The Victimization of Egyptian Women and Children

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Somethings are just beyond belief! And I seriously wish that what Egypt has been witnessing lately is just one long bad dream. Don't know what to do if this nightmare doesn't end. Excuse my sad, or rather depressed, tone.. but I am extremely shocked, and on many levels.

Let's start with the child rights laws, which have been the subjects of many debates in Egypt lately. This led to some amendments and now the articles are being discussed once more, faced by huge resistance led by.. of course you know who.. the Muslim Brotherhood! Unfortunately, now that they have occupied 88 seats in the Egyptian parliament, they can object to such laws.. not only so, but the huge media controls they own, as well as those that surrender to their influence, enables them to disfigure anything they object to, and represent it in the most horrible attire to the masses who have come to consider them as their trusted source of information and ready made judgements.

Why am I writing about child rights? Well, there are a number of laws that mainly target the rights of a female child. Pardon me, I feel stupid when I call them rights.. let's say discontinuing violations against young girls, from FGM to early marriages. But that is not the only reason.


I don't know how to explain it to those of you who are not familiar with the Egyptian society (or Arab societies in general), yet let me try. Women here, in spite of of their utter vulnerability, are expected to bear full responsibility of their children. This responsibility may or may not include the financial one. Yet, even if the financial aspect is included, a woman is not supposed to take credit for it.. as opposed to the man, who is automatically perceived of as the bread earner, the hero who toils to provide for his family.

Take this as an example. A typical Egyptian mother is supposed to get as many children as her husband wants. She doesn't have a say in this. This is a man's decision to make. If he asks for more kids, his wish must be granted, or else.. and this "else" includes horrible options.. needless to say, all of which are totally controlled by the man, for he can decide to divorce his wife or desert her or have a second wife. So, to make a story short, that's why a woman has to keep producing babies into this world until her husband decides that he's had enough.

Then, she becomes responsible for nourishing those kids, upbringing them alone (just like a single mom) looking after their health, taking them to school, helping with their homework (if she is educated|), besides her regular chores of course, and satisfying her husband in every possible way. Which means, that basically this woman never gets a chance to have any time for herself.

Now, what if she is married to a cruel man.. or worse, a psycho.. which is not a rare case? He has the right to beat her and her children as severely as he wishes. No criminal charges can be directed against him, unless one of them dies as a result of this beating. And yes, it is allowed in our legal system. And yes, you guessed it right, because some crazy sadistic men have claimed that this is an authorized tool for disciplining a man's wife and children in Islam! Which is absolutely not true.

This woman, even if she has a job, is never encouraged to leave her husband. Even if you are married to a psycho or a drug addict, society expects you to stay in this marriage for the sake of "the children". Black comedy.. but true.. she is stuck with this psycho and her children have to pay the price, until either this man dies a natural death, or one of them ends up being murdered. Then this man is put to jail and the other members of the family, who are already ruined by then, can continue their lives without neither upsetting the society nor being tortured by the father (being in prison).

At last, in the year 2008, and for the first time, new laws are being endorsed to protect child rights in Egypt. Those laws include:

1- Prohibiting the practice of FGM and considering it a criminal act which deserves to be punished by law. ( Yes, up till now FGM is not considered a criminal act. It is prohibited at public hospitals, and the ministry of health forbids any registered doctors from doing the procedure. But there can be no charges against those who break the rule. 2 girls have recently lost their lives while undergoing FGM, and those who operated on them were not charged with anything.)

Bedour, lost her life while undergoing FGM

2- Considering severe beating of a child by his/her parents to be a violation against child rights, and therefore authorities will have the right to place charges against the parent in case of severe injuries and causing disabilities.

3- Raising the age of marriage for females to 18, and any female under this age can not have a legal marriage certificate. (Early marriages are usually arranged by the parents who wish to get rid of the responsibility of their daughters or force them to marry for money.)

4-Giving a mother the right to register her child on her name in cases of illegal children, where the father refuses to give his name to his own child outside marriage. (Currently, there are 120,000 cases of illegal children in Egyptian courts. By law, even if a DNA test relates a child to his parent, the man can still refuse to give his name to his child, as long as there is no official marriage certificate bonding him with the mother. Moreover, a man cannot be forced to take a DNA test in those cases. If he refuses to take it, then nothing can be done.)

Now, imagine this.. The MB objects to all those laws saying the following:

1- FGM should be left as a matter of choice. If parents wish to preserve the "chastity" of their daughters through this procedure, then it is their way of protecting her and deciding what is good for her! Therefore, they claim, by closing the legal doors, they will still do it (as if this is a matter of fact that we have to live with) even if they resort to unprofessional physicians, nurses or "hala' elseha" or "daya".

2- The Muslim Brotherhood considers corporal punishment ban "imported from west", saying that it is an authorized method of disciplining children according to Islam, and building on the hadith "Order your children to pray at the age of seven, beat them for it at the age of ten, and let males and females take separate beds." (The hadith didn't mean to beat a child until death. Severe beating is prohibited in all cases, while minor rebuking back at that time before any other methods of parenting or discipline were introduced was permitted in the case of reminding a kid to pray.). Then the other hadith, which they present in the worst version I've ever seen is "Play with them (your children) for seven (years), beat them for seven, befriend them for seven, and then let them be." Now, this hadith, if it is a real one (I've never seen it anywhere except on their websites) was never said with the verb "beat" edrabohom, but the versions I saw before either had the verb "discipline" adebohom or "educate" 3alemohom in its place. It does not make sense at all when you relate it to what we know about how prophet Muhammed brought up his children, besides the crazy and brutal message behind it. Seriously, those people are cursing their religion!

3- Again, as always, they like the idea of kids getting married. Don't know what those sick people are thinking! And they keep making pathetic excuses for it. How can a girl under 18 be responsible for a family, for God's sake? What are they benefiting by causing more men to rape kids in the name of a legal marriage? Yes, this is rape. Straight and inhuman rape, no matter what the papers say. How come a kid who can not even have a bank account or a driving license be able to get married??!! If I can't be responsible for some money bills or a car made of metal, how come I am allowed to be responsible for a family and raise children while I am legally a child? Who on earth would want a girl under this age to get married? and for what purpose? This is way too much!

4- Yeah, the usual talk. Leave the illegal children in the streets. We have one million homeless children in the streets?.. so what? Let them double or triple.. not a problem. But a child can never have the name of his/her mother. A child whose father is an animal must pay for it for a lifetime. But the animal has to be protected, because he's a man. Now that's a heavenly privilege that no one can touch. He is the god on earth. He chooses whether to give his children a life or execute them. A child whose father is unwilling to give him a name, can never have a life. The god on earth has decided his fate.. so leave the kid to meet it.

Yeah.. yeah. Great macho men! So, this is religion, huh? We are supposed to buy this, aren't we? So, Islam for you is a religion that rewards sadists, psychos and brutal men, while it punishes women and children, the scum of earth, right? Now, let me see this clearly. According to you, we are worshiping a sick man in the sky.. for this being you are claiming to talk on behalf of can never be a deity of any kind.. he can not raise to the level of the human even! What a bunch of psychos you are! I bet that the devil himself has got more ethics than you do.

Take a look at what the MB makes of this here.

Egyptian Men.. Wutz Up with You?

Egypt men say 'I don't' to woman marriage registrar

CAIRO (AFP) — The appointment this week of Egypt's first woman able to conduct Muslim marriages has sparked controversy in the religious country, particularly from men who see their status being challenged.

Amal Soliman, 32, is the first woman in the Middle East and possibly the Muslim world to be authorised to perform wedding ceremonies and sign marriage and divorce contracts.
Straddling the worlds of bureaucracy and religion -- two pillars of Egyptian society -- the graduate in civil and criminal law said she is "more qualified" than her colleagues to perform the function of "maazun".

Justice Minister Mamduh Mari stressed that Soliman's nomination depended on her abilities rather than on her gender, but it has raised eyebrows and anger on the streets in the male-dominated Arab country.

"I completely reject the idea," Mahmud Ali, a bearded 40-year-old, told AFP in Cairo. "There must be religious texts forbidding this... there are also obstacles on a social level, she would always take the woman's side."

"This idea won't spread, it's a one-off and it won't last."
Ahmed Abdel Rehim declared simply: "A woman cannot do this job. I would never have a female maazun at my wedding."

But officials, eager to portray an image of equality, welcomed the decision.
"I'm not shocked at all, it's a purely legal job, reading Koranic verses and conducting a marriage," said Ali Saman, former head of Al-Azhar University's religious dialogue committee.
"A maazun is a judicial assistant, a notary... so it's a job that women can do."

In 2005, US-based Amina Wadud sparked controversy in the Muslim world, including in Egypt, when she led prayers in New York, with some clerics saying it went against Islamic doctrine.
"A female imam (who leads prayers in a mosque) is different, that's to be debated by specialists but a female maazun who signs and officialises a marriage certificate there's no problem," he said.

"There are no religious texts banning a Muslim woman from being a maazun," said Al-Azhar's deputy director Sheikh Fawzi Zafzaf. "But when a woman is menstruating she must not enter a mosque or read Koranic verses and that will affect her job, so for this reason we say it is not advisable to have a woman maazun."

Women's rights in Egypt have a long and occasionally rocky history. Egyptian women were allowed to vote and stand for office in 1956. But they are notable in their absence from Egyptian courtrooms, even those dealing with family law. A first group of 30 women judges was authorised to practice in March 2007.

"Islam guarantees women's rights, whatever is said about the inferiority of women is a lie," said Zafzaf.

"Why not support women?" said Shawkiya Rawash, in her 50s. "If she can be an example to follow, if she manages to do her job well, why not? I'm in favour."
.................................................................................


And I'm in favor too, Shawkiya. Thank you so much. But, you know what? Egyptian men seem to have got issues with this..

Now, let's speak seriously, please guys. What's up with you, men? Huh?

Al-Azhar seems to me to be so messed up on this subject. And unfortunately, I've been one miserable victim who watched this issue being debated live on Egyptian TV. Gotta tell you.. I just felt SICK of all the biased trash I heard.

I've talked about this before in my comment on EFC's first post here. And I told her about Al-Azhar's unjustified objection to the court sentence in this case back then. This woman, Amal Soliman, has earned her basic rights through a long needless battle with the justice system. And even after that, the judge was reluctant, and he insisted that an official approval by the Fatwa Committee of Al-Azhar is a must for Amal to get her legal rights in holding her job.

I saw Amal Soliman on TV.. She is such a decent woman, and she has got all what it takes to have this job. She holds a masters degree in law, and her work experience has enabled her to beat 10 male candidates in order to become maazun. Moreover, she faced lots of unjustifiable complications, and was deprived of her right to start practicing her new job. But she didn't give up. She fought for her right. She filed a lawsuit against her employers, and got a court sentence in her favor. So.. Why the hell had Al-Azhar's committee denied her permission to get that job, and why the hell did they suddenly change their minds?

And please allow me to ask, WHAT THE HELL is Al-Azhar's deputy director saying?!!

I'm sorry. With all my respect to Al-Azhar and its men.. But this man doesn't seem to make any sense in his speech. And I am sorry to repeat his meaningless and contradictory statements down here.

He said, "There are no religious texts banning a Muslim woman from being a maazun."
Right.. Then why did Al-Azhar reject Mrs. Soliman's request the first time? And how can they forbid what God Himself has not forbidden? How can anyone dare to ban something, on religious basis, although God has never banned it?

OK.. Let's assume that they realized they were mistaken. Now, check out what Sheikh Zafzaf says right after: "But when a woman is menstruating she must not enter a mosque or read Koranic verses and that will affect her job, so for this reason we say it is not advisable to have a woman maazun."

Wait a minute! Did I just read this again? I really wish this is just a bad dream.. But did this man actually say "it is not advisable to have a woman maazun"? Come on! Are we kidding here or what?

Or.. Are we playing some kind of a very old game that men are never tired of playing? They give you something by one hand, and take it by the other.

Zafzaf, haven't you learned in Al-Azhar that lying is haram? I mean, this is a lesson we learn in 1st primary.. Yet, in your case, I assume that lying is not a good thing to do at all, since you are Al-Azhar's deputy director! Who are you speaking to please now? God or society?.. Or the beduin patriarchal society, to be more specific?

Zafzaf, you know that the maazun's job has got nothing to do with the mosque. And you know that the prayers said at the wedding are part of the cermony, not the legal process of writing and officiating the marriage certificate. Thus, you are misleading people - on purpose - to make them believe that this woman will actually hold the hands of the groom and the bride's father under a white handkerchief to recite the usual lines said at the wedding ceremony. Isn't this a lie Zafzaf? Aren't you twisting facts A LOT here? Isn't this a very bad and cheap con job?

And then you dare say, "whatever is said about the inferiority of women is a lie"!!.. Man, you've just said that this woman's period will affect her job!

Now, this is a double lie. You've discriminated against this woman, and all other women who would want to have the same job.. You've told people not to hire this woman for their weddings, for God's sake! And then you go ahead saying "the inferiority of women is a lie"?! That's way too much.. Seriously.

Zafzaf.. I'm sorry, but you don't belong to a respectable religious institution like Al-Azhar. You rather belong with some male chauvinistic movement . You are a disgrace to the position you hold, really. You deform Islam to satisfy your male buddies.

Thumbs down Azhar!.. Both thumbs down!.. And I will tell all my family and friends to hire this woman for their weddings. Shame on you men.


* I'd like to thank Raaasa for inspiring this post and providing the AFP link

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.

Living in a Patriarchal Society

Throughout human history and in all ancient societies women were a significant driving force in sustaining the development of their community, safeguarding resources, educating youth and ensuring continuity of social, cultural and historical heritage values. Although this role is not explicitly stated in ancient texts, the impact and influence of women is evident by implied symbolism in mythology, as well as the presence of ancient goddesses in ancient religions. For various reasons discussed before, societies gradually changed, and began following the patriarchal rather than the matrilineal model. A closer look at all societies worldwide would lead us to believe that most if not all are now, or were at one point of time completely patriarchal in nature. At one point of time, when physical strength was more important than intelligence, a patriarchal society was the solution to the way society was set up. It was survival of the fittest, and males fought among themselves to achieve dominance. It was not very fair for women, but the harsh living conditions, and aggression of males belonging to other tribes dedicated what was required to survive, and women agreed to live in these primitive patriarchal societies, as a way of ensuring their own survival. Before modern feminism and as far back as the late middle ages, women were not satisfied with their rights in their societies, however their efforts were not organized, so had minimal impact on the status of women in society.



In patriarchal societies, most men felt that they needed to compete together, and women were not even part of the equation. At the same time, women had the additional burden of child bearing, and rearing children which made it difficult for them to advance their status, or their society as a whole. As time passed, and new inventions came up every day, and human's use for muscles decreased. A sudden shift were intelligence became more important than physical strength happened, and women found a place where they were able to compete with men, and sometimes even excel. For the first time in modern history women found their niche... their way of integrating with society, contributing to the progress of humanity, and regaining their previous respected status. The term "feminism" was coined in the late 19th century. The first wave of modern feminism started in the 19th-early 20th century, mainly giving women the right to vote. This was a worldwide movement but unfortunately had very little impact on the middle east ( some countries like Saudi still don't allow women to vote, and when Kuwait allowed women to vote a few years ago, men called television stations complaining that they feel it is unacceptable to "release women out into the streets" to go vote.) Many women began getting an education, but the patriarchal society dictated that a woman's priority should be marriage, usually at a young age, and with marriage came children... one after the other. The multiple children in a short period of time adversely affected women's health, and most were still unable to compete in society, because they had bigger responsibilities to handle, namely their 12 or 13 children! The patriarchal society model was still being followed despite the fact that women and men were of equal intelligence. The real revolution happened with the invention of the birth control pills in 1960, despite the many adverse effects initially found, they adjusted the doses, and found a dose sufficient for birth control without harming women. This is how the second wave of feminism took place in the 60's-80's. This wave involved equalities of laws and of culture. The third wave of feminism is from the 90's until today, and it is mainly a continuation of the work done by the first 2 waves.

By looking at this short history, one can see that with progress, came the chance for women to be treated as equals, so equal rights for women are an equivalent to how civilized a country is, and how far they have come from the primitive patriarchal societies that once existed. You will also notice that women were never given their rights easily, they had to fight and work hard for them. In the world we live in, religion plays a big part of most peoples' life. Everyone wants to follow their religion carefully, so they will eventually be rewarded and go to heaven. The patriarchal interpretation of religion has been a very large obstacle for women, especially because they wanted to stay within the boundaries set by religion, and they never once questioned the interpretation or how certain rules or restrictions were imposed. With progress and the dramatic increase of educated and free thinking women, many began thinking "outside the box". Some people began questioning points they felt were unfair, and they believed that God would never be unfair to the people he created. They started reading, and many came up with conclusions that they believe contradicted earlier interpretations. These women felt that their own interpretations represented God's word and not an ancient ideology of people's mixed interpretations a thousand years ago. They have found that women were grossly underrepresented in religious institutions, and that when a text is open to individual interpretation, it is usually interpreted from a man's point of view, which may be unfair to these women.



Although women are educated about religion just as much as men, and some even graduate from Al-Azhar university with degrees in religion, so their religious knowledge surpasses that of the average sheikh in a local mosque, women have been denied the right to preach religion in mosques, or to lead prayers. Even worse than that is that women are discouraged from, and rarely pray at the mosque. They are told that it is best for them to pray at home, while the men go to the mosque to pray. In the mosques that allow women to come in to pray, women usually are given a small corner in the back, so they pray behind the men. Women are taught that this is their place, and they should never question the validity of this blatant display of misogyny. Some go as far as considering any discussion of this subject as blasphemy. The idea of a woman imam was unheard of and ridiculed. Any woman who dared think of such a ridiculous act was deemed immoral and irreligious. The Hanafi interpretation of Islam allows a woman to lead a female only congregation, but if a male is present, regardless of his age, social status, education or knowledge, he should be the leader in prayer. There is no frank Koranic text that prohibits a woman imam, but again it is the patriarchal interpretation that refuses to see a woman lead in any way, including prayer.
The only hadith that unequivocally states that women may not lead mixed congregations is Ibn Majah (Kitab iqamat is-salat was-sunnati fiha) #1134, narrated through Jabir ibn Abdullah: "A woman may not lead a man in Prayer, nor may a Beduin lead a believer of the muhajirun or a corrupt person lead a committed muslim in Prayer." So again this hadeeth equated a religious pious woman to a corrupt person, or a non believer. The blatant misogyny expressed in this hadeeth is not fit to be a saying of the prophet, who clearly respected women, and one if his sayings actually tells people to learn their religion from 3a2esha. "You can learn half your religion from this rosy-cheeked girl." He therefore encouraged people to consult her in religious matters, and after his death she became one of the major sources of Hadith. It is clear that the prophet respected her opinion, and trusted her ability to preach religion and teach others about it, which is what an imam does during the Friday sermon and prayers. The conclusion is that the prophets actions contradict the saying of the hadith forbidding women to be imams. Religious scholars have also stated that "The eminent scholars of Hadith say that the chain of reporters of this hadith is extremely weak, and hence, it is not to be taken as evidence in the question in hand." In conclusion, no religious text forbids a woman from becoming an Imam in any prayer, or from preaching religious sermons. It is also clear that the one factor that stops women from practicing their religion in the way they choose is society, and the patriarchal ideology that society tries to disguise in a religious form.

In recent years, women have become more active on this front, and many examples can be found worldwide of how women stood up to the decaying old traditions, and attempted to regain their rights which they were originally given by religion. In 1994 a woman named Amina Wadud became the first woman in South Africa to deliver the Friday sermon, at the Claremont Main Road Mosque in Cape town. In 2003, a new venue for Eid prayer was established in Durban by a group of individuals and was later taken on by an organisation called Taking Islam to the People . To date there are 5 women who offer the Friday sermons at this venue. In Canada in 2005 and 2006, many women preached on Fridays, and led mixed gender prayers. These events were organized by The United Muslim Association in Toronto, Canada. This organization is determined to continue this practice of having women delivering the sermons and leading prayer.The United States also has its own activists, who started in March of 2005 to lead prayers, despite the uproar of the assembly of Muslim jurists of America, who issued a fatwa banning the practice, totally disregarding religious facts,and acting only based on their patriarchal ideology. The women also received bomb threats, and the venue where the prayers were to be held was changed to avoid violent extremist reactions. These events all took place in non Muslim countries, who gave these women enough space and freedom to practice their religion in ways they felt was acceptable to God's words.


The sad part is the events in "Islamic" countries, who have the available resources of understanding religion, and speak the very language the Koran uses to teach Islam. In Bahrain in 2004, a 40 year old woman attempted to deliver the Friday sermon in one of the biggest mosques there. This took place on the last Friday of Ramadan. The would-be Imam was wearing full male dress with an artificial beard and moustache. The mosque was packed with 7000 worshippers. When she sat in front of the people just before she was to deliver the sermon, some worshippers realised that the new imam was a woman in disguise. They and the mosque's imam, Sheikh Adnan Al-Qattan , handed her over to the police who arrested her. The reaction of the worshippers as well as that of the police was uncalled for. This is in addition to the fact that the voice of a woman working alone can never be loud enough to impact a patriarchal society. Had this woman had enough support from her peers, she would not have had to resort to drastic measures to practice a right she believes that she has. Had the worshippers been more open minded and more respectful and understanding, they would have discussed the matter with her rather than called law enforcement. Had the police officers enough respect for women, they would not have arrested her for attempting to deliver a sermon in a mosque, which is not an illegal act.
In India, a Muslim woman named Daud Sharifa runs a 3,000-strong network to help Muslim women. She believes that a mosque for women is one way of relieving the many sufferings of Muslim Indian women who have to submit to "community rulings" of mosques which are run by males, and women have no say in how the rulings are made, women are also not allowed to enter most mosques in the area.. Many of the women feel that the rulings are biased against women who have been divorced, abandoned and mistreated by their husbands. The mosque is basically run by women, but prayers are open to everyone. Although this is not against God's teachings, it has caused an uproar from religious figures. After this news was published on an Arabic website, the reactions of the Muslim men were astounding. They have ranged from outrage to anger to redicule and insults, with very few supporters.

My conclusion is that in order for women to live free and have equal rights in our society, religion has to be understood in its true form, devoid of any patriarchal or misogynist ideology. Then, and only then will men support the rights of their mothers, sisters, wives and daughters. This will only be accomplished if women stand up for themselves and their beliefs, and never give in to a society that undermines their efforts or initiatives. It will also work only if women are united so their voices can be heard. {13:11 Truly, God will never change the condition of a people until they change it themselves (with their own souls)} .

Sabaya: When Women Discriminate Against Women!

This bomb exploded right in my face when I entered Forsoothsayer's blog. She received a forwaded e-mail advertising Hanan Turk's café. Warning: Don't read on if you have any heart condition or high blood pressure.

Plz forward to girls and women you know might be interested
At last a place where Muslim GIRLZ can hang out
Sabaya is a very nice place . .nice food and drinks . .no music played . .entrance is only allowed for femalesso it's is really safe for montaqebat . .
it's owned by Hanan Tork . . and Ahmad El Sakka's wife ( Mohammad El So3'ayyar's daughter ) . .so . . it's a cafe and hairdresser . . and also they sell mo7aggabat stuff . . praying carpets . . and gifts :))
ALL IN ONE ;)
Address: 6 Meet 3'amr street . . Midan Safir . . Masr El Gedida.if u know the street that has Cook Door / McDonald's / Oriflame /Smiley's ) . . it's behind McDonald's . . when u see McD . . go right. . then left . . Sabaya will be on ur left . . isA
Tel: 2240 2223 - 2240 2229
Advantges of SABAYA café
1- You have the freedom of taking your veil/neqab off.
2- Meeting muslim girls who are willing to get closer to Allah.
3- Increasing your 'so7ba sale7a circle'.
4-Getting the opportuinity of being inspired by real stories by the same girls you meet.
5-You can have parties.
6-Learn how to shun sin...since You won't be exposed to songs or movies JUST CARTOONS AND RELIGIOUS SHOWS.
7- Get to meet Hanan Turk. heheheheheheheheheheheh
8-Enjoy the feeling that you'r making everything which is not allowed outdoors and Allah won't be mad at you :D..

P.S. Attending sabaya will be very useful from both the life and religious prespective, since YOu will be helping in changing the wrong perceptions about both Neqabis/ Hegabis that were already inheritied ages ago. Help in renewing a new age of respectful, effective, lively , happy with their commitment to Islam :) EGYPTIAN LADIES.:) nOthing is impossible.. May Allah grant us His Mercy and sincerity

-- First please Don't invite Christian girls , because they aren'tallowed to the place.. Second inform all your friends that if the number of visitors increased remarkably in the coming year..inshAllah next year they may be able to open a branch in mohandesen or down town ..We ARE IN DIRE NEED OF A PLACE THAT CONTAINS US 'NEQABIS' OR 'HEGABIS' SO PLEASE THINK BEFORE U GO ANYOTHER CAFE ;)

That was the email published by Forsoothsayer. Then I read a post written by Sandmonkey who has asked a female co-worker to call this place and demand whether this was true. The café confirmed all the above information and added that enterance is only allowed to Hejabis and Niqabis (new terms which refer to women wearing veils or niqab). Both bloggers commented thoroughly on this ridiculous new business, so there is no need for me to say any more about it. I would rather try place this example where it belongs in the bigger picture.

The worst kind of discrimination that a woman faces is that which comes from another woman. As human nature goes, women are not all the same. Their inferior social, cultural and financial position, have caused them to split into two separate teams:

1- There are those who look at their current state and wonder why they have to put up with all the injustice and domination. Those could be: a) smart, talent females who were sick of all kinds of obstacles thrown into their way and the heavy pressure imposed on them which threatens to rob them off any advantages their skills allow; b) females who reject their local culture and are rebellious against oriental or conservative traditions; c) very conservative females who enjoy a strong character and who only wish for a limited margin of freedom where they can practice leadership (or let's say exercising their influence).

Women who belong to this team, with all its diversity, are pushing society forward. They all walk in the same direction. Some of them may stop after a few steps, some of them may go too far.. but they are all heading forward and they all desire a change which joins hands with the movement of history.

2- There are those who look at their current state and accept it. They don't feel there is anything wrong with being an inferior, because they were made to believe that this is the law of nature. Those could be: a) educated females who don't have any exceptional qualities or talents, and thus do not have the urge for achieving something on a large scale, being contented with their traditional roles; b) ignorant or semi-educated females who are oblivious of their rights or any alternatives better than what their local community dictates; c) religious extremists who believe that as females they should imitate the early women of faith and stand against all modern claims of liberation or independence.

Again, women who belong to the second team, with all its diversity, are pulling the whole society backwards. They all walk in the same direction. Some of them may stop after a few steps, some of them may go too far.. but they are all heading backwards and they are all against a change which joins hands with the movement of history.

[For those of you who are interested in a more general social analysis, the current scene as described above may appear to be having gaps. You may wish to include men and see where they stand. I tell you that women give birth to men. Even if they don't lead them, there is still an invisible umbilical cord tying them together. Therefore, men are also divided among those two teams, with some variation when it comes to motives and characteristics. Yet at the end, we will be looking at the same scene.]

Now, let me get back to my subject.. Women Against Women.. or call it women against themselves, if you like.. Those two teams (described above) are in constant interaction inside society. Each team affects and is in turn affected by the other. That is the law of nature which exists in all societies. However, what makes the difference between advanced and retarded societies is the quality of interaction taking place within a certain society. In order to measure that, we have to break down the factors which administrate the interaction in question.

Healthy social interactions, especially between opposing groups, have to be governed by tolerance, mutual respect, dialogue, flexibility and acceptance. I don't think you need to read any further to know the result, as there is no surprise involved. Of course when we put female interaction in our society to the test, we'll find out that none of those factors exist. Even when we can catch a rare glimpse of them, we find them practiced by a few individuals, who mainly belong to the first team (those moving forward). But those few incidences do not by any means reflect a general trend, or even that of a limited considerable group of people. And don't forget that the division of teams is not equal. In fact, today's Egypt is witnessing a rapid increase in the number of the second team (those moving backwards) at the expense of the first. This means that the force of those pulling backwards is much greater than the eager attempts of those pushing society forward. The imbalance in this equation along with the absence of a healthy interactive environment put us in a very critical situation. Mmmmmmmm.. I have to say that what takes place between those teams is not interaction at all. Calling it an interaction would be ridiculously false, for these two teams are basically having a clash.

I want to be as objective as you've always found me. Therefore, allow me to say that the case with Egyptian women is devastating! Many of those who are pro-change, in spite of being relatively open-minded and more flexible, find it very hard to live up to their ideals in practice. You can find them rejecting the others, or criticizing their beliefs, or addressing them from above, or making fun of their choices, or acting repulsively towards them, or insulting their brains. I don't understand it!.. This is totally against what they are calling for. How do you expect people to accept you when you are not even willing to view them as equals? How can you possibly convince them with the necessity of change? How is this going to serve your positive aims? I am against women staying at home. I want all women to join the workforce and take an active part in the development of their country. But I have to respect women who willingly chose not to work. I will do my best to present my argument, and if they still are not convinced, then I have to accept them as they are. What good will rejecting them do?

I know that most of you reading this are going like,"Hey, are you really saying that we are the bad guys here? It's all our fault now? We are the ones who have no tolerance?" Before you start throwing empty bottles or anything, let me tell you that I'm not saying that at all. I had to begin with you because you are the ones who are calling for change. Therefore, I can't stop expecting more from you. There should be more patience and a sincere desire for communicating with the Other. They have some excuse if they don't abide by the proper rules of interaction, but what excuse do you have?

It is evident that the major problem lies in the method followed by the second team in its reaction to the first. We're talking massive collision here. Not only don't they have respect for the others, but they also show it with open hostility. Where do I start?.. Shall I recount the details of how they always try to stain the image of free-thinkers and feminists? Or shall I talk about their insistence to summarize women into their physical bodies? Or shall I describe the way by which they associate ethics with clothes? Or shall I be brave enough to say that to them, basically all women who belong to the first team are morally inferior? I really don't want to go through those tragic facts. It is the worst way of rejection. No, it is worse than rejection itself. So.. let me stop here.

The conflict at hand would not be resolved out of its own. We can't wish for a miracle to make it disappear. Part of the solution lies in our hands. Let's create a healthy environment for interaction between those two wings, or else the results will be destructive for everybody. There is nothing wrong with being different. As a matter of fact, there should be difference for life to go on. Difference is an essential part of our existence. But when difference creates a thick wall that separates us and prevents us from having a healthy society, it becomes harmful. We can not wipe away difference from existence.. We can not throw all those who differ with us in the sea.. We have to learn to live together.. I am sorry to use "learn".. I would rather have used "remember", because we actually used to live together, and we actually used to support positive change and progress in spite of our differences. But, since we have lost the tools which enabled us to do this in the past, then we have to learn from the start and create new tools.

As women, we are all second-class. We all sip the bitterness of discrimination and inequality. It is such a shame that instead of joining hands to regain our human condition, we are allowing our differences to blindfold us and distract our efforts away from the main target. It is such a shame to turn against each other and seek to make more divisions. It is such a shame to see women practicing discrimination against other women. It is such a shame when we split into groups and form exclusive clubs. It is such a shame when women seek isolation from other women. And today I publish this pathetic example to ring a bell.. Is there anybody listening?