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.