By Danny Wood BBC News, Madrid

Women from the Islamic world are attending the three-day conference

Organiser Abdennur Prado Pavon says the struggle for gender equality in Islamic countries involves refuting chauvinist interpretations of Muslim teachings.

The congress is in Spain, organisers say, because they want their message to reach the growing number of Muslim women in Europe.

Around 300 delegates are looking at women's rights in the Islamic world.

Mr Prado, of the Catalan Islamic board, believes a common misconception in the West is that women's liberation is not possible in Muslim societies.

Activists representing the Islamic feminist movement are in Barcelona to counter that view and discuss ways of achieving female equality in an Islamic context.

Collaboration

Among the delegates is the Pakistani feminist Riffat Hassan, regarded as one of the pioneers of Islamic feminist theology.

Also here are representatives from the international association, Islamic Feminism.

Islamic Feminism argues that the inferior legal and social status of women in Muslim countries is a result of misogynistic distortions of the teachings in the Koran.

Organisers say they want more collaboration with western feminists but say non-Muslim feminists need to challenge their anti-Islamic stereotypes.

For encouring them to shake my hand,

Sorry but, what this have relation with equality?

Mortaza maybe you are not aware of the injuntion that many moslem males have produced for themselves. These traditionalists do not shake the hand of a women.

PS - At least not when other moslems are looking. But I did catch the same culprit in the hypocritical act of handshaking when no-one was supposedly watching.

Mortaza maybe you are not aware of the injuntion that many moslem males have produced for themselves. These traditionalists do not shake the hand of a women.

I know It is, but I dont understand what is relation of this with equality.

It is not only man who dont shake hand of women, but also religious women dont hand shake with a man. This has no relation with equality.

Nor this woman neither man thing other gender as second class.

What does this kind of stuff have to do with equality?

Discrimination starts at often unassuming levels. Subordination is not my cup of tea. Mutual respect is the key here. Looking at it this way religious men and women have to blame eachother then for secluding themselves from mutual social activities. I'll go out on a limb here and say that men created a position for women that is equal to their own mental and social insecurities.

Two different points:

1- Status of women and Equality

2- women's norms, and roles.

  Status of Women & Equality: women should have all rights to practice their life and to render their decisions without supervision. This include their right to drive, to work, to marry, to vote...etc. Here you cannot say a man can drive but a woman cannot or a man can vote and a woman cannot. This is a restriction on a general accepted rights for all human being. Violaton of those rights is rendering a person as a second class citizen for sure.

   Second, women's norms, and roles: women have to maintain their distinct characters and follow the feminine roles in the society. A woman has to dress modestly. they cannot demand equality in dress by asking to allow them to wear mini skirts. What equality? let us both men and women wear skirts so we can be equal. Dress codes, norms and roles are designed for each gender for what it fits him. You cannot make it equal because simply a man is different than a woman. They are simply different. Same goes for the other roles. A woman can lead the whole parliment if she wants. However Seko, a Woman cannot lead a mix group in Friday prayer. It is a position designed for men, their voice, and their customs. It does not mean a woman is inferior. A woman can be a religious scholar and a teacher. Best example is hazra Aisha, the prophet wife, who taught a lot of companions.  Again: religious practices and rules are destributed based on roles. If a man has to be the Imam in a mosque prayer, then a man has to be standing there leading in a prayer. If a woman has to be given a wedding dowry, then a woman receive a dowry and not the man and she keeps it for herself. These are roles prescribed and has nothing to do with equality. These are rules that sometimes we can find the wisdom behind them and sometimes we cannot, but they are rules and codes that does not restrict any gender's rights of enjoying life and receive an equal treatment when dealing with. When you subscribe to a religion, you follow its rules as much as you do when you enter a corporation. 

Organiser Abdennur Prado Pavon says the struggle for gender equality in Islamic countries involves refuting chauvinist interpretations of Muslim teachings.

i am happy with this just so long as they dont twist or compromise the koran to convince muslim woman.

Islam has affirmed the principle of equality and human fraternity for 15 centuries in one koranic verse: "Mankind, Reverence your GuardianLord, Who created you from a Single Person, created, of like nature, His mate, and from them twain scattered countless men and women."; The Prophet Mohamed - God's blessing and peace be upon Him - also said "All people are equal like a comb's teeth".

Well I dont think equality have any relation with hand shaking or leading prayers. We should interested more with using force against woman,  jailing them to home, or dont senting them to school.

Religious people of Turkey(educated ones) is far from to use force against woman or jailing them home. Infact they want to educate their girls(And It becomes a problem in Turkey as you know), and They dont like If people used force against woman.

Infact If we want to create equality with woman, we should to protect them. They have not enough force(as a whole) to live alone. Our first priority should to increase their education and protect them, until they can stand alone.

And this have nothing with islam, but culture of countries. This jihad thing is absurd.

You know what Super Goat? You presented a pretty good answer. Well done!

One thing I understand from it is that the shaking of the hands part is more cultural than religiously oriented, originally.

Thanks for the tradition on leading prayers example. Role models are improtant in Islam.  Men have been leaders in many of the important roles  in our religion. However, I am not 100% certain that women cannot lead prayers. My personal desire is for them to do so for the sake of more respectfull and equal opportunities. This can then trickle down to having more respect towards women in other functions of life. Perhaps this action would become a preventative measure against the future 'Talibans' of the world. Beyond my personal values though is the weight that the Koran provides. I still need time to figure this one out.

There are no equal-opportunity issue in this at all. It is Ebadat (worships and rituals) issue. A man leading a prayer in a mosque is not scoring an opportunity. If he teaches and he is a scholar, then yes, that is an opportunity to score. Which also women have the right to teach religious knowledge as their counter-men can do so.

Not really. There are many ways to show respect and to push for equality. Our history is filled with examples of equality and respect. Also, nothing is called a "preventive measure" in Islamic rituals. If you think women can lead a mix-gender prayer in a mosque as a way of  "preventive measure" for their rights. You are exactly using the same logic of some fanatics who would tell you that it is Haram to talk to women other than your relatives and wife and only for necessety, as a  "preventive measure" for not falling down to flirting and adulterty. The logic of  "preventive measure" is definitely the main argument they always rise for tons of things they make unpermissible for Muslims.

Finally, the established priniciple in Islam that "while wordly matters are assumed to be permissible until proven otherwise, all religious acts are considered forbidden unless a basis can be established in the Quran or Sunnah". this prevent innovation in worshipping and rituals. That is why all Muslims fast as an obligation the month of Ramadan and not Ramadan and another month, and that is why all Muslims pray Fajr two Rak'ahs and no one can come and say, "I love god, I want to make my fajr 10 Rak'ahs for him". No invention in religious matters and rituals. Afterall, wasn't this religion prefected on the day this verse was revealed in the Quran "This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed my favor upon you, and chosen for you Islam as your religion" [5:3]

Hai guys…

This is a very interesting topic we have here..

‘Gender Jihad’? Well.. Is it a fight for Islam women’s right according to Islamic way and to change non-Muslim misconception on Islam women? Or it just a propaganda which is used by certain party to mislead Islam women into confusion? Islam women nowadays need to be careful in accepting any kind of information…

Nonetheless.. for Islam women to fight for their right is significant.. I agree with cok gec explanation.. It is different between women norms and women’s status of equality.. In order to improve, women can get same equality with men do but still have to ensure that Islam regulation is always in practice.  What is Jihad for when Islam is being forgotten? 

As mortaza said…

Infact If we want to create equality with woman, we should to protect them. They have not enough force (as a whole) to live alone. Our first priority should to increase their education and protect them, until they can stand alone.>>

Here I cited Firman Allah in English version:

"Men are the protectors (Qawamoon) of women, because God has given preference to some over others. And because men spend of their property on women. So good women are obedient, guarding even unnoticed that what Allah (God) has asked them to guard. As for those from whom you fear rebellion in this (i.e. guarding their chastity in your absence), i) talk to them, ii) leave them alone in their beds, iii) strike them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them.. (Koran 4:34)."

Source : http://www.e-bacaan.com/artikeli_women.htm - http://www.e-bacaan.com/artikeli_women.htm >>

*Correct me if I am wrong for the citation…

Basically that is wht suppose to be practiced by all muslim. Unfortunately, most of the Islam countries do not implement the regulation correctly where by they (Men) use their position for their advantages.. such as polygamy issues.. Abusing (Mental and Physical) and etc… Luckily, in my country don’t have tht too serious problem.. We have opportunity to study, to work, to decide, to vote, to be independent and to involve in politic… but the polygamy thing… everywhere is the same huh?!

The shaking hand thing... as Super Goat already clarified... it is due to Islam regulation.. woman cant touch any man who is non immediate family members (Any man tht she can be married).. Even i do not 'salam' (hand shaking in Malay tradition) for Eid or any occcasion whether with my bro in law or my male cousins... still i dont feel tht i am inferior...  i'm cool..

-just a thought-

Finally we have a lady voice here

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1485350,00.html - http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1485350,00.html
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3322399.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3322399.stm
• http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2003-01/27/article09.shtml - http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2003-01/27/article09 .shtml
  

Maju stated:

I have never yet got in the situation of watching a man beating a woman but I know such things happen, not just among Muslims. Obviously, I would beat the man without a second thought, no matter if he's the father, the husband or whatever. The only comparative situation I've found in my life was when my uncle attempted to hit my aunt-in-law in my grandparents' home. I told him clearly that no way and he finally stepped back and went out for a drink (he's a pitiful man).

Well maju... nobody would accept an idea tht it is ok to beat a woman.. for no reason.. not only a woman even among people.. either male or female..

Maybe the citation need more clearence and explanation which my knowledge in interpreting the surah is not very good. Afraid tht might give wrong meaning.. perhaps other members can assist on this matter.. The word 'strike' there is giving a question mark..

But for sure, Islam rule and guideline is not leading to violence.. dont misunderstand that...

p/s: cok gec... need ur assistance here..

I certainly agree that the religion has been perfected. My arguement is this: are we following religion as it says or did we add stuff along the way. Since the notion of women leading prayer is not mentioned specifically (that is why I am open to discussion on it) are we not open to historical precedents and/or analytical proofs. I am not only advocating research for only 'prevention' from hegemony but other sensible possibilities. No need to go into examples unrelated to this topic.

The beating issue is an area that reflects this question as well. Are we to accept that this is truth or did we miss something along the way. This is what I found: 'Idrubuhunne' (4-34) can mean 'beat those women' or it can have other meanings.  Can't it also mean to compel a seperation. How about 'striking out' disloyal wives. Isn't this the same meaning as seperating from them? Other examples of the root of (Idrubuhunne) DaRaBa - to condemn 2:61, to get out 3:156, 4:101, 73:20, and Idrib- to get out. In effect, doesn't 'getting them out' make more sense for a cheating partner than 'beating them' as a last resort?  

If any of these possibilities make sense then it shows that we can benefit from researching meanings as accurately as possible.

Yes, we should search for sensible possibilities as long as there is a room for it. However, we are not debating a law governing wordly matters. We are discussing an issue of rituals, which belongs to Allah. Allah wants five prayers during the day as obligatory, then no point of looking into its logic. It is just an obligated ritual. Now, rituals or worship in Islam are defined by Quran and his prophet's conducted worships. Both are needed to fullfill each others. It is like as if the Quran a source book, and Sunnah is a detailed description manual. Quran will say pray 5 times a day, the Sunnah will cover its details of how many Rak'ahs, its times, and so on. Quran says we should conduct a prayer in groups, Sunnah comes to define who is the leader in that group, how to stand in lines...etc. Not everything that is not covered in details in Quran means its missing, we have Sunnah and we do have various works that study the relevance and confirmity of each Hadith with the Quran. I will talk more in details about this down discussing the Super Goat's example.

I'm not sure what is the relevance of the example of the Quranic verse that has been stated earlier. However, I find it an interesting example that Quran itself cannot give us always the details of that rule. Here comes the Sunnah to clarify what is exactly meant in that verse.

Seko actually started the first step of finding the exact meaning of that verse. However, the various interpretation of Darab are wide from physical use of Darab to literature use of Darb. Actually the Surah 2, verse 61 that carries "Daraba" as condemn is only correct if you combine "Darab al dhul" or "stroke subjegation and inferiority" which will become to condemn. The verse just above it, number 60 carries the physical use of Daraba which is to come in contact hitting. 

So, what we are missing then to interpret it is: 1- the Prophet comment on this verse that it has been revealed to him, 2-the languistic expectation of that verse in the Arabic language and in that position which is definitely dealing with an object and not a literature use.

First, I will start upside down by discussing the languistic interpretation of the used word "Darb" ÖÑÈ

The word Darb means a lot in Arabic: from severe strike, hit, flunk, and a score of an anger by body contacts, as the use in Arabic "Darb min al mathl" which means "for instance" but literally translated "a score of an example"

Second, after defining the various meanings that are possible to the word Darb, we look into what the Prophet have done in his life after the revelation of this verse. First, keep in mind that it must be seen as a rare exception to the repeated exhortation of mutual respect, kindness and good treatment discussed earlier. How did the prophet then beat? It was narrated by Aisha (BPUH) that he used Miswak (a small natural toothbrush from a plant roots). So the last solution for the prophet was a Miswak hit, which is not as similar as a light pinch on its effect. Though it does not serve any purpose of hitting because it is not even anything that is to beat, but it symbolizes the anger at least.

 It is interesting that this latter fourteen centuries old qualifier of "Darb" is the criterion used in contemporary American law to separate a light and harmless tap or strike from "abuse" in the legal sense. This makes it clear that even this extreme, last resort and "lesser of the two evils" measure that may save the marriage does not meet the definitions of "physical abuse," "family violence," of "wife battering" in the twentieth century laws in liberal democracies, where such extremes are commonplace that they are seen as national concerns.

Aslo note that permissibility of such symbolical expression of the seriousness of continued refraction does not imply its desirability. This is clear in taking into account several Ahadeeths, where Prophet Muhammad discouraged this measure. Among his sayings: "Do not beat the female servants of Allah," and "How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then he may embrace (sleep with) her?" Shaheeh Al Bukhari

"can't it also mean to compel a seperation?" > are you asking or it is part of the definition of the word?

The options we are discussin above are in regards to continious marriage problems. Seperation is highly disrecommended even more than symbolic express of anger that doesn't harm.  Disloyal wives are dealt with differently. Quran points to a term called "counter-swearing" where a disloyal spouse is taken an oath that he has not commited disloyality to the other partner, during a court trial. If any of the two spouse are not satisfied and trust cannot be rebuilt, then Seperation is ordered by the court and the spouse has no right even to touch the other spouse.

Yes Maju, she is originally Somalian. According to her, she has been mistreated severly. Her husband is to be blamed for her extreme reaction in which she decided that her husband represents what a Muslim husband can be. Instead of criticizing Islam and its prophet, who didn't even let anyone to wash his clothes, i hope she used that energy and anger in prosecuting animal-behaving husbands in poor Islamic and non-Islamic countries, Africa, or any part of the world.

The Idea that Sunnah takes such importance in Islam makes me question the value of Sunnah. In the Koran we have no contradictions. In the Sunnah we have a plate of dishes that suits anyone's fancy, just depends on who does the tasting. You seem to have covered alot of ground in dismissing women and prayer yet you have no specific proofs nor links. I do not want to hear about conforming to the ancients unless they can back it up with original points of reference and a reason perhaps for it. In the Koran it says that everything you need is clearly detailed. Yet according to you it is not and we need Sunnah of Muhammad. We are told to follow God and the Messenger. All Muhammad did was utter words that God provided. That is the Koran. Otherwise God would have cut his jugular. NO? His duty was to provide the message and lead by example. We have his message in blackj and white letters. HIs example left a long time ago. We have records and we have conflicting records. These records were not guarded and protected by Allah as was the Koran. That's why I have a hard time accepting sunnah of people instead of Sunnah of Allah. All my points are visible ayats from the holy book. I did not make them up. However, we have a slew of how to do this and that and have the nerve to say that this is Islam. In summary, if it is in the Koran then we can examine it. If it is from people then it is only one of many religious possibilities that is open to inspection. How can we challenge anything if we are told to only accept and not question? When does one become aware that certain beliefs may or may not stand to reason? Please do not place reasonable questions into the catagory of inventions and make it sound like this is 'bida'. We have had too many (restictions) by past pious moslems that led to an innner seclusive and non-inquisitive mentality for too long.

As regards 'beat', thanks for the info. I am not only looking at verse 2:61 but others as well. In 13:17 'Allah beats truth and falsehood..' The word Darab here is beat. Yet sounds illogical. It could just as well mean - "Allah explains truth and falshood..."

Other quoted usages of Darab: 

To strike: 2:60,73; 7:160; 8:12; 20:77; 24:31; 26:63; 37:93; 47:4 chemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />>>>>

To beat: chemas-microsoft-comfficemarttags" />8:50; 47:27>>

I think we are arguing apple versus orange here. I believe in the doctorine of Quran suplimented with Sunnah. Whereas, you believe only in Quran only as a source of jurisdiction. Therefore, obviously we will disagree on a lot of matters because the fact is Quran does not cover everything.  That verse has proved the limitation on applying only the Quran regarding jurisdictions. Remember that to "strike" is not like "to strike out". You cannot say strike in the first sentance can be the same strike of the second sentace, because basically the word is different. "Strike out" or "Rip off"..etc all give different meanings to the original word. Darab with object, is different than Darab Al Dhulah (which is a symbolic use). Darab can have tons of meaning, but when it comes to objects dealing, you can do only Daraba as physical. That is why all Quran translations in English use that interpretation. You won't find one Quran translation that says Darab in that verse as to seperate. Because in this usage it is obvious it is not, we dont have to twist around it. You are free to take that verse and ask any Arab languist.

Koran has a verse that at the end of the Prophet life announced the perfection of the religion. No verse talk about that everything we need will be " clearly detailed". Also, we have this verse:" Whatever the Prophet ordered you to do, you should do, and whatever he forbids you, you should reject " (Quran 59: 7)

No two persons can doubt that it means that we are ordered to follow what the prophet has been conveyed in the message with revelation of Koran, his conducts and orders too as it is clear in the verse.

Do you know "Mansukhat" verses or "copied verses" in the Quran? For anyone who is not very well knowledgable about the content and timing of those verses, he will assume they are conflicting. Quran and Sunnah didn't come lump summed in one night. It came gradually and stepby step for people to follow. Therefore,there are copied verses in the Quran and Sunnah that are subtitued later with time according to the development of the believer's faith. If you searched under "Quran conflicting verses" you will find tons of them. But people fail to see they are Mansukhat or copied verses. We keep the original rule because we don't edit the Quran. We just know which rule comes higher according to its time and sequence.

Seko, no one told you that you cannot question and investigate reasons in Islam. However, we are not talking about mattes that deal with us in which we seek its wisdom. I was talking about Rituals and worships. However, you are free to waste your time searching why God wants five prayers per day and not three or ten. Notice too that I didnt tell you that your interpetation of the verse dealing with women  is Bida because that is a wordly matter and we can discuss. I only brought that point regarding your question why women cannot lead a mixed gender prayer in a mosque. That is worship here. Got it now?

Originally posted by Seko Other quoted usages of Darab:  To travel, to get out: 3:156; 4:101; 38:44; 73:20; 2:273>> To strike: 2:60,73; 7:160; 8:12; 20:77; 24:31; 26:63; 37:93; 47:4 chemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />>>>> To beat: chemas-microsoft-comfficemarttags" />8:50; 47:27>> To set up: 43:58; 57:13>> To give (examples): 14:24,45; 16:75,76,112; 18:32,45; 24:35; ,58;  36:78; 39:27,29; 43:17; 66:10,11>> To take away, to ignore: 43:5>> To condemn: 2:61>> To seal, to draw over: 18:11>> To cover: 24:31>> To explain: 13:17>> ..

All of those are different meaning of Darab in their context. You cannot take out Daraba out of Daraba Mathalan. This will yeiled a different meaning. In basic simple plain English, the usage of a word in a specific context, does not constitue necessarily a similar meaning in a different context.  That is just a simple languistic rule.

Frogot to ask you for your link, Im just curious why your English translation is different than mine.

http://www.submission.org/suras/sura4.htm - http://www.submission.org/suras/sura4.htm

[4:34] The men are made responsible for the women, and GOD has endowed them with certain qualities, and made them the bread earners. The righteous women will cheerfully accept this arrangement, since it is GOD's commandment, and honor their husbands during their absence. If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat** them. If they obey you, you are not permitted to transgress against them. GOD is Most High, Supreme.

** We discussed that issue and the exact meaning of it.

Aslo under http://www.islamicity.com/MOSQUE/ARABICSCRIPT/AYAT/4/4_34.htm - http://www.islamicity.com/MOSQUE/ARABICSCRIPT/AYAT/4/4_34.ht m

English (Yusuf Ali): http://mediaserver.hadi.org:8080/ramgen/qurantts/4-34.rm?mode=compact - (Recite)
4:34 Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).

Turkish:
4:34 Allah'in, bazisini bazisina üstün kilmasi ve onlarin kendi mallarindan harcamasi nedeniyle erkekler, kadinlar üzerinde 'sorumlu gözeticidir.' Saliha kadinlar, gönülden (Allah'a), itaat edenler, Allah nasil koruduysa görünmeyeni koruyanlardir. Nüsuzundan korktugunuz kadinlara (önce) ögüt verin, (sonra onlari) yataklarda yalniz birakin, (bu da yetmezse hafifçe) vurun. Size itaat ederlerse aleyhlerinde bir yol aramayin. Dogrusu Allah yücedir, büyüktür.

http://www.islamicity.com/MOSQUE/ARABICSCRIPT/AYAT/4/ra101_4-34.ram"> 

Darab does have certain meaning. And the Idrubuhunne meanings show that all Koranic English translations are not equal otherwise I would not have presented my case.

4:34 - '...seperate from them' , Progressive translation.

        - '...e vden çýkarýn/bulunduklarý yerden baþka yere gönderin!' (remove them from your home/send them somewhere else)-Yasar Nuri Ozturk translation. 

         - '...004.034
YUSUFALI: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).
PICKTHAL: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.
SHAKIR: Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

Well all of these various translations in English are saying: your limit to in your anger with her is to beat her. So all of the three sources (and probably the vast majority of English translated Qurans) will carry the full meaning and translation of "to beat". However, the degree of that beat is what we are disputing. Most of these translations will dispute the degree that limit is set, but I haven't seen any translation that carried a different meaning that "to beat" except your translation that Im gladly looking for its source for deeper look.

Going back again, so all agree that a man limit is to beat. But the question is what is that beat? Scourge? Flunk? Touch? all of them are "to beat" in arabic. Here were I showed with Sunnah that that limit is definitely not "scourge" and not close to "light beating". It is more of metaphoric challenge that tells you, "Ok, you are so angry and want to explode, then remember that your maximum limit is a beat of a Miswak flunk!".

Yes, I asked why is it different because I requested the link if you don't mind. This will enable me to understand why this particular translation is different.

Sorry for redundancy, but I have to repeat my answer here:No verse talk about that everything we need will be " clearly detailed".  This actually include this verse you posted. Not everything we need in our religion is detailed in the Quran. The "Fully detailed" is following the "scripture" and it indicates clarity in its message. Its message is detailed and clear. Remember that we are not disputing Quran's message bieng detailed, we are saying while this message in itself is detailed, it is not sufficient. For instance: You have a book in Geography that talks in its chapter are written in extreme details. Does this mean all what you need regarding Geography is that book?

This is why there is a messanger to explain. Otherwise, God can just send a book for us to read and that is enough. You will understand more what I mean looking too in this same verse translation:

http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=DIV0&byte=190943 - http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=DIV0& ; ;byte=190943

 [6.114] Shall I then seek a judge other than Allah? And He it is Who has revealed to you the Book (which is) made plain; and those whom We have given the Book know that it is revealed by your Lord with truth, therefore you should not be of the disputers.
.

And what do you suggest Mohammed is? a Prophet maybe?

Also, you said "and it all means to follow the messenger and his mission" So we have two things to follow here. 1- messenger 2-his mission. They must be two seperate things because no redundancy can exist in the same verse. Then you proceed saying "All know his mission was the religion of Islam". Ok, that was his mission, which is the number (2) to follow. What about the messenger then, which is number (1).?

Seko, all these verses talks about not valuing the prophet more than his status as a prophet and not to direct any kind of worship as he is a human messenger and not divine as what happened to Jesus (PBUH), however, Mohammed is indeed a messenger. Hence, if you are ordered to follow the (1)messenger and (2) his mission, then it should be obvious that this includes following the prophet Muhammed. What is following him? is it his orders? his acts? his reactions? those all are Sunnah.

The prophet was a messenger. If you meant that Sunnah is unrealiable because there are contradicting weaker hadiths. I explained to you the "Naskh" and "Mansoukh" or "Mansoukhat" in the Quran. We are able to identify strong hadiths from weak ones, as much are we are able to identify copied Quranic verses. The fact they exist, does no mean we have to delete them out of history as much as again, we don't edit the Quran. The Quran is not unreliable with those copied verses, and the Hadith is not unreliable with the other weaker hadiths. 

Same here. You have my full respect for your knowledge and I hope you learn something form me as Im learning from you too. Being different is actually a blessing as we are not all born in a rigid unquestionable view of the world. Muslim scholars say "the difference of opinions in the Ummah is a mercy from God".

No source of our religion except Allah and his messenger, which is the same as the first part of your second group "Alllah plus Mohammed".

I did seko. If you returned to my earlier posts, I explained to you that worships and rituals are to be observed as exactly as done as duirng the prophet. You cannot add or substract. Rituals and worships are revealed by God only to his messenger. No scholar, analyst, or a student of any school of thought can say, we can alter the following ritual.

Regarding the historical quoet on this, the prophet peace be upon him did not approve for a woman to lead a prayer except Umm Waraqa, an Ansari woman who was well versed in the Quran, who led her family member only(Hadith, Sunan of Abu Dawud); (Musnad Ahmed Ibn Hanbal) << that something you might be interested to look in.

So, the idea of a woman leading a prayer wasn't absent. It was there and it was clearly constrained. Otherwise, we would have seen Aisha the prophet's wife lead a prayer with the Sahabah since she was so knowledgable that many companions come to study on her hand. But it didn't happen that she led them in a prayer.

Another point to mention, if you are going to ignore the above historical evidance and continue looking for Quran to clearly tells you that a woman cannot lead a mixed-gender prayer, you might as well try to find a verse that says woman can lead a mixed-gender prayer.  You won't find it too. So the Quran is silent on both. You won't find your answer.

Definitely it is not beating. However, neither it is watered down. In my earlier post, I explained to you that it is the maximum you can do in your anger being challenged to hit with a Miswak (which is useless anyhow unless it helps putting out your anger away) and I right away cited to you two hadiths that clearly stated that beating (the harm beat as it is known in the usage of English language) a woman is forbidden. The second hadith even said that you cannot harm physically any person. period!

If you would have read them and took those two hadiths seriously, the delimma of "Daraba" would have been solved already as the messenger of God already told us what is that "Daraba". However, you decided to go the tougher & longer in reconciling the verse.

Caution: Heavy dose of religious terminology and reference to scripture. For muslims mostly, though anyone interested should stick along.

Ok now. Where did we leave off? Ah! Yes. The quotes on beating women versus leaving (seperating from) them.

Originally posted by Seko These are the translations that were part of the original five I presented and then some.

Thank you for the link. As you said earlier, most of the translations will render the literal meaning of "Daraba" or "to beat". While you can find couple translations that disagree with this Tafseer, all Quran Arabic translations will not deviate from the literal interpretation of Daraba. I personally would believe that going with the norms is expected rather than the exceptions. You always can find what you like in the hundreds and hundreds of Quran meaning's translation books, however, the majority will stick on the exact interpretation of the verse and rather come back to explain the verse in association to its application during the Prophet time. Which makes more sense than working on finding loopholes in the language because we Muslims simply don't water down our religion, for there is nothing to be embarrased with at all.

Anyhow, I think we consumed a lot of time on that verse and It is clear to both sides that the verse does not illustrate Daraba as the physical harm. Note please that the reason we keep Quran in its original text (Arabic one) is for a reason which is to be able to come back to those original words that god sent. If Daraba does not mean "to seperate" in Arabic then definitely it does not mean "to seperate" in any language because God does not send his message to people in different tongue than theirs and neither he sends his message to have them understand it better only when they translate it to a different language!

Now we shall leave this issue of Daraba forever as we have already answered it, let us go back to the real issue, Quran & Sunnah Vs. Quran.

Notice Seko I underlined your phrase "Koran is enough of a reminder". Can you remind someone of something he does not know? No. This means the Quran is a reminder of an older thing that has been forgotten. That thing is simply the message of monothiesm and the day of judgement. Therefore, you cannot remind people of jurisdiction and laws because these are not forgotten, these are taught new to all mankind.

Finally, The Quran being a miracle does not means the sufficiency without Sunnah. Crossing the sea, dividing the moon...etc All miracles but does not fullfill anything in driving laws and jurisdictions.

Also guidance and mercy are not laws and jurisdictions. If it was for the Quran to give us all laws and jurisdictions we need in Islam, why would Allah asks us to ask people of knoweldge? Quran even instruct you to ask people of knowelde and the messenger.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/016.qmt.html - http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/016.qmt.html

016.043
YUSUFALI: And before thee also the messengers We sent were but men, to whom We granted inspiration: if ye realise this not, ask of those who possess the Message.
PICKTHAL: And We sent not (as Our messengers) before thee other than men whom We inspired - Ask the followers of the Remembrance if ye know not! -
SHAKIR: And We did not send before you any but men to whom We sent revelation-- so ask the followers of the Reminder if you do not know--

Cok Gec you often mix the messenger and his message as seperate entities and give all kinds of rational for your beliefs. They are technically seperate in that one was a human being and the other a physical book. They are both reflections of speech and behavior. You tend to turn good questions into frivolous ones. The messenger brought, recited and presented the scripture. Why do you make a simple reality look puzzling? We know messenger and God are two different things. The messenger and the act of providing the message are one and the same when it comes to information as provided by the Koran. His actions are either religious behaviors or not. Not all of his daily lifestyle decisions and behaviors are part of Islam. That is unless you or others have creatively built a religion of Islam that contains such frivolous matters.

The difference between us is that you want to focus on jurisdictions and laws apart from the Koran and I don't. This is evident from both of our posts. Sunni versus Progressive. I am not entering a popularity contest and I do not necessarily accept the popular view if it goes against my conscience. Hence my support of my stated position even though only three out of seven Koranic translations of verse 4:34 are in the minority.

You know the Hadith I presented was a very kind and gentle one. But it gets to the point of the matter about women. I could have provided real gruesome ones too. Do not ecpect people to read this issue as the way it may have been intended. To say that women, horses, and houses are worldly attachments that needs to be shunned leaves room for naive people to abuse women, horses, houses etc. Let alone dogs too (another hadith). Just the mention against women can be taken concretely instead of figuratively. Does the Koran talk about women as possesions to be shunned because they lead to blasphemy?

Most of my reference mentions the clarity of the Koran. To seek God directly. We have a book, dirceted by God and written by a messenger who practiced the meaning of the book. Instead you focused on tangents and not the whole picture. The tangents are not even refuted correctly. Your appeal to opinion does not prove your arguement.

My didactic discusion is hereby over. I think we both have presented our case and are willing to only back them up instead of mutually agree.

If you believe that the messenger and the message as "They are both reflections of speech and behavior" then I don't see where is it a problem to believe that those speech and behaviors are part of the message? If you believe that I should not "mix the messenger and his message as seperate entities"

Yes, the Quran does. What is the differenet between the Hadith you posted and this Quranic verse? 'Truly, among your wives and your children, there are enemies for you (i.e may stop you from the obedience of Allah)' (64.14) 

I´m not sure what do you mean by me focusing on jurisdiciton and laws apart from the Koran.  I´ve always stressed on the fact that both Koran and Sunnah complete each others for our jurisdiction and laws.

By the way, my last post had 4 questions to be answered. But anyhow, we presented our cases. I'm still up for further qualrification but I don't think I can add anything to this point without further inquiries

Originally posted by Maju It seems that the theological discussion is not as exausted as I thought. Anyhow, I would also like to discuss the relative weight of secular and religious law and the possibility of secular law overriding religious one for civil matters as happen, at least nominally, in most Muslim countries, where Sharia (sharias?) is not oficial.

I would like to know who those muslim countries, where shria is not law, are too! I could onoy think of Turkey. But I may be in the dark here. As Cok Gec and I have discussed laws are a major part of Islam. Some believe that the religious laws should be Koranic. Others want to add heresay which considers what the prophet might have done in a similar position. Yet not all of a states laws pertain to religion.

I think we do agree that laws left out of the Koran can be decided upon by consensus amoung those who are knowledgeable. This is a point where perhaps Cok Gec and I believe in but we represented our views from different angles. Such as religious laws based on reference to the Koran and other texts (plus problem solving debates and discussions) or laws based on the Koran and just problem solving debates and discussions.

I think that religious laws are an influence guiding secular debates. This type of jurisdiction is healthy in that it promotes inquiry into topics that may not be religiously sanctioned and can promote concensus amoung politicians. Most importantly this religious angle should not become abused or used as the sole philosophy in creating laws. Secularism protects from such an abuse.

Two more items on this and another matter. 'The' reminder is not only for believers of past scriptures. Current and future societies will need reminders and they will find it in the Koran. Why use the word reminder for followers of past scriptures? Because it reminds them of duties and rituals that were forgotten or used innappropriately. Who had these acts and rituals before Muhammed's contemporary muslims then? Good question. Look into it. Islam has been around for generations. Rituals before Muhammed too. If you haven't found the answer ask and I will provide. The answer is in the Koran. So look it up there first.

This quote follows previous ayat that talks about the importance of accepting God's revelations. Anyone may be a disbeliever, even wives and children. Money and children are a test. Therefore, the importance to be steadfast in belief in God. The hadith mentions that women are the biggest affliction to men (And that men should not show too much attention to worldly and vain things like sex, riches etc). The first part is pure hadith falacy. In fact, God tells us to forgive family members so that God can show his mercy. So which one is most detailed. Koran or Hadith? If you think it is means the same thing (I don't) then why have both? Isn't one book good enough? Does hadith really clarify this issue or create confusion? The Koranic example raises the point about difficulties men face with disbelievers. It makes no wholesale claims that women are evil omens who are an affliction to mankind. It only cautions believers to be mindfull that family members can even become enemies of the faithful. Not character assasination and prejudism to half the worlds population because of man's human desire.

Originally posted by Seko Originally posted by Maju It seems that the theological discussion is not as exausted as I thought. Anyhow, I would also like to discuss the relative weight of secular and religious law and the possibility of secular law overriding religious one for civil matters as happen, at least nominally, in most Muslim countries, where Sharia (sharias?) is not oficial. I would like to know who those muslim countries, where shria is not law, are too! I could onoy think of Turkey.

Turkey may be the most clear and radical case but most Muslim countries have secular laws and only apply Sharia in some specific matters. I can't be sure of all the states, but I believe that Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, PNA, Syria, Iraq (under Hussein and in the transitional period), Azerbaijan, the Central Asian repulics, Pakistan (except in the tribal area), Bangla Desh, Indonesia, Malaysia, Zanzibar, Seychelles, Comores, Eritrea, Djibouti, Senegal, Gambia, Mali, Chad have civil law as pritoritary. All them are majoritarily Muslim countries - I have intentionately excluded multireligious states such as Albania, Lebanon or Kenya.

In fact the countries applying Sharia as dominant law are just a minority: Saudi Arabia and Iran are the most extreme cases, the other states of the Arabian peninsula fit in this pattern too, as do Sudan (partially) and (quite surprisingly) Lybia. A few sud-Saharan states may fall in this category too, including some federal states of Nigeria.

Chack also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#Contemporary_Practice_of_Sharia_Law - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#Contemporary_Practice_of _Sharia_Law

Indeed, secularism does not mean that moral/religious considerations are not influential in making the effective secular laws that each state creates, what means is that law must not be proclaimed in temples or religious schools but in parlament and that church and state are different things. If society is deeply influenced by this or that religion or sect, that would have some efefct on how laws are pondered.

Beyond simple secularism, a concept that can be even adopted by fascists, there is the belief that human rights are above anything else. This is a sort of humanism but I don't know what specific tag can it have, as humanism is older and wider.

Many countries listed here have religious parties that sway their vote towards Sharia based standards of living. Most of these standards have recourse to legal influences on citizen rights. That is one of my issues. Politicians are making 'religious' edicts without popular consent and they often look toi hadith while creating them. This mindset can lead officers of the state towards an overdependence on beliefs or solutions that may or may not have practical implications today. The latter countries are the obvious ones as you said. Yet most, aside from Turkey, allow religion into their constitutions and legal bodies of legislature. This is a big difference.

Humanism can represent pragmatic and reformative values. Much are beneficial. Yet we need to be on guard from the over sensitivity to human needs at the expense of ...

Religious or secular humanism has a lot going for it. I am a proponent humanistic ideals, education and government. Moderation is still the key here. Religious values and rituals, though personal yet mutual, may be discussed. The discussion itself will influence secular decision making. But the secular state needs to decide to what degree it will allow humanistic and/or religious activities and rituals to influnce national standards of living.

Let me start by saying that I'm a western muslim and that I sincerely hope for the complete emancipation of muslim women all around the world. I could never mistreat a sister, a mother, a daughter or a wife. It's barbaric and unislamic in my humble point of view. I believe God spoke through the Qur'an and through Muhammad's example, but muslims shouldn't be trying to live a life of the 7th Century Arabia! God has provided us with intelligence and good sense. So let us reason.

A great part of the muslim world of today is sick, and there are many reasons for that. But the greatest one, I think, is the mentality. Fortunately, thank God, many young muslims dare to think differently and act differently.

It is with enormous satisfaction that I see women like Misla (and I must say I have been very well impressed with the photos of Bosnia she's shown) and others, standing out and living their religion without hate or backdrawn mentality.

I've not been a muslim for a very long time but let me tell you that I'm tired of attending to mosques where inevitably (with some honorous exceptions!) the Imam has always the same speech (some needless khutbas) and where people just can't healthfully debate or recognize what is wrong in the islamic world and what we as muslims could do about it.

Not to mention the saddening everyday news about the bloodbath in Iraq (of course the US have responsibility, but let's leave that for other threads), the not-so-surprinsingly ghazi Iranian president, the once-and-then extremists attacks (apparently, now the jihad is to be carried whether in evil western or corrupted muslim countries!!) instigated by some angry mullahs that send their pupils to bomb themselves in order to get Allah's favour, etc...

I think that we all, as muslims, owe to ourselves, to the world and to God, to clearly and definetely step out into the modern age, to reform the old mentalities and, insh'Allah, to be once more (because we were before) a thriving example of prosperity, tolerance and spirituality to mankind! 

Infidel. Ithink the major problem in the Muslim world is that non-Islamic cultures from the period of Jahaliye or even from the non-Muslim world have leaked into what many think of as Islam.

For example Pakistan has many cultural influences that originate from Hindus. The Taliban not allowing girls to go to schools, again this is cultural thinking and not Islamic at all.

There are also various topics to address as in Islam and the 'modern' world. We must never try to change or misintrepret the words of the Qur'an and Sunnah, other wise we mind end up like the Christians who have had countless major changes to the Bible (still the word of God?). But issues such as eating with the hand, because our Prphet (pbuh) did so, well the knife and fork was invented after his period (infact by Ali Bin Knafe). So i suppose eating with a knife and fork should be halal, as should the driving of a car instead of using a camel.

Thus Islam allows a certain level of leway for technlogical change.

Agreed. I like to know how the historical reason for women being being treated unfairly in Islamic empires. Because at the very start this did not happen, however for some reason un-Islamic traditions seem to have leaked into these empires.

For example the harem. I mean what was that all about, the Sultan's private collection of women or something, or even belly dancing.

Well OSMANLI...

tht part is one thing... wht about polygamy... is not to said tht I am against it.. coz it is allowed by Islam... Unfortunately the men... well.. most of u here are guys... are taking it as an excuse to marry more thn one (not to say u guys are like tht!)...why it is necessary to do so when ur existing wife is providing whtever necessity u need in life...

The worst part is.. when the wife reluctant to allow for the second marriage.. maybe she will run back to her parents home or wht so ever..and her husband is taking the excuse tht the first wife didn't respect him...or wht was it called? nusyuz? disobey... give him a good support to have second marriage... huh!!!  well to allowed ur husband to hv a second wife is much worst thn he spank u....

-just a thought-

(wont allow my future husband to marry for second time.. na'uzubillah.. kill!!kill!!die!!die!!  - just joking)

That's one where I need to dig into history books to find out.

 From what I know the Sultan had his slew of wives and concubines living in the 'Haram' forbidden part of the palaces. They were his property sort of speak. In due time segregation of women led to females, of most any imperial function, to have quarters in the harem. So it does not necessarily mean enjoyment for the Sultans sexual needs alone. This is just one romantic part of it.

See thats another cultural problem. Which outsiders to the religion seem to think is part of Islam.

The rulings about the wife inc. about beating. The prophet (pbuh) NEVER hit a female. The holy Prophet has stated: "How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then embrace (sleep with) her?”

Beating is only allowed in the as the following states:

"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more strength than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient and guard in the husband's absence what Allah would have them to guard. As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance); for Allah is most High and Great (above you all). If you fear a breach between them twain, appoint (two) arbiters, one from his family and the other from hers. If they wish for peace, Allah will cause their reconciliation; for Allah has full knowledge and is acquainted with all things." (An-Nisa': 34-35)

Note: only in the most sarious of cases

"And among His signs is this that He has created mates from among yourselves, that you may live in comfort with them, and he has put love and compassion among you (husband and wife). Surely in that are signs for those who think" (30 : 21).

"Women have similar rights over men as men have over women" (2 : 228).

"They are your
garments and you are their garments." (Surah Al Baqarah 2:187).

“Live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and Allah brings about through it a great deal of good.” (An-Nisa’: 19)

There pleanty more verses  (for more info check Sura Nisa in the Holy Qur'an on rulings on women).

Does the verses given indicate a macho religion?

BTW. what i wanted to know is how such disgusting and degrading acts upon women entered into the homes of the Muslims. There must have been a point in history. My hypothesis is when the Islamic empire gained more peoples into their empire old customs and rituals carried on (remember its totally Haram, unlawful).

Whould much appreciate any info on the historic reasons.

Turkey people who attack womans are mostly  drunks and uneducated ones. Not religious ones and it is disgusting

You're being too kind. I don't think women, muslim or not, need my statements for anything. What they definitely need is to stand up for their own rights and their families, societies and cultural environments to open up and to mentally evolve in a way that it may be possible for women to actually be equal to men.

I was culturally a christian but a pratical non-believer. There were many a reason that led me to Islam, but the definite one was reading the Qur'an. Then, deep down isinde, it all made sense to me.