Woman leads Muslim prayer service update. It seems that Muslims in the Middle East are up in arms, so to speak, about a prayer service held in New York -- because a woman led it. From AP, with thanks to Scaramouche:
CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - Muslims in the Middle East yesterday angrily denounced a mixed-gender Islamic prayer service led by a woman in New York as a violation of their religion.Amina Wadud, a professor of Islamic studies at Virginia Commonwealth University, led the service on Friday before a congregation of 80 to 100 men and women at Synod House at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in Manhattan, an Episcopal church.
Three mosques had refused to hold the service, and an art gallery backed out after receiving a bomb threat. Organizers said the service was intended to draw attention to the inequality faced by Muslim women.
The Egyptian newspaper, Al-Messa, reported the service on its front page, with the emphatic headline: "They are tarnishing Islam in America!"
It referred to Wadud as "the deranged woman."
A female Islamic law professor condemned the act as apostasy, explaining that a woman’s body "stirs desire" in men.
Well, stop the presses.
Some suggested the event was a U.S. conspiracy to mold traditional Islam into a secular U.S. religion....
Remember that sentence the next time CAIR or MPAC tries to strong-arm and intimidate you into assuming that Islam is nothing more or less than just another "secular U.S. religion," and accuses you of "Islamophobia" if you disagree.
"Women were not allowed to have input in the basic paradigms of what it means to be a Muslim," Wadud said after the service. She added that while the Islamic holy book, the Quran, puts men and women on equal footing, men have distorted its teachings to leave women with no role other than "as sexual partners."
Come now, Ms. Wadud. I respect what you are doing, but really, do you expect us not to notice that the Qur'an says that "men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the other" (Qur'an 4:34)? Are you hoping that Americans aren't aware of this verse, or are you yourself in a state of denial and wishful thinking about the Qur'an?
I see it this way: if she manages to get herself killed (a fatwa will probably have been issued by now) maybe a few of the people who think Islam is a "religion of peace" may wake up... but I'm not holding my breath. I still wonder what her actual motivation is though. She doesn't seriously think she can change the role of women in Islam, does she?
Brilliant Move:
This is wonderful. It really challenges the Muslim apologists in America. Either they have to agree that it is proper for a female to lead prayers in a mosque which will enrage the majority of American imams OR they have to explain why women cannot lead prayers in a mosque. It brings the issue to a sharp point.
It reminds me of the TV interview between Pim Fortuyn and an imam. Fortuyn directly challenged the imam to state his position about gays. The imam became enraged, red in the face and started spouting about killing gays.
This is what public discourse in America needs. I noted that during a speech by Karen Armstrong, the moderator collected questions from the audience about Islam then read them to Karen Armstrong. The moderator was an employee of an Islamic country's embassy. He was in a position to screen out any tought questions and he did.
Speaking of Tough Questions:
This is only tangentially related, I must admit but Morley Safer let the Dutch Muslim spokesman off very, very easy in his piece about the courages female Dutch legislator. Morely asked only one question about whether the public should be allowed to criticize or mock Islam. There were so many other questions he could have asked so very easily. Such as questions about 4:34 that Mr. Spencer mentions. Morley was quite corwardly in his approach. He described the matter an "an interpretation of the Koran that enrages devout Muslims." It suggests that highlighting the right of Muslim men to beat their wives was just "an interpretation" of the Koran and that only "devout Muslims" would be offended by bringing up that little item.
Sheez, Morley fancies himself a big tiger when it comes to American politicians and businessmen but not so brave in the face of Islam, after all Christian fundamentalists might argue with you or preach at you but they won't kill you.
Definitely not just the Muslims overseas whose knickers are all in a bunch over this. Plenty of American Muslims are upset too. Check out this article and the comments over at Islamicity: http://www.islamicity.com/articles/Articles.asp?ref=IC0503-2643
There's lots of discussion at Muslimwakeup.com, they appear to have masterminded this event.
Illuminating comment over at Islamicity:
"all innovation in the religion is strayance and all strayance shall end in Hell fire may Allah protect us from the purnishment of hell-fire."
Amina Wadud is a professor of Islamic studies at Virginia Commonwealth University.
Of course she knows that men have authority over women as allah made women inferior. I'm afraid that all this fuss is to show that there is a "progressive" movement in islam; that islam is like Christianity if given time. It is Taqqiya pure and simple of a fairly similar sort to Manji's.
Note also that they have slyly moved into an episcopal church.
---------------------------------
And what are all these professors in islamic studies doing in US universities. I didnt think there was anything of any real scolastic worth in the koran worth studying in the first place.
Yes, it was interesting that her service could only be conducted in a church, rather than a mosque.
I would speculate that it says something about her religious freedoms.
If she wants to continue to worship the Abrahamic deity, I would advise her to convert to Christianity. My understanding is that women can become priests in most of the sects now, with the exception of Catholicism, and rumours suggest that that too may be changing before long. Certainly members of the American Council of Bishops is on-side, and the chances of being killed for trying are essentially nil.
Anyone have an email addy for her so we can send our support?
Geoff
PS: Is it tarnishing islam to put men and women on equal footing?
Geoff
Mohammad's laughable sophistries "proving" 'the inferiority' of women', and the easy acquiescence shown by those 7th century A.D. women mentioned in the Koran and hadiths (as if they would seriously argue with a guy holding a blood-baptised sword), should have forewarned any current Muslim women professors -who were hoping to have any effect on Islam's treatment of them- to SHUT UP.
Allah loves the silent ladies.
And cheers on His male Muslims to beat them if they backtalk. (Arrogant apostate bitches!)
Plus his pedophile 'prophet' married a 9 year old. ("She was old for her age.")
As noted in the newspaper articles: Muslim women are not allowed to show their "enticing buttocks" to the male members of the flock by bending over in prayer AHEAD of them, so they should simply accept their Koranic 'half human' worth, -or get the hell out of this contemptuous cult.
A religion only a guy with a very little 'ego' could love.
"The Quran and the Prophet's example show that women and men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..."
This statement, by one "Dr." Aslam Abdullah, at www.islamicity.com, takes the cake for chutzpah, does it not? "Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"? Ca a un gout de...could it be, why yes it is, Jefferson and a cheeky appropriation, by someone whose ideology flatly contradicts everything for which Jefferson stood, and above all, the free exercise and establishment clauses of the First Amendment. But let's not go into any Virgina remonstrances here.
It would be fascinating to ask "Dr." Abdulah what "unalienable" [sic]rights non-Muslims have -- that is, rights that Muslims themselves cannot take away, no matter what those non-Muslims do, because their rights come from "their Creator"? And what "unalienable [sic, again] rights" do Muslims themselves have -- do they have the right of freedom of conscience, and to cease being Muslims -- or is that not one of their "unalienable" rights? And for that matter, if "Dr." Abdullah were to grant that the rights of non-Muslims do not depend on what Muslims tell them they can do, or not do, as the Sharia allows them to inflict all sorts of painful disabilities upon them, beginning but hardly ending with the jizya, and if he were to grant that Muslims could do what every one else in the world is now free to do -- which is to make up one's mind about one's beliefs, and to leave any faith one chooses, for another, or no belief at all. And what, one wishes to ask this sudden scholar of Jefferson, one "Dr." Aslan Abdullah, are the "unalienable" rights of polytheists, such as Hindus, or of atheists? What rights, indeed, do they have, under Islam?
But we know the answer. It may not be the answer he would give, for the smokescreen or the fog machine would work overtime. But nonetheless--we know. We have only to go online, to www.usc.edu, and find the Qur'an, with several translations synoptically presented, and the Hadith of Bukhari also on-line. And Infidels are perfectly capable of talking, as they do, to ex-Muslims who are quite scathing on the matter of Islam, and quite unsparing in their presentation not of what the apologists, quoting Jefferson, would have us believe, but what one knows are the teachings of Islam. But still, if anyone would like to explain what "unalienbale" rights any non-Muslim has -- rights that cannot, that is, be taken away by Muslims -- in a Muslim-dominated country, then let's hear all about it.
We're all ears.
This whole episode leaves me a little cold. There appears to be very little support in the Muslim world for this sort of thing. No mosque in New York city would hold the event, and there must be quite a few mosques there. Heaven knows why a Christian church allowed it, many fundamental beliefs of Islam are contrary to Christian beliefs (HELLO!). The fact that only 80-100 Muslims attended this extremely well-publicized event tells you something. Many more people turn out for a book reading or an off-off-off-Broaday play in NYC. The fact that CNN and the BBC covered this event as if it was significant (despite low public turn out) tells you something else. wishful thinking on the part of CCN, the BBC, and those who desperately want there to be a modern, moderate, egalitarian Islam.
They indict themselves with their words, their refusal to assimilate into the cultures that have generously given them a home, and with their obvious disdain for other cultures, and now their intolerance shown toward Muslim women that only want equal rights.
Hugh, Kelley, BigSleep, epg and all:
I think the core of the matter (as all aspects of the debate must) comes down to religious theology. The Quran espouses equality and rights for men and women only in certain aspects of the afterlife.
For example, 'earthly' passages deal with women as chattel to be traded or sold:
Q 60:10 Ugh...not going to write it all out...suffice to say: if you capture non-believing women but you think they're really believers, then they 'are not lawful' for non-believers and so you can't send them back, but you must 'let the disbelievers ask for that which they have spent', presumably for the women: i.e. women are chattel.
Q 60:11 'And if any of your wives have gone from you unto the disbelievers and afterward ye have your turn, then give unto those whose wives have gone the like of that which they have spent...' Same thing, chattel
In other aspects, women are more to be regulated than merely evaluated on basis of their 'monetary value':
Q 60:12 'O Prophet! [Actually, why is Mohammed saying 'O Prophet!' here - isn't that HIM? - Geoff] If believing women come unto thee...then forgive them.'
Q 65:1 'When ye put away women, put them away for their legal period'
Q 65:4 'And for such of your women as despair of menstruation, if ye doubt, their period of waiting shall be three months...'
In interpretations of islamic theology, it's conventionally only considered in the aspect of religious fate (heaven/hell) that women are ranked as equal with men:
Q 57:12 'On the day when thou (Muhammad) wilt see the believers, men and women, their light shining forth...'
Q 85:10 Lo! Those who persecute believing men and believing women and repent not, theirs verily will be the doom of hell and theirs the doom of burning.
And so forth. This leads to the classical interpretation that islam only countenances equality between men and women after death. But don't several hadiths also talk about the belief that women constitute the greater proportion of the population of Hell? If so, where are the 72 virgins coming from in Heaven? Are these meant to be actual once-earthly women?
It's amazing that some people will prattle endlessly on about how "1+1+1 does not = 3" (as if that relationship were somehow mathematically valid when talking about essentially infinite concepts) but can't do basic demographic math.
Geoff
Frankly, whether Muslim women may or may not lead services is a very moot, surface issue as far as the wider issues of jihad and dhimmitude are concerned.
Those Christians more likely to resist dhimmitude probably also come from denominations that will not ordain women, either, since they're denominations that take their cue from the Bible rather than the noisiest cultural force of the moment. Theravada Buddhism is also a decidedly "MCP" religion, too. Yet fundamentalist Christianity and Theravada Buddhism, in their hearts of hearts, think of proselytism as a matter of prayer, persuasion, and ethical example, not of force.
I frankly wouldn't be surprised if ideological feminists wouldn't be the first to fold after Muslims reach a certain critical mass in a given society. Tigresses before gentlemanly Christians who deny them nothing more than ordination, they'll simper, skulk, and shut up before Muslims who come at them with finger-thick canes.
The big issue is whether Islam can be persuaded to lay aside the jihad of the sword and recognize that, at least in the civil sphere and city of man, a non-Muslim may have certain equal rights to life, liberty, property, and access to the courts.
What a wonderful article for all the womens glossy mags
Kelley: I agree that the poor turnout and the fact that it had to be held in a non-Muslim venue are the really significant things in this very insignificant episode--apart from the evident wishful thinking of liberal MSM in this matter.
However, it's important to realize that most of the American and immigrant Muslims who are going to the authorities when they whiff trouble in their communities are probably also scandalized by a woman leading prayers.
If keeping the public leadership of the mosque in male hands were all that was wrong with Islam, I'd join the imams in telling Dr. Amina and other feminists to shut up and get back in the kitchen, or go found their own religion. There is, after all, a free exercise clause in the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Or, it may be the case that secular liberals can't build institutions: they can only take those that others have built once those others have gone complacent and soft, and then riddle them through and through with their maggoty self-destructiveness.
Infiltrate, disrupt, reform.
How long will it be until islam appropriates Thomas Jefferson's speech? Or will we read that Jefferson was a muslim or "nearly muslim" like we do about Shakespeare and every other great name of history? It is shameless!
Carolyn-
It might be sooner than you think.
In Virginia, we are preparing to celebrate the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom which was drafted by Thomas Jefferson and passed through the Virginia Assembly with the assistance of James Madison during the Revolutionary Era (I think it was 1786). The text of the Statute is here, and it's worth a read:
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/42.htm
Last year, some Moonbat, suggested that the history (i.e. myth) of Islamic Tolerance should be incorporated into the celebration of the Virginia Statute, which was in reality, a reaction against entities such as the Islamic Caliphate, with their jihads and dhimmas and devshirmes. I was extremely pleased to see Robert Spencer address this foolishness in "The Myth of Islamic Tolerance".
Reaction from the Middle East (AP):
The Egyptian newspaper Al-Messa reported the service on its front page with the headline: "They are tarnishing Islam in America!" It referred to Wadud as "the deranged woman."
Sheikh Sayed Tantawi, head of Egypt's Al-Azhar mosque, the leading Sunni Muslim institution, said Islam permits women to lead other women in prayer but not a congregation that includes men.
In Saudi Arabia, Grand Mufti Abdul-Aziz qal-Sheik spoke out against it in Friday prayers at a Riyadh mosque. "Those who defended this issue are violating God's law," he said. "Enemies of Islam are using women's issues to corrupt the community."
Soad Saleh, who heads the Islamic department of the women's college at Al-Azhar University considered the act apostacy, which is punishable by death in Islam. "It is categorically forbidden for women to lead prayers [if they include men worshippers] and intentionally violates the basics of Islam," she said. She said women should not lead prayers because "the woman's body, even if it is veiled, stirs desire."
Abdul-Moti Bayoumi, of the Islamic Research Center at Al-Azhar, said Wadud had carried out "a bad and deviant innovation" that contradicted the Prophet Mohammed's sayings and deeds.
When muslims state that males are "aroused" by females even when the females are veiled, that is an admission that muslim men are uncivilized barbarians who cannot control themselves. I wonder if the sound of running water gives muslim males the urge to urinate? If so, how in the world do they manage if a restroom isn't available? How can a pious muslim male devote his heart, mind, body, and soul to allah when he has to pee?
Islam is an exercise in human perversion. Muslims are human beings, I know that for a fact. But they would fit right in with certain members of the animal kingdom if they were capable of coexistence, which they're not. I saw an old rerun of Planet of the Apes the other night. The apes reminded me of muslims. They were bright, educated primates but they just didn't get it. If they didn't understand something, they either killed it or blew it up, while the ape intellectuals and scholars reaffirmed their unquestionable superiority and domination over all other life forms.
This woman must be crazy. I don't know anything about her but she has signed her death warrant. They may not get her for years, but she's on a list for execution. And for what? Of all the honorable, just causes to fight for, why throw away your life for a lost cause?
Equality of women
And lets not forget that the most glorious Allah created women "stupid"...for what Eve did in the garden...Hadith, Tabari 1:280: " Allah said", (about Eve), "It is My obligation to make her bleed every month as she made this tree bleed. I must also make her stupid although I created her intelligent. "Beause Allah afflicted Eve, all of the women of the world mensturate and are stupid...... Allah is most merciful and oft forgiving...chuckle...swami
If only Wadud had conducted services in a synagogue, they'd have been able to blame the Zionists. What a missed opportunity.