Prophet. None of them objected to her being in command, nor did they desert her for that reason. Even Abu Bakra, the narrator of the above hadith, did not desert her. Had he been convinced that the Prophet had prohibited women from being imam (leader or head) he should have deserted Aishah as soon as he recalled this tradition. How then could it be said that a woman cannot become leader of a government when her leadership was accepted by such eminent companions of the Prophet?
Those who have utilised the above-mentioned hadith for the proposition that a woman should not hold leadership positions have also cited a statement attributed to Aishah as saying:
It would be more to my liking had I remained in my house and not gone on the expedition to Basrah.
If she made this statement, it could be because she regretted the loss of so many lives, including some of her nearest and dearest, and to the loss of her own prestige, and not necessarily that she was not supposed to lead.
It is a well-known principle in Islamic jurisprudence that an ahad hadith is not a basis for formulating binding rules and it is not necessary to act upon it. Hence, it is strange and illogical that this isolated tradition should have been made the basis for the ruling that a woman cannot become a head of state or be appointed as a judge, a ruling that has such serious implications on society in general as well as on women in particular.
The second hadith relied upon as an impediment to the appointment of women to responsible positions is the tradition which declares women as “naqis al-‘aql wa al-din” (defective or imperfect in reasoning and religion). As stated by those who are well versed in discriminating between authentic and forged traditions, the forgery can in most cases be detected from the subject matter of the tradition. Thus, a hadith cannot be accepted as authentic if:
i) it describes what is impossible of occurrence and which is not acceptable to human reason, ii) it is contrary to the Qur’an, iii) it is contrary to historical facts.
The former Chief Justice of the Federal Shariat Court of Pakistan, Justice Aftab Hussein, referred to the view of Dr Abdul Hamid Mutawalli, who said that it is very apparent that this tradition is one of the thousands of traditions which were forged and ascribed to the Prophet (saw) falsely, as it contains all the three defects.
Textual Sources on Equality of Men and Women
Qur’anic Verses
Surah an-Nisa’ 4:34 and Surah al-Baqarah 2:282 are frequently cited to allege men’s superiority over women. However, other verses which very clearly state the equality of men and women are seldom highlighted. The verses that demonstrate and emphasise the equality of Muslim men and Muslim women include Surah Ahzab 33:35 and Surah al-Taubah 9:71.
Surah Ahzab 33:35 explicitly addresses men and women without discrimination when it states to the effect that:
Verily, for men and women who have surrendered themselves unto God, and believing men and believing women, and truly devout men and truly devout women, and men and women who are true to their word, and men and women who are patient in adversity, and men and women who humble themselves (before God), and men and women who give in charity, and self-denying men and self-denying women, and men and women who are mindful of their chastity, and men and women who remember God unceasingly: for them has God readied forgiveness of sins and a mighty reward.
Surah al-Taubah 9:71 states to the effect that:
The Believers, men and women, are protectors of one another, they enjoin what is just and forbid what is evil … On them will God pour His mercy.
Surah al-Taubah 9:71 is the final verse to be revealed on the male/female relationship. In it, men and women are said to be each other’s awliyya—protectors or protecting friends and guardians. And it also talks about the obligations of both men and women in Islam, including enjoining what is just and forbidding what is evil. It might also be significant that while Surah an-Nisa’ 4:32 mentions “men (rijal)” as being qawwamuna over “women (nisa’)”, Surah al-Taubah 9:71 mentions “believing men (mu’minun)” and “believing women (mu’minat)” as being awliyya over each other. Revealed in 8 Hijrah towards the end of the Prophet’s life, Surah al-Taubah 9:71 sums up the spirit of equality and mutuality that the Qur’an preaches in the relationship between men and women.
To enjoin the right and forbid the wrong is primarily the duty of the State, which is in a position to discharge it effectively. The verse makes women as much protecting friends of men as men are of women. It further orders women to discharge the duty of enjoining good and forbidding wrong which can be discharged effectively by the ‘ulil amr (person in authority) who symbolises the State. The verse paves the way for women to become the repository of State authority, including the authority of the Head of the State.
Conflict between Textual Sources and Differing Interpretations
The traditions cited against the appointment of women as head of State or in the judiciary are in conflict with the Qur’anic teachings. As stated earlier, it is observed that a hadith is not acceptable if it describes what is impossible to believe, the hadith is in conflict with the Qur’an, and it contradicts the facts of history.
The tradition that “women are imperfect in reasoning, in religion” is neither acceptable to reason nor is it in conformity with the Qur’an as well as with present-day society. This tradition has all the three elements of forgery.
If this tradition is assumed to be true, it would conflict with various injunctions which are there in the Qur’an itself and also with some other traditions. It would also conflict with some of the historical facts in the Prophet’s time and that of the rightly guided Caliphs. If women are defective in reason and religion it would be necessary to restrict their power to dispose of their properties and at least make it subject to the approval and permission of their husbands or guardians. But Islam has acknowledged the absolute competence of women in this respect and has allowed her full rights of disposition over her properties. During the time of the rightful guided Caliphs, the Caliphs sought counsel from women and gave importance to their opinions. How can the human intelligence accept this tradition as authentic when the first person to believe in the Prophet (saw) was a woman, Khadijah (ra) (the Prophet’s first and only wife until her death 25 years after their marriage). How can women be defective in religion when the first martyr (syahidah) to die in the cause of Islam was also a woman, Ummu Amir, the wife of Yasir.
The isolated tradition that a nation cannot prosper with a woman ruler contradicts the teachings of the Qur’an, as illustrated in the verses about Balqis, Queen of Sheba, as well as in the verses which demonstrate equality, particularly Surah al-Taubah 9:71. The determination of what is right and what is wrong is one of the basic duties of the leaders of a state, and here women as well as men, who are protectors of each other, have been enjoined to perform this task. How then can women be excluded from being leaders of the State, especially in a democratic government? It would also appear to conflict with another tradition of the Prophet (saw) narrated by Sayyidinna Ali (ra) which says that one who honours women is himself honoured and one who insults women is himself lowly.
Hadith Criticism
Since the hadith reported by Abu Bakra is included in Sahih Bukhari, it is a priori considered unassailable without proof to the contrary, since we are here in scientific terrain. In the 17 volumes of the Fath al-bari, al-‘Asqalani does a line-by-line commentary on al-Bukhari. For each hadith of the Sahih, al-‘Asqalani gives us the historical clarification, i.e. the political events that served as a background, a description of the battles, the identity of the conflicting parties, the identity of the transmitters and their opinions, and finally the debates concerning their reliability—everything needed to satisfy the curiosity of the researcher. Imam Malik never ceased saying, “This religion is a science, so pay attention to those from whom you learn it. I had the good fortune to be born [in Medina] at a time when 70 persons [Companions] who could recite hadith were still alive. They used to go to the mosque and start speaking: The Prophet said so and so. I did not collect any of the hadith that they recounted, not because these people were not trustworthy, but because I saw that they were dealing in matters for which they were not qualified.” He also said that “And finally one should not receive knowledge from a shaykh, even a respected and very pious one, if he has not mastered the learning that he is supposed to transmit” and that “There are some people whom I rejected as narrators of hadith, not because they lied in their role as men of science by recounting false hadith that the Prophet did not say, but just simply because I saw them lying in their relations with people, in their daily relationships that had nothing to do with religion”.
Who was Abu Bakra? He recalled the hadith a quarter of a century after the death of the Prophet (saw), at the time that the Caliph Ali retook Basrah after having defeated Aishah at the Battle of the Camel. At that time Aishah’s position was scarcely enviable, as many of her supporters had fallen in the field of battle. It would seem providential to remember having heard a hadith that intimated an order not to participate in a war if a woman was at the head of the army. Abu Bakra also remembered other hadith just as providential at critical moments. After the assassination of Ali, Mu’awiya could only legitimately claim the caliphate if Hasan, the son of Ali, declared in writing that he renounced his rights. And this he did, under pressure and bargaining that were more or less acknowledged. It was at this moment that Abu Bakra is supposed to have recalled having heard the Prophet say that “Hasan will be the man of reconciliation”. Hasan would have been a baby when the Prophet would have said that! Abu Bakra had a truly astonishing memory for politically opportune hadith which curiously and effectively fitted into the stream of history. If one follows the principles of Imam Malik for fiqh, Abu Bakra must be rejected as a source of hadith, since one of the biographies of him tells us that he was convicted of, and flogged for, the offence of qadhf (slander for giving false testimony by making an unproven accusation of zina) by the Caliph Umar al-Khattab.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)