Unfortunately, I can't make it to the women-led Eid prayer organized by Laury and Nakia. But naturally, I won't let that stop me from weighing in on it nonetheless. After all, so many conservative Muslim leaders in North America felt free to comment on the Amina Wadud prayer, although they had not attended it, that I feel almost confident that it must be 'urf if not sunna to sound off in such cases... :-)
'Amma ba'd---let's get straight to the point. One of the main problems---as we remember from the Amina Wadud prayer---is butts. Women's butts, that is. It doesn't matter how many layers of clothing a woman wears, her butt is still alluring, and any man praying behind her is bound to get distracted, so we can't allow women to lead mixed congregations.
Any woman who denies that this is a good reason to bar women leading prayer is one of three things: (1) hopelessly naive about male sexuality; (2) obviously out to seduce men; or (3) a CIA-sponsored/zionist agent who is hoping to subvert Islam from within. Or so they say.
It apparently doesn't matter how many layers a would-be female imam wears over her butt, because---to believe some of our brothers---even if nothing whatsoever of its shape or size can be discerned, the very idea of a woman bending over is too much for their libidos. So, women not only can't lead, they must pray behind or otherwise out of sight of men.
Good lord. And Muslims claim that "the West" treats women as sex objects?!?
We are told that men are "naturally", inevitably like this. (The existence of one piece of evidence to the contrary---gay Muslim men and women---is conveniently not acknowledged by many of our mosques.) But many Muslims, both women and men, internalize this view of men as "naturally" not far removed from animals in heat when in the presence of a woman in ruku' or sujud.ÂÂ
If men really are "naturally" like this, how on earth do other religious communities who do not segregate manage to conduct their worship services without the whole thing devolving into an orgy?
Some internet research on this question turned up this rather creepy Evangelical Christian rant about a woman's shaking her butt during a service. Evidently, there are misogynist horndogs in every faith, but some religions expect the males in the congregation to be focused on, well, higher things as they worship. That rant is not regarded as "normal" by even conservative Christians. But if little is expected of our brothers, is it surprising that so many of them see themselves as "naturally" incapable of better?
But (pun intended) there's a more fundamental problem here than the question of whether Muslim men can or can't control themselves when standing behind a praying woman. It's the assumption that women's bodies are always available to men for sexual fantasizing and possession, regardless of what a given woman's intentions or actions might be. A woman can never be, first and foremost, a human being, a worshipper of God; the possibility that some man might desire her takes precedence over everything else, virtually erases her own subjectivity.
This is the same strange "logic" which sees a woman breast-feeding a hungry infant as an act of shameless sexual provocation, because some men apparently think that any glimpse of a woman's breast---or even a reminder that she has breasts, although onlookers can't actually see them---is always a come-on. So, we have some Muslim brothers (and sometimes sisters) who object to women breast-feeding in public, even if they do it under a shawl!
This sort of thinking constructs female bodies as profane and forever vulnerable to violation and hence "pollution" by male imaginations (if not by male actions). And is this the message which is supposed to be a mercy to the worlds? Does the world really need any more ways to warp and denigrate human beings?
What is it that we are taught to fear so much about human sexuality, that women have to be wrapped in layers of cloth, hidden behind barriers and curtains, or banished to basements in order to pray in congregation? Are women not included in the Quran's declaration that "We have honoured the children of Adam"?ÂÂ
I can almost imagine a different way of looking at women's bodies, one which celebrates their power to bear, nourish and sustain life, and sees them as reminders of the creator. One that regards women's bodies---and men's bodies---as sacred rather than as profane distractions from the serious business of worship.
I hope that as women-led prayers become more common, that we can develop a theology of the human body which is more affirming. One that I'd actually like to pass on to my children and grandchildren.ÂÂ
If a kalipegean glutteus maximus is the problem with women in front, then what of those males who have a homosexual orientation, and are distracted by all (or some) of the male bottoms.
To my mind, all forms of corporate worship, in any religion, are flawed.
I think that solitary worship is superior. But then, there is a very simple political reason for advocating corporate worship, since one goal of religions which have achieved dominance is that very dominance itself. Political power and majority may only be gained through the practice of corporate worship.
There have been many religions in the history of the world which stress solitary devotions, and stress the freedom of individual choice over dogmatic and doctrinal inflexibility. But such solitude and leniency works just like some genetic factor in evolution. Beings which are solitary and fexible neither seek nor achieve majority and hegemony. Hence by definition, any dominant religion must be autocratic in its teachings, and corporate in its worship.
And yet, the great irony is that Abraham and Mohammed and many others achieved their first religious visions in solitude, in a wilderness or cave, as rebels who stood apart from the majority.
Yet, those who follow the religions founded upon such solitaries are forbidden to be solitary themselves or individualistic.
Is this fact not in itself a great irony and paradox?
I always saw this bottom blaming as symptomatic of men who are unable to take responsibility for their own sexuality.
Wasalaam
Here is a solution:
Gather together all the really nice spiritual tolerant interfaith passages from the Qur'an, and paste them together as a Thomas Jefferson Qur'an.
Declare a new religion called Misslam! Make the argument that all the nice passages were really revealed to Aiyesha, but because of the politics of the times, they had to be represented as coming from Mohammed.
Forbid males from joining or worshiping in Misslam, on the grounds that they are hopelessly unwholesome in their lewdness and sexual fantasies.
Only women are admitted to paradise. All males are consigned to torment. (Sounds fair to me.)
Those women admitted to paradise shall be called "the daughters of Allah."
The passage in the Qur'an which speaks of Allah having only daughters, ("while ye have sons"), is a hidden expression of the actual truth of Misslam, which has been repressed for so many centuries.
And, why not?
It was so weird, when I prayed standing next to a man when I prayed behind Nakia at Eid al-Fitr neither I nor the guy wanted to have sex with each other (we were joking about it afterwards).
What was funny is that this idea is so deeply ingrained in me, I was kind of surprised that I did not have one moment of feeling attraction to him.
Oh god, Laury, you actually joked about it afterwards?!?
But you're right, this idea is so deeply ingrained in us, even though we know damn well that it's nonsense. I mean, I grew up not only attending church (which had families sitting together during services), I sang in the choir. And the choir was made up of both men and women. It never occurred to me that there was anything sexual about the fact that we sat together, sang together, had choir practices together... we were all there to praise God and enjoy music, after all.
But when I became Muslim, I had to learn that my voice, my body, everything about me is just so irresistably sexual that I could not ever just praise God unself-consciously. I learned this, and internalized it, through community pressure, authoritarian legal discourse, and shaming (helped along a good bit by my extreme youth, desire to fit it, and lack of self-confidence). And boy, did it ever damage me. All I can say is that I hope that my kids don't come to believe that this is a normal way of looking at the world.
What we learned, we can unlearn.
Comment from Buddhist lurker: after meditation, my Zen group does three full prostrations before a short service consisting of group chanting, and then three full prostrations afterwards. Men and women are completely mixed in the zendo, and no one has ever complained of being distracted by the rear end of the person in front of him/her.
This isn't because we don't care about visual distractions. Attendees (male and female) are supposed to wear clothing in dull colors, no patterns, that covers the torso, legs, and upper arms. No jewelry or perfume. Some folks can become hyper-vigilant about policing for distracting clothing. Perhaps if we were Muslims, they'd be worrying about rear ends.
Common you know this just loads of crap (or just butt and ass to you)
The Mosque is a place of worship!
and the prayers/Salat in done a very specific way!
But somepeople don't wanna pray like our the Prophet Muhammad taught us to do it.
They try to find excuse to deviate and innovate in Salat and follows the devils?
or rather it's follow Silvers and Hedonist!
Don't wanna believe in what the prophet taught?
Well if you don wanna believe, just create whatever you wanna create and pray in your own temple like the First Unitarian Universalist.
Ohhh... you already will ;)
The most failed attempt to Bastardize Islam!
The "Nation of Islam"(Elijah Mohamad) at least had many follower like Malcom X and Muhammad Ali until they found the true Islam!
and no.... true Islam never accept gay !
Kuku, you are quite droll. I rather enjoy your satire at times.
I'd say the greater immodesty is treating people like mere pieces of meat, or beasts incapable of self control- it creates a hierarchy of humans in which no one is truly exalted, instead it merely creates levels of debasement and ignobility for humans to descend to. Creating a more gender-fair notion of spirituality and worship obliges us to respect ourselves and one another, as whole human beings.
Kukuman, there is no innovation if a woman leads because there is no order from the Quran or hadith that the leader must be a man. Innovating in prayer would mean changing the number of rakats, for example. You shouldn't throw around bid'ah and takfir so much; how young are you, anyway?
- A Salafi in worship, a Sufi in society, a Secularist in government.
Again, You are finding reason and excuse to deviate!
Whether your agenda is gender-fair, Unisexism, Multi-Cultrism or any other reason, You can only pray(Salat) as the Holy Prophet Muhammad Prays(Salat)! Don't make excuses or reasoning in non-world(spiritual) issue. Does your heart wanna worsip/Submit to God at the Mosque or rather your heart is focusing on a social agenda/change?
Don't wasted the your time in trying to re-engineer this so-hated Muslim Ummah here, with your Humanist value! And yes I know you pretend to preach Love and bla..bla..bla.., while being anti-family with this "belittleing the function of a good-man" mentality. The Family unit is the pillar of Ummah with a need of a strong and good male leadership! but you perfer your men as only a sperm donar! What a great MTV concept! Britney Spears as your idol? Oppss I did it again....
and yes Woman Imam is an inovation! Blasphemy! but still it is a nice name for a Temple! Very Unitarian indeed! :)
Salam alaikum, I generally enjoy MH's postings, but this is a bit of a straw "man". While some persons who have come out against female-led mixed sex congregational prayers have focused on issues related to male sexuality, e.g. Qaradawi, most have not, and many just provided a traditional fiqh analysis that results in the conclusion that the prayer is valid for the women in the congregation but not for the men. If you open the following link, http://mac.abc.se/~onesr/d/fwlp_e.pdf, you will find numerous fatwas on the issue of the female led Friday prayers. (Somehow, a casual e-mail I sent got included!). Only Qaradawi makes the "but" argument. I recognize that he is probably the most influential of the persons cited in the document, but I think it is still unfair to identify "butts" as the primary reasons why Muslims reject the concept of female-led prayers of mixed-sex congregations. MH is usually sensitive to theological problems, but in this case, she seems to gloss over the problem of the doctrine of wujub al-bayan (the Prophet's obligation to communicate divine norms) entirely. It is indisputable that there were female Sahabiyyat qualified to lead men in prayer at the time of the Prophet's (S) life and during the era of the first four Caliphs. Moreover, a community that would follow Aisha (R) into war would certainly have followed her in prayer had she sought such a position. I think supporters of female-led prayer need to address this, instead of relying on weak textual evidence in the form of Umm Waraqa. In my personal opinion, the best argument is that it is a bid'a hasana in the case of Muslims in the west, but as I mentioned in my e-mail, I don't think it can realistically be viewed as the primary problem facing Muslim women. In fact, it may be detrimental (sorry Laury!) to achieving other goals. Nevertheless, I have never condemned Amina (or anyone else) for doing it. Was-salam, Mohammad
Post new comment