quote:Originally posted by Undercover: He raids civilians with no warning
Muhammad waged over sixty wars according to Tabari. With the exception of Uhud and Khandaq (Trench), all of them were incursions. If fact the word Qazvah means sudden attack.
Muslim, in his collection of Sahih Hadith narrates the following:
Ibn 'Aun reported: I wrote to Nafi' inquiring from him whether it was necessary to extend (to the disbelievers) an invitation to accept (Islam) before meeting them in fight. He wrote (in reply) to me that it was necessary in the early days of Islam. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) made a raid upon Banu Mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others. On that very day, he captured Juwairiya bint al-Harith. Nafi' said that this tradition was related to him by Abdullah b. Umar who (himself) was among the raiding troops.”
here is another hadith: see how the narrator brags about the fact that the civilians were taken by surprise:
Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 367 Narrated 'Abdul 'Aziz: Anas said, 'When Allah's Apostle invaded Khaibar, we offered the Fajr prayer there yearly in the morning) when it was still dark. The Prophet rode and Abu Talha rode too and I was riding behind Abu Talha. The Prophet passed through the lane of Khaibar quickly and my knee was touching the thigh of the Prophet . He uncovered his thigh and I saw the whiteness of the thigh of the Prophet. When he entered the town, he said, 'Allahu Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. Whenever we approach near a (hostile) nation (to fight) then evil will be the morning of those who have been warned.' He repeated this thrice. The people came out for their jobs and some of them said, 'Muhammad (has come).' (Some of our companions added, "With his army.") We conquered Khaibar, took the captives, and the booty was collected. ..."(click on the web page and read the rest of this story. It gets very hot at the end)
the fact the Muhammad enslaved free people is clear from this hadith:
Sa'd's (the man chosen by the Prophet to decide the fate of the Bani Quriaza) verdict was "that all the able-bodied male persons belonging to the tribe should be killed, women and children taken prisoners and their wealth divided among the Muslim fighters."Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 280
The fact that this war enriched Muhammad is also clear from the following hadith.
Narrated Anas bin Malik: People used to give some of their datepalms to the Prophet (as a gift), till he conquered Bani Quraiza and Bani An-Nadir, whereupon he started returning their favors. Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176
Muhammad enriched himself with the stolen booty confiscated first from the merchant caravans and then from massacring the Jews like Banu Quraiza, Banu Nadir, Banu Qainuqa and possessing their properties and belongings and selling them as slaves and sex slaves. This tradition of pillaging was continued after Muhammad died and Umar and other Caliphs after him, devastated nation after nation and to fill their own coffers. Wasn't it stolen from the non-Muslims? There is a hadith that says in one occasion Ayesha manumitted 40 slaves for expiation after breaking a childish oath. Where did she got that many slaves? How many slaved did she have to manumit 40 of them in one occasion for expiation? Muhammad had a score of wives and concubines, how many slaves all of them had collectively? Muhammad did enrich himself with the blood money.
Posts: 3188 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ayesha manumitted 40 slaves for expiation after breaking a childish oath. Where did she got that many slaves? How many slaved did she have to manumit 40 of them in one occasion for expiation?
The slaves weren't hers. He paid for the freedom of other peoples slaves..
See what happens when you shoot from the hip. Get the facts before you slander.
Now apologize.
Muhammad salallahu alayhi wassalam died broke! Bankrupt. Not even lint in his pockets. Enrich himself with blood money..what a crack!
-------------------- 'Abdullah bin 'Umar said, "Allah's Apostle (صلى الله عليه و سلم) took hold of my shoulder and said, "Be in this world as if you were a stranger or a traveller." Posts: 2342 | From: Its not where I'm from but where Im going | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Undercover: I will find the ahadith and post them Sands.
ok
Make sure its the ones about Muhammad salallahu alayhi wassalaam being filthy rich when he died and ayesha owning 40 slaves and freeing them..
Posts: 2342 | From: Its not where I'm from but where Im going | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not just the assasination of Ka'b. Another victim of Muhammad’s assassination operations was an old man called Abu Afak, who was said to be 120 years old. He composed poetry, some of which lamented that people had become followers of Muhammad. He wrote that Muhammad was a crazed man who arbitrarily told people what was prohibited and what was allowed, and who had caused them to become hostile to one another. Ibn Sa’d reports this story as follows:
Then occurred the "sariyyah" [raid] of Salim Ibn Umayr al-Amri against Abu Afak, the Jew, in [the month of] Shawwal in the beginning of the twentieth month from the hijrah [immigration from Mecca to Medina in AD 622], of the Apostle of Allâh. Abu Afak, was from Banu Amr Ibn Awf, and was an old man who had attained the age of one hundred and twenty years. He was a Jew, and used to instigate the people against the Apostle of Allâh, and composed (satirical) verses [about Muhammad].
Then occurred the "sariyyah" [raid] of Salim Ibn Umayr al-Amri against Abu Afak, the Jew, in [the month of] Shawwal in the beginning of the twentieth month from the hijrah [immigration from Mecca to Medina in AD 622], of the Apostle of Allâh. Abu Afak, was from Banu Amr Ibn Awf, and was an old man who had attained the age of one hundred and twenty years. He was a Jew, and used to instigate the people against the Apostle of Allâh, and composed (satirical) verses [about Muhammad].
Salim Ibn Umayr who was one of the great weepers and who had participated in Badr, said, "I take a vow that I shall either kill Abu Afak or die before him. He waited for an opportunity until a hot night came, and Abu Afak slept in an open place. Salim Ibn Umayr knew it, so he placed the sword on his liver and pressed it till it reached his bed. The enemy of Allâh screamed and the people who were his followers, rushed to him, took him to his house and interred him. The Kitab al Tabaqat al kabir, Vol. 2, p 31
The only “crime” this aged man had committed was in composing satirical verses critical of Muhammad.
When Asma bint Marwan, a Jewish mother of five small children heard about this, she was so outraged that she composed a poem cursing the men of Medina for letting a stranger divide them and for allowing him to assassinate a venerable old man. Again Muhammad went to the pulpit and cried out:
“Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?” `Umayr bin. `Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he [Muhammad] said, "You have helped Allâh and His apostle, O `Umayr!" When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences, the apostle said, “Two goats won't butt their heads about her.”
After receiving praise from Muhammad for the assassination of Asma, the killer went to her children, bragged about committing the murder, and taunded those little kids and the clan of the victim.
Now there was a great commotion among B. Khatma that day about the affair of bint [daughter of] Marwan. She had five sons, and when `Umayr went to them from the apostle he said, "I have killed bint Marwan, O sons of Khatma. Withstand me if you can; don't keep me waiting." That was the first day Islam became powerful among B. Khatma; before that those who were Muslims concealed the fact. The first of them to accept Islam was `Umayr b. `Adiy who was called the "Reader", and `Abdullah b. Aus and Khuzayma b. Thabit. The day after Bint Marwan was killed the men of B. Khatma became Muslims because they saw the power of Islam.
After these assassinations, Muslims in Medina became more boastful, arrogant and imperious, as they had cast terror in the hearts of their opponents. He wanted to send the message that any opposition or criticism of him could mean death. These are the kind of crimes perpetrated by Muhammad. And yet look how he mocks everyone and how he makes his ever handy god to praise him so loftily:
“Indeed in the Messenger of Allah you have a good example to follow" (Q.33:21).
We sent thee not, but as a Mercy for all creatures. (Q.21:107).
Verily this is the word of a most honorable Messenger, (Q.81.19) Posts: 3188 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
Dalia = Qardawi Hardcore Misogynist Exile = Qardawi Moderate Sands = Qardawi Liberal sellout
ROFL.
Exiled, I don't want to repeat myself. In this thread I gave a detailed explanation why I personally think Qaradawi is a misogynist. He says men are more rational and thus they are the ones to make important decisions. He condones the beating of women and he says very derogatory things about Western women and about women without a husband. He has a huge double standard regarding male and female sexuality etc. I am illustrating my opinion with quotes of his. So if you are interested, please read over there.
As for FGM, Ayisha is right, the way he *interpreted* the hadith is highly illogical, as Ayisha correctly pointed out. IF this hadith (which, btw, has been classified as weak) is true, it says that "not cutting severely" is "better for the woman", not the cutting itself! This is not a matter of interpretation but of grammar and sentence structure.
But the point is that he personally believes it's a good thing:
Actually, Muslim countries differ over the issue of female circumcision; some countries sanction it whereas others do not. Anyhow, it is not obligatory, whoever finds it serving the interest of his daughters should do it, and I personally support this under the current circumstances in the modern world. But whoever chooses not to do it is not considered to have committed a sin for it is mainly meant to dignify women as held by scholars.
I am familiar with that thread. It is a fact that he has some issues with women and none is more unjust than his position on FGM. I am however resigned to support him in other issues and in his other rulings which I believe are moderate and consistent with Islam.
The man is repeatedly attacked from all sides including but not limited to Salafi scholars and Western academics. Muslims in Europe in particular can not afford to lose such a voice because if are to scrutinize his rulings (save FGM) we can see that they are moderate.
Some of these examples are:
Music Permissibility
Movies Permissibility
Muslim males’ marriages to Jews and Christians
Permissibility
Temporary marriage Prohibition
Permissibility for the woman to divorce her husband
Inheritance permissibility from Non-Muslim parents
Sports permissibility for females
Permissibility of having Non-Muslim friends
Permissibility to eat food of Jews and Christians
Qaradawi has defended these using hadith in his book Halal and Haram. There are many scholars who will say: Movies are haram, Music is haram, Eating from Jews and Christians is Haram, Women can’t play sports, etc
So this guy has many discrepancies when it comes to certain issues, particularly women issues. But he is very much a moderate in many other issues. He at least advocates women working and driving - there are some scholars out there who think otherwise.
Posts: 2418 | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
In the history of the Arabs that predates the arrival of Islam, never before had there been such wars, certainly none on the scale and magnitude of those that were instigated by Muhammad the founder of Islam. Previous battles in Arabia had mainly centered on tribal differences and were confined to bouts of squabbling with some fights. With the introduction of Islam came not only war, but also an unrelenting genocide and terror that would quickly become integral components in furthering Islam’s expansionism.
The early years of Muhammad’s prophetic carrier, in his native town Mecca, were peaceful. After 13 year of preaching no more than 70 or 80 people had embraced his cause. Not all of them were able fighting men. That explains why those early years were peaceful. Muslims did not have the strength to fight. However soon after Muhammad migrated and settled in Medina, and the Arab population of that town accepted his religion, he began invading and looting first the merchant caravans and then the human settlements to survive and to provide for his followers who had accompanied him and because of their lack of expertise had a difficult time finding employments in Medina.
The fifth year of hijrah (migration to Medina) was an eventful year. That was the year that Muslims fought the famous war of the ditch against the Meccans and soon after that they surrounded the Jewish quarter of Bani Qaynuqa of Medina who were a prosperous population of goldsmiths and blacksmiths and after confiscating their properties (vineyards and homes) and belongings (jewelry and arms) they were banished from their ancestral home. After that he set his sight on another Jewish tribe, the Bani Nadir. He did a similar thing to them. He killed their leaders and many of their able-bodied men and after confiscating their properties and much of their wealth, expelled the rest from Medina. In neither of these cases the Jews offered any resistance. They were taken by surprise and simply surrendered under the superior forces of Muhammad’s men.
Emboldened by his victories over these weaker, non-combative and non-threatening people who agreed to give up their wealth in exchange for their lives, the messenger of Allah then set his eyes upon other Jewish tribes of Arabia living outside of Medina. This time it was the turn of Bani al-Mustaliq.
Bukhari, the great biographer of Muhammad, narrates the attack on Bani al-Mustaliq in the following story (Hadith)
"Narrated Ibn Aun: I wrote a letter to Nafi and Nafi wrote in reply to my letter that the Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day. Nafi said that Ibn 'Umar had told him the above narration and that Ibn 'Umar was in that army.”Volume 3, Book 46, Number 717
This same Hadith is recorded in the Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4292, which validates the claim of its authenticity.
Muhammad molded his religion after Judaism and had great expectations that the Jews would be the first to heed his call. Nevertheless, to his chagrin, the Jews had no interest in his religion and he never forgave them for that. You cannot reject a narcissist without invoking his rage. Muhammad was so upset that he changed the direction of the Qiblah (the direction towards which the Muslims pray) from Jerusalem to Kaaba, which at that time was just a temple of idols and said Allah transformed the Jews were transformed into apes and swine because of their transgression (Q. 5:60) and (Q. 2:65). Muhammad made the Jews the scapegoat to rally his followers around himself. He was an expert of that old trick known as “divide n’ conquer”. The Arabs of Medina were generally a bunch of illiterate folk with little skills and often poor who made their living by working in the vineyards of the Jews and rendering other services to them. They where originally immigrants from Yemen while the Jews were the masters of trades and the owners of the lands who had called Medina home, for 2000 years. They were easy targets. Prowling their wealth and making more money by enslaving their women and children and distributing them among the poor Arabs while giving them the assurance that killing their masters and bread givers is not only ethical but also sanctioned by God proved a very lucrative enterprise for Muhammad, one that would change his fortunes, and set this new religion on its eventual path of war and military conquests.
The following quote from an Islamic site states:
"The news of the advance of Muslim forces had already reached Haris. In panic, his men deserted him and he himself took refuge in some unknown place. But the local population of Muraisa took up arms against the Muslims and rained showers of arrows in a sustained manner. The Muslims launched a sudden and furious attack and routed the enemy, who suffered huge casualties and nearly 600 were taken prisoners by the Muslims. Among the booty there were 2,000 camels and 5,000 goats. The prisoners of war included Barra, the daughter of Haris, who later on became Hazrat Juwairiyah, the consort of the Holy Prophet. According to the prevailing practice all the prisoners were made slaves and distributed among the victorious Muslim soldiers. Hazrat Juwairiyah fell to the lot of Thabit bin Qais. She was the daughter of the leader of the clan, and therefore, very much felt the discomfiture and disgrace of being made slave of an ordinary Muslim soldier. Therefore, she requested him to release her on payment of ransom. Thabit agreed to this, if she could pay him 9 Auqias of gold. Hazrat Juwairiyah had no ready money with her. She tried to raise this amount through contributions, and approached the Holy Prophet also in this connection. She said to him "0' Prophet of Allah! I am the daughter of Al Haris bin Zarar, the Lord (chief) of his people. You know that it is by chance that our people have fallen captive and I have fallen to the share of Thabit bin Qais and have requested him to release me considering my status, but he has refused. Please do an act of kindness and save me from humiliation". The Holy Prophet was moved and asked the captive woman if she would like a thing still better. She asked as to what was that thing. He said that he was ready to pay her ransom and marry her if she liked. She agreed to this proposal. So the Holy Prophet (sallal alaho alahie wasallam) paid the amount of ransom and married her.” www.trueteachings,com
The above is the story how Muhammad married Juwairiyah as recorded by Muslim historians. Interestingly Muhammad makes his Allah praise him with verses such as the following: "And surely thou hast sublime morals" (Quran 68:4). and “Indeed in the Messenger of Allah you have a good example to follow" (Quran 33:21). The question that begs an answer is; was he really the standard of sublime morals and good example to follow?
First he attacks a population without warning and only because they were easy targets and wealthy. As usual he kills the unarmed able-bodied men, plunders their belongings, then enslaves the rest. Is this behavior befitting of a messenger of God? The narrator says, “According to the prevailing practice all the prisoners were made slaves and distributed among the victorious Muslim soldiers.” As we read the history of Islam, we see this WAS indeed the prevailing practice of the Muslim Mujahedin, throughout the bloody history of Islam. Yet the question remains unanswered. Is this how a messenger of God should behave? In another place Muhammad called himself the mercy of God for all the worlds 21:107 . What is the difference between this “mercy of God” and a tyrant? If Muhammad were not the “mercy of God” and if he were not “a good example to follow”, how else would he have then behaved?
If this was the prevailing practice of the Arabs, couldn’t the messenger of God change it? Why engage in such a barbaric practice at all? Did he not say that his is the example to follow? Why should a man with such a claim behave in so brutal a fashion? Was he merely following the customs of his people or was he attempting to set an example for them to follow?
It is very clear that Muhammad was not "moved" by compassion. Muhammad did not set free Juwairiyah because he felt sorry for her. He wanted Juwairiyah for himself.
Unlike what most people may think, Muhammad’s intentions were not to convert people to his religion. His real aim was power, wealth and domination. Religion was just the pretext he used to subdue and conquer those he first sought to have dominion over. He weighed each case differently and considered its financial benefits. In most cases it was more profitable if the people did not convert to Islam, but killed and their belongings taken as spoils of war and their wives and children enslaved and soled with huge profits. This could bring sudden wealth to this “messenger of God” that otherwise he could not have. If people were given the choice they could have feared defeat and the harsh consequences and they could have accepted Islam. This would have impeded Muslims of looting them, which meant loss of profit. That is why Muhammad did not deem appropriate to warn the Bani Mustaliq just as he never warned his other victims but attacked them by surprise.
Muslim, another biographer of Muhammad narrates:
Ibn 'Aun reported: I wrote to Nafi' inquiring from him whether it was necessary to extend (to the disbelievers) an invitation to accept (Islam) before meeting them in fight. He wrote (in reply) to me that it was necessary in the early days of Islam. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) made a raid upon Banu Mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others. On that very day, he captured Juwairiya bint al-Harith. Nafi' said that this tradition was related to him by Abdullah b. Umar who (himself) was among the raiding troops.” Book 019, Number 4292:
Muslim warriors carried on this sunnah (examples set by Muhammad) after his death.
When a Muslim army invaded a town, they would not allow anyone to convert to Islam for three days. During these three days they could kill as many men as they liked, pillage their properties, then enslave their women and children. Only after a town had been decimated and all the young women and children that could be sold as slaves were captured would the brutal campaign of Islamization, with its brutal mandate that all must convert or die, began. However the Jews and the Christians were given protection to live provided they pay a penalty tax called Jizyah and enter into dhimmitude. Dhimmi means protected. But the dhimmis had to pay a hefty jizyah for their protection. This Jizyah was the source of livelihood of the Muslims who through it were able to live off the labor of the dhimmis. The following Hadith, reported by Bukhari, records the source for this practice based on the admonitions of Muhammad toward the dhimmi:
Narrated Juwairiya bin Qudama At-Tamimi: We said to 'Umar bin Al-Khattab, oh Chief of the believers! Advise us." He said, "I advise you to fulfill Allah's Convention (made with the Dhimmis) as it is the convention of your Prophet and the source of the livelihood of your dependents (i.e. the taxes from the Dhimmis.) "Volume 4, Book 53, Number 388:
Continuing the story of Juwairiyah, Aisha who accompanied the prophet on this expedition related:
"when the prophet-peace be upon him- distributed the captives of Banu Almustaliq, she (Barrah) fell to the lot of Thabit ibn Qyas. She was married to her cousin, who was killed during the battle. She gave Thabit a deed, agreeing to pay him nine okes of gold for her freedom. She was a very beautiful woman. She captivated every man who saw her. She came to the prophet-peace be upon him-, to ask for his help in the matter. As soon as I saw her at door of my room, I took a dislike to her, for I knew that he would see her as I saw her. She went in and told him who she was, the daughter of al-Harith ibn Dhirar, the chief of his people. She said: "you can see the state to which I have been brought. I have fallen to the lot of Thabit, and have given him a deed for ransom, and I have to come to ask your help in the matter.' He said: 'would you like something better than that? I will discharge your debt, and marry you.' she said: 'yes. O then it is messenger of Allah! Done.' he replied.”
As it can be seen Muhammad murders the husband of Juwairiyah, who was also her cousin. Captivated by her beauty, he offers to free her, but only on the condition she marry him. After having come to Muhammad to plead for his help, this self declared Messenger of God, this self proclaimed “mercy of God for humanity”, this self styled “example to follow” by all the Muslims presents her with a most unwelcome choice, for whose price is that she must surrender her freedom. What other choice could there possibly be for her? Muslims apologetics insists that most of Muhammad’s wives were widows. They try to give the impression Muhammad married them as an act of charity. However as it becomes clear these women were young and beautiful. If they were widows, is because Muhammad murdered their husbands. Juwairiyah was just 20 years old then while Muhammad was 58.
Interestingly, the name of Juwairiyah was originally Barra (Pious). Apparently Muhammad did not like this name and so changed her name to Juwairiyah. Even the two Zeinabs who were his wives were previously called Barra and he changed their names as well to Zeinab, It would appear the Prophet had some guilt in becoming sexually intimate with women that were called “Pious”. These seemingly incidental incidents reflect a certain hitherto humanity, a conscience, if you will, to his character, and perhaps hint at his own real, but hidden religiosity. Muhammad was certainly convinced of his own cause. However his understanding of reality was distorted as he had difficulty to distinguish between what is real and what is imagined. In fact Muhammad was more motivated by fear and superstitions than by conscience and ethics.
The rest of the story of Juwairiyah is mixed with half-truths and exaggerations, in the manner that have tainted most of the Hadiths. We read:
It is said that when the Prophet-peace be upon him- departed from the raid with Juwairiyah and was at Dhuljaysh, he entrusted her to one of the Ansar and went forward to Madinah. Her father, al-Harith, discovered that she was held captive and went back o Madinah, bringing his daughter's ransom. When he reached al-Aqia, he looked at the camels he had brought as her ransom and admired the two of them greatly, so he hid them in one of the passes of al-Aqia. Then he came to the Prophet-peace be upon him- dragging the camels behind him, and told him: "My daughter is too noble to be taken as a captive. Set her free by this ransom." the Prophet-peace be upon him- replied: "Isn't it better that we let her choose her self?" that is fair enough," said al-Harith. He came to his daughter and said: "This man is letting you chose so do not dishonor us!" "I choose Allah's messenger," she replied calmly. "What a disgrace!" he exclaimed.
The Prophet-peace be upon him-, then said "where are two camels which you have hidden in al-Aqia in such -and- such a pass?" al-Harith exclaimed: "I bear witness that there is no God but Allah, and that you Muhammad are the messenger of Allah! For none could have know of this but Allah."
Ibn-i-S'ad in his 'Tabaqat', states that the father of Juwairiyah paid her ransom amount, and when she became free, the Holy Prophet married her. As a result of this marriage a11 the prisoners of war numbering about 600 were freed by the Muslims as they did not like that any member of the family in which the holy Prophet was married, be made a slave."
It is hard to determine which part of these stories is true and which part is not. However, what is not so difficult to notice are the many contradictions contained within the main storyline. For instance, we read that Muhammad paid the ransom to Thabit the captor of Juwairiyah, and then married her after freeing her. Then we read that Hairth, the father of Juwairiyah also paid the ransom to set her free. As to the claims of Muhammad having some sort of psychic power, that empowered him to know or tell certain things in advance, for instance knowing certain information such as the whereabouts of camels, we can safely conclude that these claims are false. On many occasions Muhammad demonstrated precisely the opposite, and proved that he was by no means psychic, let alone prescient, as he failed to discern or to obtain through divine blessings the information he so desired. For instance, when he raided Khaibar, he tortured the treasurer of that town, even to the point of death, just so he could extract from him the information that would lead to the whereabouts of the city’s treasures.
It is important to understand the character of the Arab peoples. In this particular instance it was the Arabs who exhibited higher moral standards than their prophet. They released the relatives of Juwairiyah after they learned that Muhammad had married her.
Muslims claim that Juwairiyah became a very devout believer and would spend all of her days praying. The source of this claim can be found in the book Usud-ul-Ghaba. There the author writes that whenever the Prophet used to come to Juwairiyah he would find her praying, then when he would return at a later time he still found her praying. One day he said to her: “Shall I tell you few words, if you say them they will be heavier in the scale than what you have done? You say: 'subhaana allahe 'adada khalqihi, subhana allahe ridhaa nafsehe, subhana allahe zinata 'arshehe, subhana allahe zinata 'arshehe,subhana allah midadda kalimaatihi.' (Praise Allah as many times as number of his creatures, and as much as pleases him, and as much as the weight of his throne, and as much as the ink for his words).
One wonders why Muslims spend 5 times a day praying and waste that much man hours unproductively when they have such a simple and unbeatable formula to praise Allah?
Let us look at this situation from a more realistic perspective. Put yourself in the shoes of a young woman who has just fallen into the lot of a murderer of her husband who also happened to be her cousin! As relatives, they grew up together. They were more than just husband and wife. They were first playmates, then lovers and companions for life. If you were a woman in Juwairiyah’s situation, how would you feel about the killer of your husband and many of your relatives and loved ones? Suppose further you don’t have anywhere to go to. Without any viable options for escape, your only choice would be to surrender as a sex slave to this old man, one who is the king of his people and has plenty of money or to be given away to one of his soldiers. Under whose captivity would you rather be? I believe the answer is clear. Juwairiah had no choice but to accept Muhammad’s offer to marry her. Now what would any woman do if such an old man as this came to her for sex or company? She probably would devise a survival ploy. That is what Juwairiyah did. Any time she noticed Muhammad is coming, she pretended that she was busy praying, hoping that he would leave her and go to his other wives to satisfy his wretched lust. Yet, as we see, Muhammad was a cunning old man. He soon prescribed a sentence and told her that this “will be heavier in the scale” than praying all day long, robbing her from excuses to shun him when he desired her.
Posts: 3188 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Exiled: He at least advocates women working and driving - there are some scholars out there who think otherwise.
Are you sure he does? My personal impression was that he does not really regard women's work as something beneficial.
It is not in the interest of the society to abandon her first calling at home to work as engineer, or a lawyer, or a representative, or a judge, or a factory worker; but it is in its interest for her work in the field of her specialisation for which she is instinctually prepared, the field of marital life and motherhood, which is not less serious but more so than working in stores, laboratories and establishments. Napoleon was asked, "Which castles of France are more impregnable?" He said, "Good mothers." ...
The happiness of the family rests not in merely increasing the income-which is mostly spent on buying clothes for going to work, and necessities for a mixed life (e.g. men mixing with women) which is based on affectation, the fashion race and being in vogue. In return, the home is deprived of the quietude and companionship established by the woman in the atmosphere of the family. The working woman is exhausted, quick-tempered, and needs someone to lessen her burden, so she cannot give what she has not got to the home. ... Therefore we learn that when the woman is involved in men's work without restrictions or limits, it has its harmful effect on various aspects:
It is harmful for the woman herself because she loses her femininity and her distinguishing characteristics and is deprived of her home and children. Some become barren and some are like "the third sex", which is neither a man nor a woman.
It is harmful for the husband because he is deprived of a bounteous source flowing with good company and cheerfulness. Nothing flows any longer except arguments and complaints about the troubles of work, the rivalry of work mates, men and women. This is in addition to the competior jealousy the man may feel, real or imagined, of other men in the workplace who vie for her attention.
It has a harmful effect on children because a mother's compassion, sympathy and supervision cannot be compensated by a servant or a teacher. How can children get benefit from a mother spending her day at work and on her arrival at home being tired and stressed? Neither her physical nor her psychological condition would allow the best she has to give regarding education or direction to her children.
It is harmful for men because every working woman takes the position of an eligible working man. As long as there are unemployed men in the society, the woman's work is harmful to them.
It is harmful for the work itself because women are frequently absent from their work due to natural emergencies which cannot be avoided, as menstruation, giving birth, nursing a baby, and the like. All such things deprive the work of discipline and valuable output.
It is harmful on morals. It is harmful to the woman's morals if she loses her modesty and on the man if he loses his attentiveness. It is harmful on the whole society if earning a living and increasing the income is the main goal sought by people, disregarding higher principles and good models.
It is harmful on social life because going against the grains of nature and dislocating things which are naturally located spoils life itself and causes imbalance, disorder and chaos.
It is not in the interest of the society to abandon her first calling at home to work as engineer, or a lawyer, or a representative, or a judge, or a factory worker; but it is in its interest for her work in the field of her specialisation for which she is instinctually prepared, the field of marital life and motherhood, which is not less serious but more so than working in stores, laboratories and establishments. Napoleon was asked, "Which castles of France are more impregnable?" He said, "Good mothers." ...
His position imho is an Islamic one. We have to keep in mind that in Islam the world over the mother’s main role is in fact raising the home (children). He in no way mentions that women should be barred from employment. He actually mentioned ‘or a judge’ which implies that he has no problem with such an occupation for a woman.
So basically he is saying that motherhood should supersede employment/career. If the married couple have sufficient financial means then i why shouldn't a mother raise her children. When they are old enough to be in school then working during school hours won't be detrimental at all.
The happiness of the family rests not in merely increasing the income-which is mostly spent on buying clothes for going to work, and necessities for a mixed life (e.g. men mixing with women) which is based on affectation, the fashion race and being in vogue. In return, the home is deprived of the quietude and companionship established by the woman in the atmosphere of the family. The working woman is exhausted, quick-tempered, and needs someone to lessen her burden, so she cannot give what she has not got to the home.
It is a fact that working mothers are stressed similarly to working fathers and such stress must take it’s toll on the upbringing of children. I know for a fact that some working parents dream they could have more time with their children. It is all about hours of the day and what he says here does not conflict with Islam.
Therefore we learn that when the woman is involved in men's work without restrictions or limits, it has its harmful effect on various aspects:
It is harmful for the woman herself because she loses her femininity and her distinguishing characteristics and is deprived of her home and children. Some become barren and some are like "the third sex", which is neither a man nor a woman.
This is actually interesting and before I answer this I would like to know what is ‘men’s work’ that qaradawi is talking about, was he implying military? But I certainly don’t agree with him about a woman losing her femininity in most occupations that come to mind: teaching, medical, counselors, judges, lawyers, etc
It is harmful for the husband because he is deprived of a bounteous source flowing with good company and cheerfulness. Nothing flows any longer except arguments and complaints about the troubles of work, the rivalry of work mates, men and women. This is in addition to the competior jealousy the man may feel, real or imagined, of other men in the workplace who vie for her attention.
I certainly do not agree that it is harmful for the husband if a wife has job. Many husbands are actually very happy and proud that their wives are contributing towards the benefit of the home and the ummah in general.
Situations are dictated by circumstances. In the Arab women thread I posted how beneficial it is for a women and man to work together to be able to live comfortably in today’s rising cost of living.
This seems like a very selfish position and one that certainly conflicts with the struggles of modern era Arabs and Muslims.
It has a harmful effect on children because a mother's compassion, sympathy and supervision cannot be compensated by a servant or a teacher. How can children get benefit from a mother spending her day at work and on her arrival at home being tired and stressed? Neither her physical nor her psychological condition would allow the best she has to give regarding education or direction to her children.
This is true for pre-school children. Mother’s are the best at caring for their children. When the children are at school then there is no problem at all because she won’t be taking away valuable time from them as she will be at work and they will be at school.
It is harmful for men because every working woman takes the position of an eligible working man. As long as there are unemployed men in the society, the woman's work is harmful to them.
This is non-sense. Women are entitled to employment as every man. If men of today were real men we wouldn’t be having this discussion but I know and everyone else knows that in this day and age women must have the opportunity to have careers to level the playing field and to assure her rights
It is harmful for the work itself because women are frequently absent from their work due to natural emergencies which cannot be avoided, as menstruation, giving birth, nursing a baby, and the like. All such things deprive the work of discipline and valuable output.
It is harmful on morals. It is harmful to the woman's morals if she loses her modesty and on the man if he loses his attentiveness. It is harmful on the whole society if earning a living and increasing the income is the main goal sought by people, disregarding higher principles and good models.
It is harmful on social life because going against the grains of nature and dislocating things which are naturally located spoils life itself and causes imbalance, disorder and chaos.
These points are also nonsense.
Dalia, don’t take this the wrong way but would you provide a link for what you posted and for any additional copy and pastes you might post in the future. I am asking this because I would like to read such statement for myself and perhaps see if they were translated. Thanks
Posts: 2418 | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
Great, i appreciate it. That is a very lengthy article. He sure has a lot to say about women and in all honesty. I do not focus to much on such rhetoric by scholars because i believe it is a private matter. But i am attentive to their positions of declaring something permissible or forbidden. I will however make the time to read his position, in order to understand some of the concerns that females have about him.
I think some of these scholars just write and talk to much and that perturbs me because i believe in making matters simple for the Ummah.
Posts: 2418 | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Exiled: It is not in the interest of the society to abandon her first calling at home to work as engineer, or a lawyer, or a representative, or a judge, or a factory worker; but it is in its interest for her work in the field of her specialisation for which she is instinctually prepared, the field of marital life and motherhood, which is not less serious but more so than working in stores, laboratories and establishments. Napoleon was asked, "Which castles of France are more impregnable?" He said, "Good mothers." ...
His position imho is an Islamic one. We have to keep in mind that in Islam the world over the mother’s main role is in fact raising the home (children). He in no way mentions that women should be barred from employment. He actually mentioned ‘or a judge’ which implies that he has no problem with such an occupation for a woman.
So basically he is saying that motherhood should supersede employment/career. If the married couple have sufficient financial means then i why shouldn't a mother raise her children. When they are old enough to be in school then working during school hours won't be detrimental at all.
Why not let the woman herself or the couple decide? Why does he have to tell women what their supposed duty is and what their priorities should be? There are millions of women the world over who don't like staying at home and taking care of kids full time. There's nothing in the Qur'an that says motherhood and household should be women's primary responsiblity; also, the prophet himself was married to a businesswoman and a woman who did not have any children at all. There is nothing in there either to suggest that men can't handle this task or that couples could share.
quote:Originally posted by Exiled: The happiness of the family rests not in merely increasing the income-which is mostly spent on buying clothes for going to work, and necessities for a mixed life (e.g. men mixing with women) which is based on affectation, the fashion race and being in vogue. In return, the home is deprived of the quietude and companionship established by the woman in the atmosphere of the family. The working woman is exhausted, quick-tempered, and needs someone to lessen her burden, so she cannot give what she has not got to the home.
It is a fact that working mothers are stressed similarly to working fathers and such stress must take it’s toll on the upbringing of children. I know for a fact that some working parents dream they could have more time with their children. It is all about hours of the day and what he says here does not conflict with Islam.
Actually, I find this particular quote, especially the part about the "fashion race" or the wish to be "en vogue" extremely derogatory, and it also contains statements that are simply not true.
You are right that working parents often wish they would have more time for kids and family life, and that is definitely a problem which needs to be solved. But it has also been established through numerous studies that many, many women get extremely frustrated just staying at home, not talking to a grownup all day long, only dealing with household and kids' stuff. There are so many women who are desperate to get out of the house; there are so many women who state that they are actually more relaxed and generally in a better mood if they can go to work, that they might spend less time with their kids but that this time is much more beneficial and enjoyable. So this contradicts Qaradawi's statement that a working mom will automatically be not as good a mother as one who stays at home all day long.
I'll give you an example: In Germany, childcare for small kids is difficult to get and expensive. Also, mothers with small children who don't stay at home for at least two or three years are often criticized and branded as bad mothers. And even when the kids go to school it is very hard for mothers to work, since elementary school is only for a few hours a day, and there is no fixed schedule. This means that it is extremely difficult for women to work and have children at the same time. Consequently, the birth rate in Germany keeps dropping and dropping.
France, on the other hand, has one of the highest birthrates in Europe, and it keeps increasing. In France, it is a very normal thing for women to work and have children, there's excellent childcare available, and very few people would criticize women (or parents) for not staying at home to pamper their offspring.
What can we conclude from this? It seems in many cases women WANT to work, sometimes because of economic necessity since it is becoming increasingly hard to sustain a family on a single income. But also, as I said above, many women simply like to work, they like the challenge, they find it important to have something else besides kids and household and so on. But Qaradawi does not recognize this, he seems to suggest that when women want to work, they only do so because they are greedy, superficial, selfish etc.
I was just talking about this issue with one of my best friends who has a small child. The kid has been going to kindergarten since he's about two years old, he loves it, and so does his mother. He gets to play with other kids, he gets intellectual stimulation, he learns social behaviour, etc. Would it really be more beneficial for him and his mom if they were together 24/7? I don't think so. And this is not an exception, there are many, many cases like that.
Of course there are also families with several children where the woman (or the man!) wants to be at home with them, and of course that's perfectly fine. But everyone has different ideas and needs, so why not keep all options open???
Qaradawi, I feel, does not really have the ability or the sincere wish to put himself in the place of a woman and try to understand her feelings, he does not take her seriously. The woman's *function* is way more important than who she really is, what her desires, dreams and wishes are. In his opinion, women are created to stay at home, and that's the most important thing. If they don't want to, that means they have *lost their femininity* or been brainwashed by capitalism, feminism or whatever. It is his personal view, shaped by his gender, age, and the values of the society he grew up in ... but does that have to mean it is automatically the "correct Islamic view"?
quote:Originally posted by Exiled: It has a harmful effect on children because a mother's compassion, sympathy and supervision cannot be compensated by a servant or a teacher. How can children get benefit from a mother spending her day at work and on her arrival at home being tired and stressed? Neither her physical nor her psychological condition would allow the best she has to give regarding education or direction to her children.
This is true for pre-school children. Mother’s are the best at caring for their children. When the children are at school then there is no problem at all because she won’t be taking away valuable time from them as she will be at work and they will be at school.
I disagree, and the reason for this I stated above. Loving parents will not go off to work and leave their children at the mercy of just anyone, what a ridiculous suggestion! They will make sure their children will be cared for in a safe, loving and stimulating environment. And what should be wrong about that?
The whole idea of a mother being at home with her kids and doing nothing else is a relatively new one that came about after the industrial revolution. Before, there were big families with people working from home, in agriculture etc., they had many kids and those would simply be around, mothers couldn't afford to dedicate a lot of time and attention to them. A woman staying at home, entertaining her kids while the husband brings in the money was a lifestyle only few could afford, it was mostly reduced to people of the urban middle and upper classes.
Qaradawi's arguments are all based on the assumption that women are psychologically and physically created to stay at home with kids; but there is nothing in reality to suggest this is true; neither is there any evidence to suggest that men couldn't handle this task.
quote:Originally posted by Exiled:
It is harmful for men because every working woman takes the position of an eligible working man. As long as there are unemployed men in the society, the woman's work is harmful to them.
This is non-sense. Women are entitled to employment as every man. If men of today were real men we wouldn’t be having this discussion but I know and everyone else knows that in this day and age women must have the opportunity to have careers to level the playing field and to assure her rights
It is harmful for the work itself because women are frequently absent from their work due to natural emergencies which cannot be avoided, as menstruation, giving birth, nursing a baby, and the like. All such things deprive the work of discipline and valuable output.
It is harmful on morals. It is harmful to the woman's morals if she loses her modesty and on the man if he loses his attentiveness. It is harmful on the whole society if earning a living and increasing the income is the main goal sought by people, disregarding higher principles and good models.
It is harmful on social life because going against the grains of nature and dislocating things which are naturally located spoils life itself and causes imbalance, disorder and chaos.
These points are also nonsense.
Indeed they are. And suggesting that women aren't capable of doing their work properly, adequately and in a disciplined way because of their biological makeup is not only derogatory, it can simply be proven wrong by anyone who has eyes to look around and a brain to think.
Posts: 3587 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Why not let the woman herself or the couple decide? Why does he have to tell women what their supposed duty is and what their priorities should be? There are millions of women the world over who don't like staying at home and taking care of kids full time. There's nothing in the Qur'an that says motherhood and household should be women's primary responsiblity; also, the prophet himself was married to a businesswoman and a woman who did not have any children at all. There is nothing in there either to suggest that men can't handle this task or that couples could share.
Qaradawi does not in anyway forbid women from working. His position is not that at all and in the article you linked he explicitly states that. So the woman/couple are the ones who decide. He even states that employment for women might be requested if circumstances dictate such and in today’s day and age 90% is the case. I am confused by your opposition to this man in this case because he does not in anyway state that employment for women is prohibited. His position does not conflict with nor is it detrimental to the lives of married couples.
Qaradawi gave his opinion but ultimately concluded that it is not forbidden for women to work. T
Actually, I find this particular quote, especially the part about the "fashion race" or the wish to be "en vogue" extremely derogatory, and it also contains statements that are simply not true.
There is some truth to it, if were are to think objectively and logically. I am looking at this from his perspective I think the more money we have access to the more fashionable we want to look and present ourselves at our places of business, education and work. I think this is natural. I know full welcome the position that Qaradawi supports and it is simple, if there is no need for extra money then the home is the proper place for the woman. This is his opinion and it has tremendous support in the Islamic world because many woman would rather stay home if they have the financial means to support the family and enough money to live a lifestyle they desire.
The truth is such couples are very rare nowadays and really his rhetoric is becoming obsolete these days due to rising cost of living. And as such focusing on rhetoric that is deemed ‘derogatory’ detracts from the point of all of this. He can say whatever he wants and he can opt for any choice of language. Ultimately his conclusion is what Muslims care about - if he says work for woman is haram then he will have an issue on his hands.
We must cede that despite his choice of words - he is very much a moderate in this regard.
You are right that working parents often wish they would have more time for kids and family life, and that is definitely a problem which needs to be solved. But it has also been established through numerous studies that many, many women get extremely frustrated just staying at home, not talking to a grownup all day long, only dealing with household and kids' stuff. There are so many women who are desperate to get out of the house; there are so many women who state that they are actually more relaxed and generally in a better mood if they can go to work, that they might spend less time with their kids but that this time is much more beneficial and enjoyable. So this contradicts Qaradawi's statement that a working mom will automatically be not as good a mother as one who stays at home all day long…..
I agree that woman would be frustrated by staying home all day and I believe this holds true for Muslim women as well. But I also believe that mentality varies between Muslim women and say atheists and other women of other faiths . Muslim women have a certain tolerance for some things that perhaps non-muslim women would never tolerate and vice versa. Some Muslim women will tell you straight out that the place for the muslim mother is at home and considering that these studies were conducted in France and Germany I will reserve my opinion until/if I read studies conducted on the disposition of Muslim women in the Muslim world.
Again we can not dismiss the difference in mentality and I believe if such studies were conducted of Muslim women in Muslim nations the findings would be more relative to our discussion, because Qaradaqi is addressing the “Islamic woman”.
Qaradawi, I feel, does not really have the ability or the sincere wish to put himself in the place of a woman and try to understand her feelings, he does not take her seriously. The woman's *function* is way more important than who she really is, what her desires, dreams and wishes are.
In his opinion, women are created to stay at home, and that's the most important thing. If they don't want to, that means they have *lost their femininity* or been brainwashed by capitalism, feminism or whatever. It is his personal view, shaped by his gender, age, and the values of the society he grew up in ... but does that have to mean it is automatically the "correct Islamic view"?
It is not about correct and incorrect Islamic view. Muslims do not live their lives according to scholars – what Qaradawi states is what he believes is the best for Islamic Society in general. Husbands and wives watch his telecasts but ultimately they are free to heed his advice or not, because they know what is best for them.
I disagree, and the reason for this I stated above. Loving parents will not go off to work and leave their children at the mercy of just anyone, what a ridiculous suggestion! They will make sure their children will be cared for in a safe, loving and stimulating environment. And what should be wrong about that?
We all have our opinions but the fact is there is one mother and one mother only and no other person could provide the love and nourishment that she can for her own children.
There have been countless incidents where loving parents left their children to the care of others they trusted only to regret it. I am not discrediting childcare at all and I believe it is necessary. But we can not in any way equate the mother's care with child care.
The whole idea of a mother being at home with her kids and doing nothing else is a relatively new one that came about after the industrial revolution. Before, there were big families with people working from home, in agriculture etc., they had many kids and those would simply be around, mothers couldn't afford to dedicate a lot of time and attention to them. A woman staying at home, entertaining her kids while the husband brings in the money was a lifestyle only few could afford, it was mostly reduced to people of the urban middle and upper classes.
Qaradawi's arguments are all based on the assumption that women are psychologically and physically created to stay at home with kids; but there is nothing in reality to suggest this is true; neither is there any evidence to suggest that men couldn't handle this task.
Yes this what Qaradawi believes and ultimately his concern is that Islamic society should not emulate the West because as he points out elsewhere the repercussions are much more negative – but this is another topic altogether.
We can all read too much into something but again Sheik Qaradawi has stated that employment is not prohibited and it might even be requested for the woman to work if the situation calls for it. These days the situation calls for it because as I mentioned earlier higher cost of living, etc. Also it calls for it to assure that a woman has a trade to make her a much more valuable person in the eyes of society in general and to also keep her future husband in check and I am speaking in general here. And as a right in the event of divorce, death of husband or whatever else occurs that might leave her vulnerable in such aftermaths.
However Qaradawi does not in anyway state it is haram for a woman to have a job or career. And that is great for women.
Posts: 2418 | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Undercover- well said - and as usual there are none (answers that is).
Sometime ago I started a thread "Bring a Surah the Like thereof" I quoted Matt 7:12 and am still waiting for something better in the Quran...if it is only saying something similar or equal then Mohammed bought nothing superior although the Mantra is chanted over an over again that the Quran is sublime rvelation without equal.
I was raised a Muslim and feel sorry for all who believe the claptrap trotted out by a paedophile idolater (if he wasnt how come the crescent moon and star are always around /on top of mosques and flags of Islamic countires??). Please wake up and smell the coffee...
Posts: 148 | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Exiled: However Qaradawi does not in anyway state it is haram for a woman to have a job or career. And that is great for women.
Is it really? I wonder why would it be so important for women what someone like Qaradawi says?
Anyway ... I'm too tired right now to address your points, but will do so later. But thanks for your interesting post and for disagreeing with me in a respectful way.
I know many on here can't stand her, but I find some of her theories very enlightening. The following text by Amina Wadud came to my mind after reading this thread:
Motherhood: The Baby that fooled the President
When Benazir Bhutto ran against Zia ul-Haq in 1988, she was pregnant with her first child. In her autobiography, Daughter of Destiny, Bhutto explains how her family tried to keep the date of her delivery a secret to prevent Zia from rescheduling the elections to make campaigning difficult for her:
We had purposely kept the date a secret, anticipating that Zia would try to schedule the elections around my confinement. To pinpoint the date, it was reported, the regime’s intelligence agents had tried to gain access to my medical records. But I kept them with me. Twenty-four hours after the regime’s intelligence agents calculated wrongly that the birth would occur on November 17th, Zia announced the date of elections for November 16th. But the baby outmaneuvered us all. Not only was Zia off by a month, the baby actually being due in mid-October, but God must have blessed us by bringing him into the world five weeks early. That left me almost a month to regain my strength before the campaigning was to begin in mid-October (386).
After Benazir Bhutto became Prime Minister, she shared the care of her child with a nurse, her husband, and her mother. While destiny or God was certainly on Benazir’s side, especially as Zia actually died in August 1988, the potential conflict between the duties of motherhood and political life raises concerns about the effects of a woman’s political life on her child and on a her role as mother.
Motherhood holds a very high place of esteem in Islam. The Quran ordains respect for mothers immediately after God: “Reverence God, through whom/ You demand your mutual rights/ And reverence the wombs (that bore you) [4:1]. The Quran emphasizes the hardship with which women bring children into the world: “We have enjoined on the human being to be dutiful and kind to his parents. His mother bears him with hardship. And she brings him forth with hardship, and the bearing of him, and the weaning of him is thirty months, till when he attains full strength” [46:15]. The question therefore arises of whether a woman’s engagement in her public political life would hurt her child’s upbringing and thereby undermine her exalted Quranic status. Wadud places the monopoly of women over childbirth and motherhood on the same level as men’s monopoly over risalah, Divine messages.
May a Muslim woman choose to either not have children or, if she does have children, to leave them in the care of a nurse for the sake of her political life? As several of the Prophet’s wives did not bear children, but would not be considered incomplete Muslim women, it is difficult to say that bearing children is an obligation for women; child-bearing is a right women alone have and entails honor for mothers, but the Quran and hadith never explicitly make it the sole option for women: “there is no term in the Quran which indicates that childbearing is ‘primary’ to a woman. No indication is given that mothering is her exclusive role. It demonstrates the fact a woman (though certainly not all women) is the exclusive human capable of bearing children” (Wadud 64). The ability to bear children distinguishes women from men, but does not mean they do not have other abilities with which they can compete with men.
While the Quran sets the weaning period between twenty-four to thirty months, it also allows the parents to hire a wet-nurse in case of divorce: “Mothers shall suckle their children . . . (that is) for those who wish to complete the suckling” [2:223]. This shows that in case of necessity, a mother has the option of not weaning her child if she and her husband both agree to hire a wet-nurse. Wadud stresses the fact that social tendencies to allot child-care duties to women do not stem from the Quran: “the tendency has always been to attach all forms of child care – an in addition all forms of housework—to the woman. Although this division of labor suits some families, especially when the father is working outside the home and is providing materially for the family, it is, nevertheless, only one solution and does not have explicit Quranic ordinance [emphasis added]” (90).
The Quran says both men and women will receive rewards for their good deeds but certainly does not say women’s good deeds must be confined to the four walls of home or with regard to her child. Thus, according to Wadud, neither motherhood nor childcare is a Quranically prescribed requirement for women. By extension, Muslim women who wish to pursue political careers may choose either to not bear children or to confine to confine her children to a nurse or other family members.
As Bhutto’s story shows, men do try to use women’s periods of weakness against them, but in the Quran, God gives great respect for women during their pregnancy (see sura Miriam). Zia ul-Haq’s attempt to take advantage of Bhutto’s condition serves to show him as a violator of the Quranic mandate of respect, not to show that women should not enter politics. His action was simply an exaggerated form of a misogyny that underlies most Muslim societies as the question of whether women in politics can still adhere to Quranic injunctions of moral conduct.
Posts: 3587 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Exiled: However Qaradawi does not in anyway state it is haram for a woman to have a job or career. And that is great for women.
Is it really? I wonder why would it be so important for women what someone like Qaradawi says?
Anyway ... I'm too tired right now to address your points, but will do so later. But thanks for your interesting post and for disagreeing with me in a respectful way.
I know many on here can't stand her, but I find some of her theories very enlightening. The following text by Amina Wadud came to my mind after reading this thread:
.
Qaradawi's personal opinions are irrelevant and certainly should have no bearing on deciding what is best for someone in any capacity, religious or not. His show does have a large viewership with many questions posed to him, and as long as he does not make something permissible or haram then it is his personal opinion. I might be going off topic here by stressing that his opinions are irrelevant but his rulings and decrees are extremely important. Rulings by prominent fiqhuha (Islamic jurist) are a burden on them and if a Muslim were to heed such a decree then there is no fault on the worshiper for following what he/she truly believes is halal. Many people whether we agree or disagree are confident in him.
And likewise thank you Dalia for being respectful, such mutuality is nice and I welcome your views in on any issue. Posts: 2418 | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic