Monday, January 21

When Patriarchy Joins Forces with the Owners of Absolute Truth

The Speech in English

"On women leading prayers.. Oh, fellow men.. I swear I don't know from where to start or how! Because of the horror I was subjected to. And there people of knowledge who committed the terrible mistake of permitting women to lead prayers.. Don’t know how! To his aim (the person who thinks this is not forbidden in Islam) he did the following: He said that the hadith which prohibits women from becoming leaders, the hadith told by Abu Bakrah Al Thaqafi, ''A nation which placed its affairs in the hands of a woman shall never prosper". He said that this hadith is not a proof. Why? He said Abu Bakrah is crooked.. Yes, I swear he said so.. Abu Bakrah is a Sahabi (one of the disciples of Prophet Muhammad). Huh, I say this Abu Bakrah Al-Thaqafi is a Sahabi.. He said Abu Bakrah is crooked, and a liar.. and this means that the hadith he told is false. This was the first observation. The second observation was that Al Bukhari (one of the basic sources of collected hadith) contains spurious hadith. Let him reach where he wants. [cut out part] They want to shaken everything that was mentioned against this issue, even those who which are 100% proven in solid igmaa (the agreement among sheikh) which is of the same status as the Quran.. That is that women are not permitted to give Friday sermons or lead prayers. The handing over of verdict is to be taken as the handing over of the Quran to us. In the highest level of agreement and tawatur (transmission) from generation to generation.. So that no matter how long you searched books, you won't find a single recorded incidence from the prophet's time until our present time, saying that a woman has ever led prayers. You won't find a single occurrence. And this is called the most powerful practical igmaa. He comes to that issue which enjoys an agreement that is as clear as the morning sun, and he wants to shake it and raise doubts among muslims. So you can imagine what is the case with other sharia rules, which are thousands.. He can play with them as he wishes. Why?.. Because their origins and interpretation (sharia rules) are unknown to the majority of people.. And the only ones who can interpret them correctly are a few individuals.. those who are sheikhs or scholars. They hope to shake all this. But they won't be able to, in spite of our apparent weakness. so many times, little gatherings defeated numerous gatherings."

Well, there is so much to say about the speaker's way and attitude.. especially if we asked a psychiatrist to watch this video and analyze the man. It is enough to see how he breaks his sentences and pauses to stare at the faces of those listening to him, in order to force them to accept all what he says as absolute facts. He seeks to manipulate his listeners and take full control over their minds. It is also apparent that most of his audience are simple-minded people, who have not received much, if any, education. I really wanted to see their faces for once (which the cameraman didn't want), although I can imagine how they looked.

What concerns me here is the presumable "argument" presented by this sheikh in order to convince people that there can be no such thing as a woman leading prayers. That is live example of how the masses are being brainwashed at mosques, especially after Friday prayers.

Many violent attacks in Egypt have taken place after Friday prayers! It might seem strange, and more likely to be the opposite.. But that is a well-known fact. The majority of violent clashes between Muslims and Christians, which happened recently in Egypt, took place right after the Sheikh is through with his speech. This "coincidence" was recorded in clashes which took place in Alexandria, Ayyat, Menniya, and other places. It was the common belief that this was just a coincidence, that the attackers had actually planned the attack before hand.. And that Friday prayers only served to gather those violent people together at the mosque. But the chaos and lack of organization, the strange combination of people taking part in the attack, and the crude methods used during those attacks (usually using anything that comes to hand as a weapon), have all suggested that those outbursts were planned by others.. To be precise, the only person who inspired this attack was the Sheikh giving the Friday sermon at those mosques, out of which angry masses of men go directly to attack their Christian neighbors.

So, we have to admit that some male imams are not doing a good job. And now, we can see an example of the speeches given and the hidden agendas behind them. In this particular case, it is clear that the speaker doesn't only seek to make the issue of female imams become completely out of question.. But he also raises the anger of his audience against those who would say elsewise. It is also clear that he wants them to believe that anyone who expresses the opinion that it is OK for a woman to become imam, is someone who aims to shake their beliefs and mess with Islam. Moreover, he stresses the message that the only people who are fit to talk about religion are its men.

Let us make more discoveries and dig deeper as we examine his speech closely..

1-Notice the beginning of his speech, and how he concentrates on making the topic of his argument sound blasphemous in itself: "Oh, fellow men.. I swear I don't know from where to start or how! Because of the extreme horror I was subjected to. And there are people of knowledge who committed the terrible mistake of permitting women to lead prayers.. Don’t know how!"

Now, those people do not need to hear anything further. They already had the ready-made judgement from their all-knowing sheikh, who himself is lost for words at the mere thought of bringing up such a horrible thought for discussion.

2- He moves on to talk about an imaginary man who argues for women being imams. He didn't give any specific identification or attribute any specific details related to this person.. Such as his profession (Is he a man of religion or not?), his educational background (Did he study Islamic Sharia or not?), or his cultural orientation. All this is equally irrelevant to him and to his audience, as they all have agreed on the outcome of the argument before it even started.

He claims that his fictional character "said that the hadith which prohibits women from becoming leaders, the hadith told by Abu Bakrah Al Thaqafi, 'A nation which placed its affairs in the hands of a woman shall never prosper'. He said that this hadith is not a proof. Why? He said Abu Bakrah is crooked.. Yes, I swear he said so.. Abu Bakrah is a Sahabi (one of the companions of Prophet Muhammad). Huh, I say this: Abu Bakrah Al-Thaqafi is a Sahabi.. He said Abu Bakrah is crooked, and a liar.. and this means that the hadith he told is false."

Can you hear the gasps and see the open mouths as I imagined I did? Of course this hypothetical person is a dead man by now. We aren't waiting to know about anything he said or why he said it. "He" is insulting one of the Prophet's companions! Can you imagine people?! Who wants to argue about anything this damned man says? Let's concentrate on hunting him down and cutting him to pieces.

3- But sheikh Howeini has to provoke his audience to the maximum, and be sure that they will hate to hear a single word being mentioned about women imams. So he goes on: "This was the first observation. The second observation was that Al Bukhari contains spurious hadith!"

OK.. So, apparently this guy doesn't know that there is nothing blasphemous about saying that Al Bukhari still contains spurious hadith, or that there is a whole branch of Islamic scholars, who studied the Science of Hadith, who agree that more work should be done on Al Bukhari in order to make sure which of the hadith with weak Isnad (weak reliability) should continue to be included, and which of them should be eleminated. However, that is not a problem. The problem is with those people who just say "Amen" to every word he utters. Those people actually depend on him as their source of religious knowledge. And this puts us in front of a crisis.

4-Here comes the most interesting part. Al Howeini suddenly shifts from the imaginary man he was talking about, who made all those kinds of shameful claims against Abu Bakrah and Bukhari, and moves on to an open attack. He now refers to a mysterious group of people as "They". It seems that he wants to convince his audience that those "they", who have no definition of any kind to help us identify them, "want to shaken everything that was mentioned against this issue, even those which are 100% proven in solid igmaa"

Ahuh.. So, this is a conspiracy, if I am not mistaken. And it sounds like a really serious kind of conspiracy. Yet, "they" who are behind it are completely ambiguous to us. Of course, only Al Howeini knows who "they" are. But, if he has decided to warn the people against them, shouldn't he be kind enough to define those conspirators, who want to shake shake shake everything that is completely agreed upon in Islam?

5- But wait.. There is more that we didn't know, that only a sheikh like him has got knowledge of. First time for me to know that any hadith, even the sahih, which absolutely no one would dare suspect to be true, has got "the same status as the Quran"!! This is really way off limits. The mix and mingle between hadith and Quran is clearly prohibited in Islam. We can doubt what is said in Hadith, we can judge a hadith as either Sahih (true) or Daif (weak) or Mawdu (spurious). But we can never do the same with Quran. So how is it that they both are of the same status?! Does that mean that I can judge the reliability of Quran? Or does it mean that I can not judge the reliability of Hadith? (Bear in mind that igmaa stands for sheikhs agreeing on the same opinion. And this opinion may very well be the result of their personal views which they build through a human logical sequence on their own interpretation of a text. And does not refer to the hadith itself even.)

He did not stop there, actually.. He stresses it even more and more. "The handing over of this verdict (women are not to be imams) is to be taken as the handing over of the Quran to us," he says!He also claims that his one and only hadith, which has nothing to do with women being imams, or even political leaders, even enjoys "the highest level of agreement and tawator (trasmission) from generation to generation."

Now, wait a minute! Is this man really saying what I understood? Is he building all those false arguments, using all this wrong information, and saying all this hocus pocus about religion, just to close the door in front of women to become imams?!
Is this that scary? Are those sheikhs willing to destroy the very basics of Islamic principles and science of hadith, just to prevent women from becoming imams and giving the Friday sermon?! My God!

6-By now, you should have become familiar with the method used by our friend here. (So sorry to call him a friend.) He just keeps repeating and stressing and exaggerating. It seems pretty normal, thus, that the next thing he resorts to is posing a challenge. He dares anyone to be able to find a recorded incidence of a woman becoming imam: "So that no matter how long you searched books, you won't find a single recorded incidence, from the prophet's time until our present time, saying that a woman has ever led prayers. You won't find a single occurrence. And this is called the most powerful practical igmaa."

Seriously, this the first time ever to see a competition that promises failure to all contestants. So, what does this new religious theory imply really? Does it mean that anything that people didn't use to do in the past becomes religiously prohibited or haram?.. Is driving a car haram? Is buying an iPod haram? Is using a blender in the kitchen haram? Is having a blog haram?(Sure in my case it must be! Ask him.) Is using laser beam haram? Is building a rocket haram? Is landing on Mars haram?
Or, let's be more specific. Let's talk female jobs.. Is it haram for a woman to work at a call center? Is being a female surgeon haram? Is working on TV haram? What about working on a xeroxing machine? Is it haram to be a female engineer? Is being a female pianist haram? A female scientist? A female politician? A female pilot? A female actress? A female director? A female analyst? A female journalist? A female photographer? A female factory worker? A spokeswoman? A female secretary? A female employee? A female programmer/software developer? Are all those jobs haram?
Then, what is left?

7- In the same mysterious way by which we were introduced to "they", the guy goes back to the "he" he was talking about in the beginning; and says, "He comes to that issue (no women imams) which enjoys an agreement that is as clear as the morning sun, and he wants to shake it and raise doubts among muslims. So you can imagine what will be the case with other sharia rules, which are thousands.. He can play with them as he wishes."

This "he" is very evil it seems. Still, we don't know who the hell "he" is. But it is clear that he belongs to the conspiracy gang of "they".. Yet, neither "They" nor "He" has got any motives for what they are doing! We don't even know what their purpose is! Does it only stop at shaking beliefs and raising doubts among muslims? So, is it out of mere hatred? Is it part of a bigger conspiracy?.. Why are they doing this?.. Please, please, Sheikh Howeini, tell us why they are doing this to us.

8- "Why?.. Because their (sharia rules) origins and interpretation are unknown to the majority of people.. And the only ones who can interpret them correctly are a few individuals.. those who are sheikhs or scholars."

Mmmmmmm.. So this is what they are after!.. Oh Oh.. Nope, it's not.. This is what encouraged them to go on with their evil plan.. But still does not explain what purpose this plan actually serves. Well, it seems that the purpose is not important. Let's concentrate on the methods and the means for carrying out the plan.
Don't know if I am the only one who thinks of Dr. Evil right now! Suddenly, all that comes to mind is the Austin Powers movie.. There is Austin, and there is Dr. Evil and his gang who wish to destroy the world for no reason whatsoever. Not a big deal, though.. Watching a silly movie, you consider motives and purposes to be unneeded extras. But sadly, this is not a movie. This is real. DAMN REAL.

Now, what did he say the reason was? That Muslims don't know how to interpret Muslim Sharia?? Then, this whole conspiracy thing is so stupid. Because we can teach Muslims how to interpret their sharia. Like the "Learn-it-yourself" book series.. Or we don't even need that. We spend 12 years of our lives learning religion at schools. Let's teach kids how to interpret sharia.

Of course, Al Howeini won't allow any ray of light to reach his audience. He must slam the door in front of them, make them lose any hope that one day they may no longer be in need of his services. Therefore, he makes it clear that the only one who can interpret religion is the sheikh or the scholar of Islamic sharia.

9- Then comes the grand finale.. "They hope to shake all this. But they won't be able to.. in spite of our apparent weakness. So many times, little gatherings defeated numerous gatherings."
Ehe2 ehe2 ehe2. We are weak.. ehe2 ehe2 ehe2. "They" are stronger than us, and "they" are more than us!! ehe2 ehe2 ehe2. But we will win. We will defeat them. We shall prevail. We don't need to know any further. Thanks dear sheikh.

This is the kind of speech used at out mosques. We have to face it. There is a major brainwash going on. I am not implying that it is always on purpose, moved by wicked intentions.. Although there are cases where this is actually the case. I am just saying that this kind of talk, discouraging people against using their minds, along with feeding them with preconceptions and hostility towards anyone who happens to have a different opinion, or suggest something new, is pulling our whole society backwards. There can never be any hope in progress this way. We won't even be able to keep standing where we are today. And one day, our offspring may wake up to find themselves living in the Mamluk era.

There is nothing in Quran or Sunnah that prohibits women from becoming imams or giving Friday sermons, and that is more than enough. Sharia states that it is the default for everything to be halal (allowed by God), unless there is a holy verse stating elsewise. I can see nothing against the idea except patriarchal arrogance and religious extremism which is against women in general. Why can't we even discuss it?

I'd ask you now to watch this video and then tell me: Would you rather have Al Howeini or this woman (or anyone like her) as your imam in prayer? Please let's try to be honest and fair.


Egypt Rose said...

مفيش فايدة

raaasa said...

Welcome back, ya Fanta,

My point is related, but not directly to your excellent article. I came across a link discussing the difficulties of people who wish to legally document their conversion to Christianity

What struck me is that the behaviour of the judge completely disregards what the law is supposed to be.

It seems to me that although many happily recite "there is no compulsion in religion," there is indeed plenty of compulsion, either regarding 1.) which faith to follow and 2) how people choose to practice their beliefs or 3)which gender to follow in prayer.

Arabic ID said...


You might not imagine my respect and love towards this man you are talking about, and some other scholars,

your words are making sense in some occasions and in others are showing just emotional, as he did himself in parts of his speech, I might understand that he was insisting in delivering his message without one argue from anyone, this is part of our whole ignorance and because there is no one can argue him in his words (I mean knowledge) ,

I know that this man is a powerful scholar who spent his life in studying the hadith and he is one of the very few people how can speak in "3elm el-regal" which searches in the creditability of hadith, of-course I agree there is emotional parts in his speech as he compared the hadith to Quran, and he shouldn't use these words, but he used them to affect the audience as you said

and another thing about the practical agreement, we all know that what he meant is not what you said, there is difference, he is talking about ceremonies and practices not new living practice, as if I come and say that you have to stand on one leg at the prayers, it is not true, and we didn't see or know any one did so, so this is not the case you are arguing in that point.

about directing the minds and hearts of the mass , scholars missions are meant to do that, how ever it has to be in a good way and in a clear words and from mind to mind and from heart to heart,
I agree with you in that point, but with one notice "his knowledge is further deeper than what you brought here, we don't need to through all of his speeches in the trash, he has a lot of other great lessons and speeches, which reflects his knowledge,"

I wouldn't pray behind the female imam of-course , even I saw el-hewini doing so, because I will prefer to have a male imam as the whole old Moslems did.

and the questions about the female imam will remain unanswered to me, till I find a strong proof or then till I die.


Egyptian Feminist Chic said...

Excellent post Fanta. I tried figuring out who this sheikh was, where he works...etc. just to see whose point of view he represents, or how much of an authority he is in religion. I found his website, and there is nothing there to tell us who he is, where he works or what he studied in religion. I looked at the corner of his site where he gives "fatwas" about women... and they were more along the lines of ... niqab is a requirement,

a woman should not eat dinner with her husbands family (his brothers invited to dinner at their house)

moslem women cannot show their hair to non moslem women because non moslems are untrustworthy

he even goes as far as mentioning that a woman cannot wear pants... not even in her own home if she had sons who have reached puberty!

yet by looking at the number of vsitors to his website, they are close to 12 thousand day!!
also, arabic id just mentioned in his comment that he likes this man's ideas and respects him a lot, and I am sure that others feel the same way.

so it is obvious that this man is pretty influential. Now as a responsible religous authority, or at least an influential religious person, it is his responsibility not to impose his own idea but promote god's ideas and orders in his speech. something which he is not doing. by promoting god's word,i mean he should be advocating the koran and its teachings. He should not forbid something that god did not forbid, or allow something that god explicitly forbids. he is obviously not doing his job efficiently, and not up to the duties of being an imam.... being a man doesnt make you a better imam... and he is living proof.

Fanta, your analysis of how he is giving his speach is very insightful, and yes it shows a clear intent of brainwashing his audience into a frenzy, by using the ambiguous "he" and "they" he is making sure that after they are fully brainwashed into believing that his ideas are mandated by god, which he never proves, and that they need to go out and destroy anyone who disagrees.

I think this is the problem nowadays. we have religious figures who promote ideas without ever referring to the koran, and prohibiting things that are not prohibited by god because they dont like them. at the same time they make sure that no one will ever disagree with them or question them by telling people that as moslems they know nothing about religion, so should not think for themselves or read for themselves, but follow them blindly. It is very unfortunate that some religious figures are not completely honest about how they came up with their conclusions... especially since this is what people expect from them. People need to learn to think for themselves, and any sheikh's idea is not the word of god, and should be debatable. and everyone is entitled to his own opinion, without fearing the attack of masses of brainwashed people. imam's that promote their own personal agenda should not be allowed to preach to people! imam's need to preach only the teachings of religion based on the word of god!
That being said, why is that guy so afraid of a woman imam??? if god did not forbid it, why should he? and the video at the bottom of the screen shows exactly what i had in mind. the woman is peaceful, respectable, knowledgable... people are listening to her. When they pray, everyone is praying to god, and no one is thinking anything bad about her or of her.... i dont see why a woman should not be an imam... there is no convincing argument for that.
Whether people like it or not should not be the issue.. the issue is did god forbid it?? and since god did not forbid it, then no one should stop women from excercising their rights

Thank you fanta for clarifying what I had posted about earlier... the videos are typical examples... the man has an anti-woman attitude, based upon his patriarchal upbringing, and how he thinks in general, possibly out of fear, or disrespect of women...the woman showing just how well a woman can function as an imam, as sanctioned by god and his prophet!!

Fantasia said...

dearest rose,
why do you say so? please be more optimistic. we should create hope even if it doesn't exist.

Fantasia said...

dearest raaasa,
the case of mohamed hegazy is one of many. it is considered to be the most controversial, of course, but they should not make us forget the others who are still struggling for their right to have an ID or to change their religion or to practice their religion in the light.
places of worship should also abide by one and the same law, regardless of which religion they serve.
egypt has a long way to travel down that road. religious freedom is part of human rights.. just the same as women rights.
but when you combine both women and religion, you get the most controversial blend of all! it becomes a taboo.. and the resistance against it is doubled.
thanks for the link, dear.

Fantasia said...

arabic id,
you have all the right to like the man and think the world of him. but, pardon me, i don't see how this relates to the argument i am making here.

you said that you know he is a "powerful scholar".. well, i've read much of his views and seen several of his speeches, and i can't agree with him being "powerful" at all. and i believe the clear mistakes he committed in this single speech support my personal opinion.
how can a man "who spent his life in studying the hadith", as you said, commit those fatal mistakes? how can he mix up between hadith, igmaa, and quran?? this is the ABC of Islam.

let's move on to practical igmaa.

there is a huge difference between what you and el heweini claim to be "practical igmaa" and what it originally is.

practical igmaa in Islam is defined as "that which stands for the pratices of men doing their best to act within the framework of Islam." which means that the agreement among scholars is that a certain trend was followed.. not that a certain act was not present!!
أي هو إجماع علي الفعل.. هو اقرار شرعية فعل ما بسبب تكرار القيام به دون اعتراض من العلماء والفقهاء.. والعكس غير صحيح.. بمعني انه لا يمكن الاجماع على عدم شرعية فعل لم يفعل, أو حدث لم يحدث

but, what scholars like el howeini claim, is that we can extend this concept to include things which did not happen in the past. and if we applied this to what you suggested here, it would mean that shaking hands after prayer is bid3a(as some sheikhs already argued), or that islamic wedding ceremonies are haram because they did not take place that way in the early times, or that installing electric fans and air conditions inside mosques is haram, or that using a watch to decide the time of calling people for prayers is haram, or that wearing jeans while praying is haram, or that wearing eyeglasses while praying is haram... and the list is endless.

now let me tell you about something that according to practical igmaa is halal, and that allows men to pray without wearing under garments, revealing their private organs while kneeling for prayers. that's why it was advised that after sujoud, one wouldn't lift up his/her head quickly.
can we allow that now? keeping in mind that it is 100% halal?
the prophet himself divorced one of his wives because she used to peek at the men during prayers, according to Tabari.

you say that scholars' missions are meant to direct the minds and hearts of the masses. but, i believe they shouldn't. this is not the job of the "good" missionaries. this is not religion. true religion is built on conviction, not emotional manipulation or brainwash!

finally, whether you pray behind a woman imam or not, is totally up to you. we are arguing whether there is anything in holy verse that prohibits it. and sharia states that "la ta7reem 2ela b nass sa7ee7 saree7", which means "nothing should be prohibited unless stated in an authentic and direct holy verse".


Arabic ID said...

I said the first part to let you know that although I respect this man I agree with parts of what you said to let you know that I might judge my mind in him and not just follow his words blindly.

I don't believe that the hadith you said is going to be authentic, please give me the text of it to revise it, I am hearing about it fr the first time, I know that it is not the main subject but it will be a favour from you to me just to clear the image about the prophet,

and I respect your views
ولكن عن موضوع العكس غير صحيح
فالنفى لعدم حدوث الاجماع وليس لعدم ثبوت الحل من الحرمة
فيظل الامر فيه اختلاف طبعا وبالتالى موضوع الامتداد ده من الحكم المتعلق بالدين إلى الاحكام المتعلقة بالدنيا مش صحيح

and so that is clear that anyone from the scholars is going to understand this as you said he must be a bad interpreter or he didn't understand the rule in good understanding , or you have to tell me if you heared that when they travelled to hijj they took a camel or a horse , or they might refused to take phone calls while their tv lessons, it is clear that they are measuring every situation wth its damage/benfiet measure

and in the Quran, he told us
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم "فأسألوا أهل الذكر إن كنتم لا تعلمون" صدق الله العظيم
so who will teach us about the halal and haram in this ommah if they weren't the scholars, even making the fellowship of scholars torn up apart the whole ommah, what will be free thinking do , it is simply will turn it into a lot of religions, the whole thing of life doesn't work correct unless you find someone knows better than you in something and you know better than him in another thing and each of you completes the other,

so in the light of this topic and in the light of our disscution I might ask you about the same judgment you are telling about the sheikh,

do you have the complete truth?, have you ever made a post about your mind correcting journey? would you tell us about an argument you lost and then you started changing your mind after it, or all of your blogs are reflecting your marvellous mind and your superiority.

so then your are the most perfect mind of the world.

Fantasia said...

dearest feminist chic,
i was impressed by how fast you searched for more information about this man. his views are shocking i know. but what is more shocking is that you find people who buy his fatwas!.. although he doesn't make the slightest effort to prove his point! (did you notice when he built his fatwa about niqab on the assumption that "haza zaman elfetan"? is he talking to idiots?)
i mean, it is clear that people take his words for granted. i don't know why, though. he is a human being, just like them. he can commit mistakes. and he sure does commit mistakes. so what makes his views unquestionable?
anyway, he is not the only one, dear EFC. and that's what we should really worry about. he is only one of many, who follow the same trend, and are followed by masses of people. this is our biggest crisis. this is what hinders developement and progress. they are tying us down with their imposed view of religion.
i think that being a male or a female imam, does not make a difference. what does, is how good and truthful an imam is. why would i waste the chance to pray behind a knowledgable woman, who won't deceive me, or brainwash me to believe that i am an inferior being? because a man doesn't want me to? that's nonesense!
their argument is so weak.. that's why they keep mixing things up and making up reasons to support their stance on this issue. but we should not allow them to mess up with religion more than that! they are inventing a new religion this way.. just to prevent women from having their rights.
the situation is dangerous. and unless women wake up and realize that it is time to act, there will be no hope for us in a better future. and i hate to say this, but truly, our present achievements are also jeopardized. we can lose everything, just because men like howeini don't accept that women are human beings! this will be such a disgrace. history will curse the women of today for letting this happen. there will be no excuse for us in front of the coming generations.
something should be done. and first of all, we shouldn't remain silent. silent women are the worst type of criminals in this world.

thanks dear for providing all those links, and for your insightful comment as usual. but most of all, for your brilliant post which inspired me to write this one.

Fantasia said...

arabic id,
i really don't understand why you are hostile towards me! as i recall, and correct me if i am wrong.. i have never addressed you in an indecent way. but you did once actually. remember? (the wife's boyfriend post)
still, i totally forgot it. and i said to myself that there is only one reason for you to write such a thing to me.. and that would be that you didn't read the post you commented on. that's why i prefered to drop it, and just pretend as if nothing had happened.
yet again, you attacked me on another blog that i visit regularly, and i didn't reply to what you said against me.
when i saw that you left a comment which disagrees politely, i replied with all respect and sincerity. so is that what i get in return?
i don't get it! why do you hate me so much? and if you hate me, why do you bother reading, or commenting on what i write?
it is clear that i am expressing my own personal views. i didn't say these were facts. i present my arguments logically and i invite others to engage in discussing the ideas i introduce.
so, why are you being so aggressive?
if your aim is to attack me personally, then i don't think i deserve it.
if your aim is to prove that i don't have a perfect mind, then there is no need for exerting any effort here.. cause i never claimed i had a perfect one.
if your aim is to feel better by refuting the ideas of a woman, then pardon me if i refuse to be made use of in such a way.
if you think i am superior to you, and that is causing you a bit of a problem, then i sincerely advise you to stop torturing yourself by visiting my blogs.
i never attacked anybody. it is always people who come uninvited to attack me! haven't you noticed that?
so, why do you think that i should crumble and fall on my knees because someone doesn't like my ideas? and why would it make you happy to see me losing an argument? i don't know you. and i don't believe we have any history of hostility of something.
what is this all about?
it is so unfair when i treat you with all respect, and spend time answering your points with all the sincere wills of having a decent discussion, while all you wanna do is to attack me, or prove that i am wrong!
i would have liked to answer to the points you made in your 2nd comment, honestly. at least just for the sake of others who say the same stuff.
yet, if you consider this to be a battle.. then, sorry. i have nothing to say. because i am an empty headed person who doesn't know a damn thing in the world, OK? you like that now?
please spare me this fight. i have got many people over my head who hate me for nothing, except that i am a thinking woman. you may go practice your sword game with another male out there. and fortunately the blogsphere has got plenty of them.
thanks in advance.

Arabic ID said...

dear Fantasia

Sorry, yes I am sorry if you felt so

the post I commented on which you dropped I commented blindly with my anger, of one of your commentors who said that islam is prohipting love and aginst it, which means that he needs it to be free from all, as if we aren't human and we are just in a farm of bigs, that was my comment, which I kept too small so it went strong more than I wanted and considered it to you, I remmber I didn't specify the commenter in the reply, it is a mistake of me ofcourse.

OK and you replied with a personal insult to myself.

and I commented in annonymuse with
مش هاقول أسمى
do you remmber, it was on one of your arabic blogs.

and it was decent as I remmber, the ماحدش فاهم حاجة

and I don't know the comment I mentioned you with bad words actually but I really don't use bad words or insulting except when I write blindly with anger as I am keeping my reputation on the internet as I am doing on the real life.
I find gaining new people is more valueable than losing them.

and please be sure, if I found commenting on your post is useless I will not visit it again, but even your way to trun around the questions is amazing, I am thinking it might be my bad english which keeps you from understanding me?

actually , you have a good mind and you may find that I respect your ideas.

and all what I may say to you again,
no, I respect you mind, and I keep judging myself for my faults, I don't love to keep thanking in every post everyone posts , I might say the bad sides from my points of view , try to correct information, advising, sharing, this make life on the blogs, it is called interacting, even I love the blogs which made me talk with another mind more than who just keeps telling and we just congratulate ,

please fantasia, let me say "Dear Fantasia".. don't expect hatering from me at all, it was the first accedint and it might not happen again.

the same question I asked for Dr. Eyad Harfoush and he answered it in a whole post

please read my 2nd comment again and imagine a kind and friendly smile on my face okay.

best regards fantasia.

you didn't reply on the rest of my comment.

egy anatomist said...


If gazing at women is prohibitied in Islam, and its wrongdoer is cosidered sinful who should turn to God in repentance, so what abt who practice gazing while praying?!!!!!!! How could be his punishment? What is the use of prayer if it's not able 2 shift one's mind away from sex just for few minutes??

Some people think that the female imam could be Dina or Haifa! It's like who is discussing praying behind Sa'd El soghayar or Samir Sabri! Hey.. She will be a Sheikh not a belly dancer. She won't be dressed in sexy tight clothes!! She will be a veiled modest woman who can never stir the libido of human wolves who happened 2 be praying!

Howa feeh eh

w ba3den are all the rows will see her?? it is onlt the first row:)) y3ny even not all the prayers will lose their reward.

Actually I dont think that this el Howeney made a wrong action by trying 2 manipulate ppl. This is the nature of life. Hane3mel eh? there r thousands like him. Masses dont get it in other ways! He is so clever and professional in brain washing. Seebek mn el tafaseel. Let alone all what he is saying, all of it could turn 2 the opposite if the argument needed that. The problem is in the other camp which address the uneducated masses with over-educated jargon.

Great post from a great mind which is objective, fair and balanced.

Regards Fantasia hanem

Fantasia said...

arabic id,

i can never turn down an apology. and i have to thank you for clearing things out. be sure that i have got all the good wills in the world, and that i am totally open to different opinions or critical views in what i write. this is what thinking is all about. nobody can think in a vacuum.

i tried to read your comment again while imagining a smile on your face while writing it. to tell you the truth, i found it very hard. but i did my best. now let me move on to the points you raised and the questions you asked.

first, what i mentioned about the prophet's wife was not a hadith, it was in the historical record of al-tabari, (تاريخ الطبري) and you can find it al-Tabari vol.39 p.187. You can also find it in the book "Ansab El Ashraf", and I quote it here for you:
" قال الواقدي عن ثعلبة بن أبي مالك قال : تزوج رسول الله ( ص ) امرأة من بني عامر ، فكان إذا خرج اطلعت علي أهل المسجد ، فأخبرته زوجاته بذلك ، فقال : إنكن تبغين عليها ، فقلن : نريكها و هي تتطلع ، فلما رآها فارقها ، قال الكلبي : كانت عند رسول الله العالية بنت ظبيان بن عمر بن عوف بن كلاب ، فمكثت عنده ما شاء الله ثم فارقها بسبب التطلع " .

as for pratical igmaa, actually what you said agrees with what i had told you.
ولكن عن موضوع العكس غير صحيح
فالنفى لعدم حدوث الاجماع وليس لعدم ثبوت الحل من الحرمة
which means that you can not prohibit something which never happened in the past. you can only prohibit something that was prohibited in the past.
زي ما قلت الاجماع هو اجماع على السماح أو عدم السماح بحدوث الفعل الذي له سابقة أجمع عليها الفقهاء والمجتهدين في وقتها
لكن ما ليس له سابقة تاريجية لا علاقة له بالاجماع العملي, لانه لم يعمل به في الماضي حتى يجيزوه أو يمنعوه
وأرجو أن تراجع تعريف الاجماع العملي في الفقه والتشريع

now we come to the most important part.. the verse used by sheikhs and scholars to intimidate muslims and prevent them from interpreting their religion. and the example you used is a typical way of how some of them, like el howeini and others, cut bits and pieces of the quran and attribute the meanings they want to them. exactly like cutting out the part of "wala taqrabo alsalah".

يقول تعالى "أرسلنا من قبلك إلا رجالاً نوحى إليهم فاسألوا أهل الذكر إن كنتم لا تعلمون. بالبينات والزبر وأنزلنا إليك الذكر لتبين للناس ما نزل إليهم ولعلهم يتفكرون" (النحل 43: 44

وسورة النحل هي سورة مكية, نزلت في تتحدث عن الالوهية والعقيدة والوحي. كما تدور حول دور الارادة الالهية والبشرية في الكفر والايمان. وتتناول الكون من خلال تفصيل عظمةالخالق في ابداع خلقه, لان في هذا اعمال للعقل يجعل البشر يتوصلون لوجود خالق عظيم خلف هذا الكون المحسوس والمرئي

و"الذكر" في اللغة العربية هو الكتاب الذي فيه تفصيل الدينِ ووضع المللِ، وكل كتاب من الأَنبياء، عليهم السلام، ذكر. والذكر ايضا هو الصلاة لله والدعاء إِليه والثناء عليه. وفي الحديث: "كانت الأَنبياء، عليهم السلام، إِذا حزبهم أَمر فزِعوا إِلى الذكر"، أَي إِلى الصلاة, يقومون فيصلون

والآية المشار إليها نزلت في مشركي مكة الذين أنكروا نبوة محمد (ص), وقالوا إذا كان الله يرسل رسلا فلماذا لا يرسل ملائكته, لتأكد لهم نبوة محمد عن طريق اثبات وجود رسل سابقين من بني البشر. والمقصود بهذه الآية في أول عهد الوحي هو "سؤال أهل الكتاب للتيقن من صدق الوحي الإسلامي". فكما نزل الله الذكر على محمد, فقد نزله من قبل على انبياء يتبعهم أهل الاديان السابقة على الاسلام. والله عز وجل هنا يوجه الدعوة للمشركين المتشككين في نبوة رسوله أن يسألوا أهل الكتاب ليعرفوا أن الله قد أرسل رسلا من قبل, وأرسل معهم البينات والزبر (أي الكتب, التوراة والانجيل). ثم يوجه الخطاب لمحمد عليه الصلاة والسلام, فيقول "وأنزلنا إليك الذكر", أي القرآن, "لتبين للناس ما نزل إليهم", أي لتوضح لأهل الكتاب ما سبق إنزاله إليهم من البينات والزبر "لعلهم يتفكرون

يجب أن يقرأ القرآن في سياقه يا سيدي الفاضل حتى يفهم بالشكل الصحيح

but the game of cut and paste that some scholars play with us in order to impose their own understanding. God did not mean the scholars or those who hold a certificate from al azhar.. simply because there was no azhar at the time! so who will the nonbelievers ask? will they ask el-howeini, who will be born 1400 years later?

you can check what i told you in "game3 albayan fi tafseer elquran" of al-tabari, and in "tafseer algalaleyn" of al-mahaly and al-suyouty, and in "al-kashaf" of al-zamakhshary. sure you have got at least one of them around the house, or even download them online.

you said that free thinking will only "turn it into a lot of religions". and i totally disagree, it is them who tore Islam into many different religions. i am not talking about sunni and shiite, i really dare you to find today any 2 muslims who have exactly the same understanding of religion. there is a sheikh for every person nowadays, and each sheikh is coming up with his own interpretation of religion and forces it on the people using brainwash or other mind manipulating tools, just like this sheikh that i featured here.

they are the ones who made a thousand different versions of our religion. Islam never had mediators. Islam was meant to be a religion between God and his worshipers, with no priesthood involved. It is the religion of the free thinkers, not the masses blindly leading their brainwashers.

i certainly hope i made my point clear. and i really wish that by now you can see the sincerity of my aims, which have absolutely nothing to do with displaying superiority or arrogance. i am human. i can commit mistakes. and i have to keep thinking to correct them. following others will only lead me to more mistakes. and throwing the blame of error on another person's shoulder won't do me any good. i have to think as long as i am alive.

best regards

Fantasia said...

egy anatomist bek,

i don't know what to say. you really spoke my mind.
but i guess men will be furious at you for saying that Haifa won't be an imam :)

oh my God! i don't know what people are thinking, honestly. i got a real video showing a very respectable and modest woman leading prayers without a single man looking at her, and still their imagination is going towards how her ass will look when she bends! i believe men want to reflect a very bad image of themselves. i don't know why!
i mean, those who want to give the impression that they are ready to get aroused 24/7 and that nothing on earth or in heaven can stop them from being sexual are really giving all the male species a bad name! what is the purpose of that?

women will not be stopped. even if they succeeded to hinder their movement here, they can't stop them from making a change worldwide. women are having an education now, and as long as this is happening, they will never stop realizing that they are human beings and that their minds are equal to their male peers.

women in egypt will have their freedom one day. they had it once and they will have it again. that is the movement of history. no one can stop that. these are universal values and urges.

men have done much damage to the religious institution already, and can assure all men that no more damage can be done! women won't find something to ruin, believe me.
the only possibility is that they may reform and enhance the religious instituion after ages of male domination and sabotage.

thanks dear anatomist for your great input. hope men would change their minds after what you said.

Arabic ID said...


Thanks a lot for your reply,

I am an ordinary person, but I hold the feelings of committing to Allah and to Islam as every believer of Islam.

as you said I am one of the masses..

raaasa said...

and now some men are up in arms about the first female maazoun:

Fantasia said...

oh my God!

thanks dear raaasa for the link. this makes my next post for sure.

Anonymous said...

"There is nothing in Quran or Sunnah that prohibits women from becoming imams or giving Friday sermons, and that is more than enough. Sharia states that it is the default for everything to be halal (allowed by God), unless there is a holy verse stating elsewise."

You are mistaken. When it comes to religious matters it is the other way around. You are not allowed to introduce anything into the faith as it becomes an innovation. And every bidah is in hellfire.

It is odd that you would belittle the Imam yet have no issue in supporting a woman who as can be seen has a weak grasp of the Arabic language, which is a necessity. Also the man in the video is not the only one, many scholars condemn this act.

Your post shows much ignorance in Islam and its laws. You should take your own advice and stop following others or in this case your own desires and learn about the faith before making such inaccurate claims.

"I'd ask you now to watch this video and then tell me: Would you rather have Al Howeini or this woman (or anyone like her) as your imam in prayer? Please let's try to be honest and fair. "

I will. Her recitation is worse than mine which is saying something. And the Muadhin was mousy and pathetic. Both are nothing but charlatans. I would prefer the man.

This act is not an act of faith but an act of trying to attain power. There is more than enough hadith that say women pray behind men, yet in the video you see women and men intermingling.

Talk about building a house of cards.

The women behind this are to the ilk of Amina Wadud who reject parts of the Quran as it does not suit her feminist sensibilities. They are not fond of Sharia also it seems. As to rejecting verses from the Quran, this makes one an apostate according to the Quran.

Muslim view is this:
"It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter that they should have any choice in their affair."

Anyway here is a religious rejection in detail (5 parts)

And another fun read a bit of background reading

So here is reading for those blind masses. Just make sure you are not one of them.

So here is reading for those blind masses. Just make sure you are not one of them.

-Soliloquy Guy

"When I dare to be powerful - to use my strength in the service of my vision, then it becomes less and less important whether I am afraid" - Audre Lorde