'' Our Lord ! grant us good in this world and good in the hereafter and save us from the torment of the Fire '' [Ameen]
-
{in Arab} :->
Rabbanaa aatinaa fid-dunyaa hasanatan wafil aakhirati hasanatan waqinaa 'athaaban-naar/-
(Surah Al-Baqarah ,verse 201)
Share 
Assalam o alaikum
This question was actually raised in one of my readings for a Women in
Islam class. It is I think raised in anarticle (by a Western scholar
named Denise Spellberg) the reason why I am presenting this question
is so thatI can present Islam in abetter way in a Western classroom
setting.
In the article I read for class, in the jist of it the author bring up
issues like this was an example and after this women never
involvedthemselves in politics. And Hazrat Aisha's act of going into
war was achieved partly from her Jahilia days independence for women
but in the end Islamic values overcame and everyone looked downupon
Aisha's involvement in the war, demonstrating how once a woman tried
to achieve an equal status but it was put down by conservative Islamic
thought. There was also the incident where Harun ar Rashid's wife,
when her son was killed, was asked to follow the example of Aisha and
avenge the son's death but she said it was no place for women to take
political avenges and therefore she mourned and stayed put. The
underlying message in this was that what Hazrat Aishadid was an
anomaly in Islam.
Connected to this is, is also the concept of fitna:
There is hadith where it is said that there is no fitna that harms men
more than women or something along the lines, that she basically
clouds men wisdom. A Westerner would say why is this so patronizing?
Why can'tthe man be a fitna for being so weak, or stupid or whatever
for falling for women and not using his "perfect" wisdom. Like why is
there a constant thing about women lacking aql?
And then if we are to look at Qur'an the article says that Queen of
Sheba was looked down upon in Qur'an for her ignorance of the true
faith. So the article claims that Qur'an is not against women being
involvedin politics and it was Prophet (saw)'s personal desire or
bias(astaghfirullah I have to be saying something I do not believe in)
that he wanted his wives to besecluded and thereforethe ayahs about
their seclusion came and then this is what is taken as the basis of
keeping women at home and not involvedin politics.
Now I do understand that a woman's first place is at home. But if we
think of it from an outsider's perspective, I wonder what would be a
logical answer that I can place in frontof feminist or secular Western
women and say ok so this is actually the case. I am really confused.
Why does it sound like we women are made stupid?
Answer:
In the Name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
Dear Sister,
Please refer to my previous answer in response to your question about
women's intelligence.
Once again, it is important to consider multiple interpretive
possibilities when assessing problematic hadith. By problematic I mean
hadith which appear to discriminate against women. I don't mean that
these hadith should be rejected. On the contrary, I believe they
should be studied further as a means to deepening one's own
understanding of women in Islam.
I have several concerns when it comes to presenting Islam to secular
Western feminists. They come with their own set of preconceived
notions about Muslim women that often involve some notion of
liberating Muslim women from oppressive Muslim men. Many Western
feminists are loathe to examine Muslim's women's status within the
context of Muslim's social, cultural, and legal history. Instead, many
Western women like to impose hegemonic notions of Western cultural
superiority on the Muslim tradition, resulting in a stifling of the
Muslim female voice and alternative readings of the tradition.
I don't buy the idea that women under Jahiliyya were more independent
than women under Islam. Unfortunately, some Muslim scholars, like
Laila Ahmed, have made the argument that women lost much of their
freedom once Islamic law was implemented. However, to contrast women's
status pre-Jahiliyya to their status post-Jahiliyyaunderestimates the
hugeparadigm shift that took place as women moved from shirk to
tawhid.
The article you mentioned seems to be flawed in one critical area.
Aisha's motivation to go to war was not inspired by her pre-Islamic
independence. In fact, Aisha, may Allah be well pleased with her, was
probably born well after the Prophet, peace be upon him, received the
first revelation of the Qur'an. Therefore, she was influenced by Islam
far more than anything else in her life.
When she went to battle,her intention was to avenge the death of the
third caliph of Islam, Uthman, may Allah be well pleased with him.
Whether Aisha's decision led to a decline in Muslimwomen's political
involvement is hard to assess from this single incident. As with any
other historical phenomenon, Muslim women's political involvement has
to be evaluated from within women's own historical context. Just
because women did not (usually) occupy visible public positions does
not mean that they did not wield power from behind the scenes.
On to the issue of the Queen of Sheba, it's a misreading of the
Qur'anto suggest that it belittlesBilqis. On the contrary, the Qur'an
presents Bilqis's story as an example to both men and women. In fact,
Bilqis is the perfect antithesis to one of the most oppressive rulers
mentioned in the Qur'an,the Pharoah (and a male).
And Allah knows best.
