cosar@tera.cs.umn.edu (Ahmet Cosar) (06/24/91)
Hello, I have seen some articles that attempt to describe us how "equal" women are in Islam to men. As far as I know in the Islamic Law, a.k.a. Shar'iat, a female witness is not equal to a male witness. And, one woman alone cannot even be considered as a witness in an Islamic court. As the moderators will also agree, this posting doesn't contain any "personal flames" and is definitely "related to islam". BTW, I am also e-mailing one copy to the moderator (Sheri?). Olleh, A.Coras ________________________________________________________________________ Disc space -- the final frontier! ________________________________________________________________________
rached@kaa.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rached Zantout) (06/24/91)
Dear A.Coras You mentioned in your last article that women are not equal to men in Islam because the testimony of one woman is not accepted in the islamic courts (?) and that the testimony of two women is equal to one man's (?). First let me clarify something to you and other fellownetters: Men and Women will never be absolutely equal, they are different men are men and women are women. Women give birth to children men (even if they want) don't give birth to children. So in Engineering terms Men and Women are different BY DESIGN. This does not mean that one gendre should be superior to the other, they should have equal GLOBAL rights. As muslims we beleive that Allah (The only God that exists) has created the whole universe including humans. Allah created Men and Women, and Allah knows best what are the rights that should be given to both. So from this argument every muslim once provided with an evidence from the Quran (the Holy book revealed by Allah through his Angel (Gabriel) on the prophet Muhammad Peace Be Upon Him) or from the sayings of the prophet Peace be upon him, about a right for either men or women must obey that without any discussion. This is the general rule, now a muslim is not prohibited to think about what Allah has ordered and try to conclude the wisdom behind it, if he can find some then it is good otherwise that does not mean that the wisdom does not exist but it means that the human level is not yet developped to recognize or identify that wisdom. Finally, let me clarify some of the misconceptions you have (maybe due to some non-clarity in our articles that were posted on the net). In Islam and in Islamic courts a one woman witness can be accepted and I refer you to the Quran (I do not have the exact numbers of verse and chapter) where Allah says what could be translated to: If someone beleives his wife has betrayed him then they should go to court and he should sware (sp ?) three times by god that he is truthfull and the fourth time that the curse of allah be on him if he were lying. And the punishment will be lifted fro the woman (wife) if she swares (sp ?) by Allah three times that he is lying and a fourth time that the curse of Allah be on her if he was truthfull. This shows us that in some cases the tetimony of both men and women is equal. In matters that need the special skills of a person, the testimony of a woman may be more strong than that of a man like in things that are related to women issues. It is narrated that when Khalif Omar (May Allah be Pleased with him) wanted to know for how many months a man could be away from his wife (to go for battle) he resorted to his daughter to ask her and based on her opinion ALONE made his decision about the length of stay (maximum) of a soldier away from his family. As for that the testimony of two women equals that of one man, this has been mentioned in the Quran only in reference to the monetary dealings (as I remember for witnesses on debts between muslims), some of the Ulama (Knowlegeable people in matters of Religion) generalized this to all matters of testimony, others restricted it to that situation only and said that in other matters the testimony of a man is equal to that of a woman. So depending on the Ulama you follow you have different opinions. This is not a contradiction in Islam since some of the matters were left for the people to extract so as to give some flexibility and that's what makes Islam a religion for ALL mankind at ALL times. Of course there are basic things that there is no doubt about them like the onesse of God and the beleif in the hereafter and the Paradise and the Hell fire etc... In conclusion, I am not that skilled in the matters of Women's rights in Islam but if anybody on the net needs more information I can direct you to some references which may proof useful in: 1. Clarifying some misconceptions abouyt Women in Islam. 2. Giving you a right idea about the role, rights and Obligations of women in Islam. 3. Show you that Islam Liberated the woman, not disorderly but in a way that fits her design; and did the same thing for man. rached -- "I bear witness that there is only one god, and that Muhammad is his messenger"
cosar@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Ahmet Cosar) (06/25/91)
Hello, In article <1991Jun24.160952.8483@wpi.WPI.EDU> rached@kaa.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rached Zantout) writes: > >First let me clarify something to you and other fellownetters: >Men and Women will never be absolutely equal, they are different men are ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ >men and women are women. Women give birth to children men (even if they I agree that women and men are `different', the point is that whether we agree that they are `equal' as well. I consider the fact that women are capable of bringing new humans to life as a `plus' not something which is exploited to forbid some other social roles to women. >Allah knows best what are the rights that should be given to both. So ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >from this argument every muslim once provided with an evidence from the >Quran (the Holy book revealed by Allah through his Angel (Gabriel) on >the prophet Muhammad Peace Be Upon Him) or from the sayings of the >prophet Peace be upon him, about a right for either men or women must >obey that without any discussion. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This is the point that each religion always includes to rule out any criticism, possible updates and changes in accordance with the modern world. Therefore I believe what we need is a religious move like the `protestants' of Christianity which will act to evolve Islam to fit the current world and needs of Muslims. There may be no harm in applying the rules related to personal religious duties of Muslims, however when the subject is to use it on daily life I cannot accept to "obey that without discussion". Just give everybody a copy of Qur'an and an interpretation prepared by the `ulema', it is done. >This is the general rule, now a muslim is not prohibited to think about >what Allah has ordered and try to conclude the wisdom behind it, if he >can find some then it is good otherwise that does not mean that the >wisdom does not exist but it means that the human level is not yet >developped to recognize or identify that wisdom. This is a very ambiguous ruling which leaves Qur'an open to any possible interpretation as seen fit by people who claims to have authority in religious jurisdiction, `ulema'. I know that they are educated in religious Universities, have similar procedures such as earning PhD, tenure, Professorship, etc., but I also know how much personal relations and politics are involved with decisions in such organizations. >In matters that need the special skills of a person, the testimony of a >woman may be more strong than that of a man like in things that are >related to women issues. It is narrated that when Khalif Omar (May Allah ^^^^^^^^^^^ This is not relevant, what counts is the Qur'an. Omar was the 'Khalif' so he had the `power' to make such a decision. What will I say if someone says "look this is what is written in Qur'an", will they accept Khalif Omar as a higher authority? >As for that the testimony of two women equals that of one man, this has >been mentioned in the Quran only in reference to the monetary dealings >(as I remember for witnesses on debts between muslims), some of the >Ulama (Knowlegeable people in matters of Religion) generalized this to >all matters of testimony, others restricted it to that situation only >and said that in other matters the testimony of a man is equal to that >of a woman. So depending on the Ulama you follow you have different ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >opinions. This is not a contradiction in Islam since some of the matters ^^^^^^^^ This is exactly the reason I am not so sure about how `fair' the application of Islamic law can be. The people that are brought to the position of `ulema', and ordinary people have no saying on it, are in no way guranteed to be good people, are they? What if the Islamic rules are maliciously used by `ulema', who can easily obtain majority through personal relations and due to the fact that they are not elected by people and cannot be changed by people. >3. Show you that Islam Liberated the woman, not disorderly but in a way ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >that fits her design; and did the same thing for man. It may be considered as a `liberation' for the year 1400, and for a society in which female children were buried alive. Now women want more. Shall we say "this is what was given to you, ask no more"? >rached Finally I would like to state that I have all the respect for all religions and Qur'an, however I am not so sure how we can gurantee that the Islamic rulers won't maliciously use Qur'an to strengthen their chairs. Olleh, A.Coras ________________________________________________________________________ Disc space -- the final frontier! ________________________________________________________________________
mucit@slate.cs.rochester.edu (Bulent Murtezaoglu) (06/26/91)
In article <1991Jun25.131903.28707@wpi.WPI.EDU> uunet!plains!tera.cs.umn.edu!cosar@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Ahmet Cosar) writes: In article <1991Jun24.160952.8483@wpi.WPI.EDU> rached@kaa.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rached Zantout) writes: >>First let me clarify something to you and other fellownetters: >>Men and Women will never be absolutely equal, they are different men are ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ >>men and women are women. Women give birth to children men (even if they >I agree that women and men are `different', the point is that whether >we agree that they are `equal' as well. I consider the fact that women >are capable of bringing new humans to life as a `plus' not something >which is exploited to forbid some other social roles to women. Right, I agree. >>Allah knows best what are the rights that should be given to both. So ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>from this argument every muslim once provided with an evidence from the >>Quran (the Holy book revealed by Allah through his Angel (Gabriel) on >>the prophet Muhammad Peace Be Upon Him) or from the sayings of the >>prophet Peace be upon him, about a right for either men or women must >>obey that without any discussion. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >This is the point that each religion always includes to rule out any >criticism, possible updates and changes in accordance with the modern >world. Therefore I believe what we need is a religious move like the >`protestants' of Christianity which will act to evolve Islam to fit >the current world and needs of Muslims. While it is clear that God knows all, it isn't all that clear to me why we have to have a blind faith in all the _men_ who interpret and present Islam to us. Our faith is to God, not to ulema nor anyone else. It would IMHO, be safe to question the authenticity of hadith, and even the common belief that the Quran has been preserved verbatim. Because those things, though they may look sacriligious to some, does not weaken the faith in God -- they just weaken the faith in _men_. So I agree, a reform movement would be welcome and might even be inevitable. What I do not agree with is the way Mr. Cosar says this should be done. One ought to be able to get at the general principles that remain invariant and valid despite the changing social norms. I tend to think of this as something that each individual would have to do for him/herself. >There may be no harm in applying the rules related to personal religious >duties of Muslims, however when the subject is to use it on daily life >I cannot accept to "obey that without discussion". Just give everybody >a copy of Qur'an and an interpretation prepared by the `ulema', it is done. Exactly. I agree. If we are to do as we're told we're placing our faith in men and social customs and how we've been raised not in God. >>This is the general rule, now a muslim is not prohibited to think about >hat Allah has ordered and try to conclude the wisdom behind it, if he >>can find some then it is good otherwise that does not mean that the >>wisdom does not exist but it means that the human level is not yet >>developped to recognize or identify that wisdom. >This is a very ambiguous ruling which leaves Qur'an open to any possible >interpretation as seen fit by people who claims to have authority in >religious jurisdiction, `ulema'. I disagree somewhat. It also leaves it open to interpretation by ordinary God-believeing (and otherwise ;) folk. The power of Ulema is derived from the herd mentality of people. >I know that they are educated in >religious Universities, have similar procedures such as earning PhD, >tenure, Professorship, etc., but I also know how much personal relations >and politics are involved with decisions in such organizations. This is a more immediate concern of course, but if people are raised to be sceptical (and cynical :), the danger dimisihes. >>In matters that need the special skills of a person, the testimony of a >>woman may be more strong than that of a man like in things that are >>related to women issues. It is narrated that when Khalif Omar (May Allah ^^^^^^^^^^^ >This is not relevant, what counts is the Qur'an. Omar was the 'Khalif' >so he had the `power' to make such a decision. What will I say if >someone says "look this is what is written in Qur'an", will they accept >Khalif Omar as a higher authority? I agree. Asserting that one has _the_ interpretation of the Quran amounts to the blaphemous claim of prophethood. On the other hand, it makes sense to look at what people have thought before. [the rest deleted] B.M.
ekrem@vlsivie.tuwien.ac.at (Ekrem Saban) (06/26/91)
In article <1991Jun25.181441.1863@wpi.WPI.EDU> mucit@slate.cs.rochester.edu (Bulent Murtezaoglu) writes: In article <1991Jun25.131903.28707@wpi.WPI.EDU> uunet!plains!tera.cs.umn.edu!cosar@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Ahmet Cosar) writes: [...] >>Allah knows best what are the rights that should be given to both. So ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>from this argument every muslim once provided with an evidence from the >>Quran (the Holy book revealed by Allah through his Angel (Gabriel) on >>the prophet Muhammad Peace Be Upon Him) or from the sayings of the >>prophet Peace be upon him, about a right for either men or women must >>obey that without any discussion. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >This is the point that each religion always includes to rule out any >criticism, possible updates and changes in accordance with the modern >world. Therefore I believe what we need is a religious move like the >`protestants' of Christianity which will act to evolve Islam to fit >the current world and needs of Muslims. While it is clear that God knows all, it isn't all that clear to me why we have to have a blind faith in all the _men_ who interpret and present Islam to us. Our faith is to God, not to ulema nor anyone else. It would IMHO, be safe to question the authenticity of hadith, and even the common belief that the Quran has been preserved verbatim. Because those things, though they may look sacriligious to some, does not weaken the faith in God -- they just weaken the faith in _men_. So I agree, a reform movement would be welcome and might even be inevitable. What I do not agree with is the way Mr. Cosar says this should be done. One ought to be able to get at the general principles that remain invariant and valid despite the changing social norms. I tend to think of this as something that each individual would have to do for him/herself. The enemies of Islam, like the orientalist Ignaz Goldzieher, are in general sure that Qur'an is authentic. In my discussions with katholic priests, there was nobody who had any doubt about it. So, if there were some weak points on this elemantary fact, it would have been evident up to day, I think... >There may be no harm in applying the rules related to personal religious >duties of Muslims, however when the subject is to use it on daily life >I cannot accept to "obey that without discussion". Just give everybody >a copy of Qur'an and an interpretation prepared by the `ulema', it is done. Exactly. I agree. If we are to do as we're told we're placing our faith in men and social customs and how we've been raised not in God. That's true. We have to think. Npbody can think instead of me. But to come to a solution, one has to have knowledge also! Without knowing all the facts about a subject, you can't come to the right result. >>This is the general rule, now a muslim is not prohibited to think about >hat Allah has ordered and try to conclude the wisdom behind it, if he >>can find some then it is good otherwise that does not mean that the >>wisdom does not exist but it means that the human level is not yet >>developped to recognize or identify that wisdom. >This is a very ambiguous ruling which leaves Qur'an open to any possible >interpretation as seen fit by people who claims to have authority in >religious jurisdiction, `ulema'. I disagree somewhat. It also leaves it open to interpretation by ordinary God-believeing (and otherwise ;) folk. The power of Ulema is derived from the herd mentality of people. If the ulema is the ulema of a party or sultan, you are right. But there have been always ulemas which were against the sultans (like Imam Hanife). >>In matters that need the special skills of a person, the testimony of a >>woman may be more strong than that of a man like in things that are >>related to women issues. It is narrated that when Khalif Omar (May Allah ^^^^^^^^^^^ >This is not relevant, what counts is the Qur'an. Omar was the 'Khalif' >so he had the `power' to make such a decision. What will I say if >someone says "look this is what is written in Qur'an", will they accept >Khalif Omar as a higher authority? I agree. Asserting that one has _the_ interpretation of the Quran amounts to the blaphemous claim of prophethood. On the other hand, it makes sense to look at what people have thought before. That`s right! [the rest deleted]
ekrem@vlsivie.tuwien.ac.at (Ekrem Saban) (06/27/91)
In article <1991Jun25.131903.28707@wpi.WPI.EDU> uunet!plains!tera.cs.umn.edu!cosar@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Ahmet Cosar) writes: Hello, In article <1991Jun24.160952.8483@wpi.WPI.EDU> rached@kaa.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rached Zantout) writes: [....] > >First let me clarify something to you and other fellownetters: >Men and Women will never be absolutely equal, they are different men are ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ >men and women are women. Women give birth to children men (even if they I agree that women and men are `different', the point is that whether we agree that they are `equal' as well. I consider the fact that women are capable of bringing new humans to life as a `plus' not something which is exploited to forbid some other social roles to women. I can't understand how something which is different is also equal. Equalness and difference is smt. mutually exclusive. >Allah knows best what are the rights that should be given to both. So ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >from this argument every muslim once provided with an evidence from the >Quran (the Holy book revealed by Allah through his Angel (Gabriel) on >the prophet Muhammad Peace Be Upon Him) or from the sayings of the >prophet Peace be upon him, about a right for either men or women must >obey that without any discussion. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This is the point that each religion always includes to rule out any criticism, possible updates and changes in accordance with the modern world. Therefore I believe what we need is a religious move like the `protestants' of Christianity which will act to evolve Islam to fit the current world and needs of Muslims. There may be no harm in applying the rules related to personal religious ^^^^^^ duties of Muslims, however when the subject is to use it on daily life I cannot accept to "obey that without discussion". Just give everybody a copy of Qur'an and an interpretation prepared by the `ulema', it is done. If you think that what you are saying is Islam, we come to the same point you are complaining about (ulema <-> Islam). If one is not willing to accept that 1) God is free of his creation, i.e. he is not a function of space and time, 2) God wants the good of mankind. He has not sent Islam to make man confuse, and 3) Because of (1), he knows everything and because of (2) it is for the good for humans. Of course, to question the ulema driven system is right, as 13 centuries of the 14 centuries which have passed since the prophet started to preach have mostly not been ruled as it has to be. The padisah was afraid of his brothers, so he got a Fetwa and let them be executed- in the case of Mehmed III, 18 were killed, although some of them were babies or small children!! Just to cite an exemple... >This is the general rule, now a muslim is not prohibited to think about >what Allah has ordered and try to conclude the wisdom behind it, if he >can find some then it is good otherwise that does not mean that the >wisdom does not exist but it means that the human level is not yet >developped to recognize or identify that wisdom. This is a very ambiguous ruling which leaves Qur'an open to any possible interpretation as seen fit by people who claims to have authority in religious jurisdiction, `ulema'. I know that they are educated in religious Universities, have similar procedures such as earning PhD, tenure, Professorship, etc., but I also know how much personal relations and politics are involved with decisions in such organizations. It is time to learn from history. To implement a similar system will not work again. But as there are no divine rules how to reign, why not thinking on a better system? For example, a shura of 1000 ulema can find a less politically influenced Fetwa on subjects IF they are coming from all muslim countries, are elected by the citizens of these countries and can't be a member of any political institutions ten years before and ten years after being member of the shura. Their ulema-PhD will show that they have knowledge (that they are scientists) and their juristical file will show whether or not they have obeyed the divine law. The shura will have the right to say that a law, submitted by the parliament, is islamic or not. It will not have the power to change the law... >rached Finally I would like to state that I have all the respect for all religions and Qur'an, however I am not so sure how we can gurantee that the Islamic rulers won't maliciously use Qur'an to strengthen their chairs. I congratulate you, brother!
665instr@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Ian) (06/28/91)
In article <1991Jun27.134332.26319@wpi.WPI.EDU>, ekrem@vlsivie.tuwien.ac.at (Ekrem Saban) writes: > I can't understand how something which is different is also equal. > Equalness and difference is smt. mutually exclusive. I think he was referring to "equal worth" as opposed to "identical." For example, a carpenter and a stonemason are equally valuable to society, etc. but they are not identical because one works with wood and the other works with stone: they have different functions. -- Ian Chai Internet: chai@cs.ukans.edu Bitnet: 665instr@ukanvax I don't believe in flaming. If I appear to be flaming, either (a) it's an illusion due to the lack of nonverbal cues or (b) my sprinkler system has suffered a momentary glitch, so just ignore me until it's fixed.
emev02@castle.ed.ac.uk (H Oral) (06/28/91)
In article <1991Jun27.134332.26319@wpi.WPI.EDU> ekrem@vlsivie.tuwien.ac.at (Ekrem Saban) writes: > >In article <1991Jun25.131903.28707@wpi.WPI.EDU> uunet!plains!tera.cs.umn.edu!cosar@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Ahmet Cosar) writes: [stuff deleted] > Finally I would like to state that I have all the respect for all > religions and Qur'an, however I am not so sure how we can gurantee > that the Islamic rulers won't maliciously use Qur'an to strengthen > their chairs. > >I congratulate you, brother! I would like to remind myself the first thing that the first Caliph of Islam said, after being chosen as a Caliph by the Shura; Abu Bakr Siddiq (RA) said; As long as I follow the Qur'an and Sunnah you must obey me, and whenever I do not follow Islam, then you can use sword against me. This is roughly what I remember, please forgive me for the shortcomings of my memory. However, roughly the idea is there. In what brother Ahmet writes, therfore I would like to change the word "Islamic" with "tyrant". Because a true muslim ruler would not use Qur'an to shape his people, but he will be shaped by Qur'an himself, and apply by it for his people. Hamid
cosar@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Ahmet Cosar) (06/28/91)
Hello, In article <1991Jun27.134332.26319@wpi.WPI.EDU> ekrem@vlsivie.tuwien.ac.at (Ekrem Saban) writes: > > I agree that women and men are `different', the point is that whether > we agree that they are `equal' as well. I consider the fact that women > are capable of bringing new humans to life as a `plus' not something > which is exploited to forbid some other social roles to women. > >I can't understand how something which is different is also equal. >Equalness and difference is smt. mutually exclusive. Are "apples" DIFFERENT than "oranges"? Yes. Is "1 pound of apples" EQUAL to "1 pound of oranges"? Yes. Is "one woman" EQUAL to "one man"? Yes. >Of course, to question the ulema driven system is right, as 13 >centuries of the 14 centuries which have passed since the prophet >started to preach have mostly not been ruled as it has to be. The >padisah was afraid of his brothers, so he got a Fetwa and let them be >executed- in the case of Mehmed III, 18 were killed, although some of >them were babies or small children!! Just to cite an exemple... Examples start at the earliest times of Islam, even the grandchildren of Muhammed, the Prophet, have not been able to escape from the political struggle to use Islam as a source of power. >It is time to learn from history. To implement a similar system will >not work again. But as there are no divine rules how to reign, why not >thinking on a better system? For example, a shura of 1000 ulema can >find a less politically influenced Fetwa on subjects IF they are >coming from all muslim countries, are elected by the citizens of these Collecting such a power at the hands of 1, 2, 3, 1000, people is not a good idea. It is easy to buy 1000 Ulemas, or to frighten them, or to blackmail them, the possibilities are endless and the power you are "planning" to give them are worth the trouble. >countries and can't be a member of any political institutions ten >years before and ten years after being member of the shura. Their >ulema-PhD will show that they have knowledge (that they are >scientists) and their juristical file will show whether or not they >have obeyed the divine law. The shura will have the right to say that >a law, submitted by the parliament, is islamic or not. It will not >have the power to change the law... I don't know which country you are from, but I would like you to first implement it in your own country, show the world how good and productive it is working, and then we may talk about this. If people want to promote Islam they must keep it out of political struggles otherwise they will be the ones making the most damage to Islam. We are living in 20th century and the rulings made under the social and international conditions of 15th century must be revised to fit today. Even in Qur'an some verses have been modified with later verses from God as events develop, in the life period of the Prophet. Expecting it to remain unchanged after 1600 years is not logical. This doesn't mean that we will go and rewrite Qur'an but the interpretation can be changed and a more tolerant attitude can be assumed, e.g. in women's rights issues. Olleh, A.Coras ________________________________________________________________________ Disc space -- the final frontier! ________________________________________________________________________