Ghazali On Women In Islam

Just to point out. The religion is not based on any so called ``scholars``. Scholars opinions are based on their upbringing their culture etc... if they are revered the people who revere them`s opinion is also based on the same things. Please don`t confuse religion with culture. Hindus burn widows with their husbands and husbands are considered gods, christianity has been known for witchhunting and even now they go around practicing violence against people based on their sexual preferences.. i don`t know much about other religions but I`m sure if you want I could find a lot of things that lie in the history of any religious group which can be used to condemn them. Being a muslim does not mean you do as all other people of the muslim religious group have done. Therefore, I find what the following implies rather offensive and uncalled for... and just to point out, I not a follower of the Islamic faith:

What is the mentality of the greatest teacher and preacher of Islam ? Particularly how did Ghazali view women ? While you read the following keep asking yourself the question ``Would I as a decent human being`` (assuming you want to be one) ``would I associate myself with such a religion ? Would I let my mothers and sisters and daughters live under such a religion ?``

anyway, take care

Dear All,

The author of this piece ends his article, an expression of his opinions with the sentiment that he loves all people of all religions. However in saying so, he does not negate the fact that his opinions are expressed in such a fashion that will belign Muslims and respectful observers of Islam and possibly other religions (the reach of this man is not known to me).

Now you ask yourself, why would he infuriate others when most of what he says is true and representative of a religion where 1 in 6 people in this world follow. The reason being that in observing the teachings of Ghazali he fails to account for the basic fundamentals of the evolution of Islam.

As any student of Islam will know, much of what is Islam evolved through the process of Ijtihad or interpretation. What they would also know is that this process of interpretation and in many cases elaboration was made by a few Muslim clerics of importance in the early glorious days of Islam`s emergence. The consequcne of which has been that since initial translation, the infamous `Gates of Ijtihad` were closed - in that no scholar was to interpret the Quran from its source but rather from the teachings of these clerics.

What the world was left behind with was 4 different schools of thought on Islam, with 4 different views on many issues, worringly including fundamental issues and concerns. A favourite issue of debate being polygamy where opinions ranged from allowing men to marry more than one women but only in strict circumstances to not affording any man such a right as no Muslim can duplicate the perfection of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in serving two.

So you ask, what has this to do with Ghazali? The answer, everything. Ghazali being a scholar is not a muslim cleric ordained to interpret the Quran but was rather involved in the discussion of Islam, as it was in the 11th century. A discussion with many other scholars and therefore embroiled in the local culture and traditions of that region and era. Therefore his opinions, although of interest for historians and socioligists, bears little importance for the daily practices and beliefs of todays Muslims. I being a practising Muslim myself, have no qualms in making such a statement.

As is the common mistake, equating the feelings and opinions of one man with the true essence of a religion will only do injustice to both the religion and the faithful followers. True understanding of any religion is earned and not bestowed. To follow the 900 year old teachings of a scholar alone through the channels of a popular (and might I say impressive) website would be the largest misfortune.

I would like to leave you with a last thought to ponder upon. Aristotle and Socrates, the founders of modern stoic logic and social sciences, always considered the issue of slaves a logical and natural means for both society and the greater order to survive and prosper. So much so, that little was debated or written on this subject. How differently that would have been stated, had either one been alive in the more politically correct 20th or 21st century.

Enjoy!

Ghazali`s view on women ( as abhorrent as they may be) are no different from those of any medieval scholar - Islamic or otherwise..... - Women were in a state of bondage.. and were considered as property.

Consequently Ghazali`s views are neither applicable in this modern day and age, nor will they be endorsed by any clergy ( islamic or ortherise) - at least not the sane ones anyway.

I fail to see the intent of the author`s article, - Is it an critique of Ghazali`s philosophy - is there an insenuation that Islamic thought is soley based on Ghazali`s philosophy and is therefoe static and moribund in this day and age....

Or is this a rally cry for the femi-Nazis amongst us to assail Islam and its ensuing legacy... ( the good , the bad and the ugly)

If the purpose of this article is to inflame passions on both sides of the divide .... then it is in poor taste... if it is an academic study of Ghazali, then it has a very parochial and biased perspective.... After all we dont judge lincoln on his racist views ( which were consistent with those of the majority of the white emancipators), or Gandhi and his experiments in human sexuality .....

This article is so typical of highly inflammatory and polarised desi mind process which views issues in black and white and without regard to context or the times in which this was written. Consequently debate
is mired in rhetorical arguments based on academic assumptions. Therefore it is just debate for the sake of debate.... - I would have liked to have ssen a more balanced perspective of Ghazali and his philosophy...

ghazali was a philospher..not a prophet.

free people with any religious inclinations..if
your intentions are just to be a decent human
being, pick on all religions, religious
institutions etc...dont categorically hide behind
good intentions.

i have no doubt omar or the rest of the yahoos
you mentined said stuff like that...didnt they
steal the khilafat after all? i mean, it wasnt
religion for them, it was pure and simple
politics ( like it was for the medici who
became popes)..they never really had respect
for women since their culture dictated it to be
so and they only really accepted islam at a
face, not heart value.

but at my original point, i agree with s
ahmed..veiled boring attack on islam. go back
two hundred years in us history, women didnt
have rights and we had slaves...you cant
compare then to now.

worry about freeing yourself...let go of hang
ups...let others worry about themsevles.
believe it or not, as a semi practicing muslim, i
am just as capabe as you to make decisions
and think clearly and decide waht is best for
me.

rizvi.

Re: Replies 1 & 2

I agree that Imam Ghazali would be an easily forgetable, if somewhat repulsive, example of medieval barbarism if he was only read/studied in a purely academic context. That is, if he was used only by scholars of medieval Islam trying to figure out what made Muslims then tick.

However, I believe the author`s point is that Ghazali is still being used as a standard reference work by modern day ulema trying to fashion an `Islamic society.` The author does a less-than stellar job of making this aspect of the argument clear, simply alluding to the fact that Ghazali is still revered today.

If Ghazali is seen as a historical curiosity, then using his works to criticize Islam is pointless twaddle. If he is still a standard reference on what status an islamic society should accord women, then we have some problems. So which is it?

The facts mentioned in this article are ytterly outrageous and nothing but an heinous attempt to malify Islam.

Islam is the only religion in the world that has issued guidelines from the very begining to safeguard women`s rights and given them respect that was (and still is) unknown in any other religion, culture and society.

Mr. Shiraz` evil Twin, please get your home work done before getting to pen and paper. Thanx.

Mansoor.

Re : The compiler of above loves human beings be they Muslims or Hindus or Jews or Buddhists

what about women!

I see a fire.. and ooo, it`s being stoked!

if you want to criticize the people of Prophet Mohammad`s time, and later so called scholars of islam, by all means go ahead. However, the negative view of women that you attribute to Prophet Mohammed is absolutley repulsive. Rememeber that Prophet Mohammed introduced Islam to a society that used to bury their daughters alive at birth..The men of that society, and even the societies that followed after the Prophet`s time have used Islam as an excuse to oppress women. Thier views of the Prophet`s sayings were biased by their bigotrous manhood. This is why you will come across supposed ``sayings`` of the prophet that bashed women, but these sayings are completely off base. Just look at the way he behaved towards his wife Bibi Khadija, and his daughter Janabe Fatima Zehra (A.S.) Whenever Janabe Fatima Zehra walked into the room, he always rose to great her out of respect and love for her. How many fathers do you know today that do that?

zehra #2 is correct in her assumption that

``i have no doubt omar or the rest of the yahoos

you mentined said stuff like that...didnt they

steal the khilafat after all?

however these ``yahoos`` do not include the holy prophet of islam.

Zehra, good point: Ghazali is NOT regarded as prophet; just one of those imams (ok, maybe THE imam) that devout souls spend 20-30 years poring over in madarassas in Qumm and Damascus. What influence could / *he/ * possibly have on the direction global Islam takes, huh?

Syed Ahmed: (on context): Do your really believe that Imam Ghazali believed these dictums/principle to be merely temporally or spatially confined?? Puh-leez...gimme a break!

BTW, for those of you that are dying to know, I`m not the author.

this is funneee:

`The compiler of above loves human beings be they Muslims or Hindus or Jews or Buddhists.`

What a load of useless, biased, idiotic BULLSH-T!

Who the hell is Ghazali, and why should we be worried about him in this century?

I agree completely with Syed and Zehra`s posts (#1,2).

Women were always subjugated to be men`s toys and slaves in the past, regardless of religion or culture.

As for the role of the ``religiously`` inclined Muslim women of today, it`s not much different from many Orthodox Jewish communities. Although I may not agree with their role in society, they`re satisfied with it. And they aren`t doing anything horribly wrong. What`s the big deal?

So their children will have a strong maternal presence in the house, which has proven to have positive consequences anyway.

We have learned that Ghazali has no respect for women… The references provided by the author seem authentic. It would have been good to debate Ghazali, his works, his philosophy etc. in light of author’s description of Ghazali’s teachings.
The problem is that the author then jumps to the conclusion that since Ghazali is so well-respected amongst the Muslim clergy, his views must represent ISLAM’s position on rights of women.

Would you, as an educated, enlightened, free thinker, go along with author’s conclusion? In my view, the author of this article simply lacks prudence. He/She is definitely biased since the article totally ignores the view-point of all the Muslim scholars who would disagree with Ghazali on the question of status of women in Islam.
What does the author of this article wishes to achieve by presenting such a biased and ignorant account of women’s rights in Islam?

Following is an excerpt from “Hajj” by Ali Shariati – another respected Muslim scholar of our times. Let’s see if he agrees with Ghazali or with Shiraz` Evil Twin on the status of women in Islam: (in the last paragraph, shariati addresses the likes of Shiraz & his Evil Twin)

“Toward the west of Kaaba there is a semi-circular short wall which faces Kaaba. It is called Ismail`s Hajar. Hajar signifies lap or skirt. The semi lunar wall resembles a skirt.

Sarah, the wife of Ibrahim had a black maid (Ethiopian) called Hajar. She was extremely poor and humbled to the degree that Sarah did not object to her becoming a bed-mate of her husband, Ibrahim, in order to bear him a child. Here was a woman who was not honored enough to become a second wife to Ibrahim yet Allah connected the symbol of Hajar`s skirt to His symbol, Kaaba. The skirt of Hajar was the area in which Ismail was raised. The house of Hajar is there. Her grave is near the third column of Kaaba.

What a surprise since no one, not even prophets, is supposed to be buried in mosques but in this case, the house of a black maid is located next to
Allah`s house! Hajar, the mother of Ismail is buried there. Kaaba extends toward her grave. As a result, Allah`s house is directed toward her skirt!

There is a narrow passage between the wall (Hajar`s skirt) and Kaaba. When circumambulating around Kaaba, Allah commanded that you must go around the wall (not through the passage) otherwise your Hajj will not be accepted.

Those who believe in monotheism and those who have accepted Allah`s invitation to go to Hajj must touch this skirt when circumambulating the
Kaaba. The grave of a black African maid, [a WOMAN] and a good mother is now a part of Kaaba; it will be circumambulated by man forever!

Allah, the Almighty, in His great and glorious Divinity is all alone by Himself. He needs nobody and nothing. Nevertheless, among all His countless
and eternal creatures, He has chosen one, mankind, the noblest of them.

From among all humanity: a WOMAN,
From among all women: a slave,
And from among all slaves: a black maid!

The weakest and most humiliated one of His creatures was given a place at His side and a room in His house. He has come to her house and become her neighbor and roommate. So now, there are two, Allah and Hajar, under the ceiling of this ``house``!

IN THE ISLAMIC COMMUNITY, THE ``UNKNOWN SOLDIER`` IS SO ELECTED!

The rituals of Hajj are a memory of Hajar. The word Higrah (migration) has its root in her name as does the word Mahajir (immigrant). ``The ideal
immigrant is the one who behaved like Hajar.`` Mohammad (PBUH)

Higrah is what Hajar did. It is also a transition from savagery to becoming civilized and from Kofr to Islam.

In Hajar`s mother language her name means ``the city``. Even the name of this black Ethiopian slave is symbolic of civilization. Furthermore, any migration like hers is a move toward civilization!

Hajar`s grave is in the midst of man`s circumambulation of Kaaba. You, the mohajir (immigrant), who has divorced himself from everything and accepted Allah`s invitation to go to Hajj, you will circumambulate Hajar`s grave and
the Kaaba of Allah simultaneously.

What is being said in these paragraphs? It is difficult to realize. But for those who think they live in freedom and defend humanism, the significance of these incidents transgresses the scope of their understanding!”

Source: HAJJ By Dr. Ali Shariati

This just proves that those men quoted in this article were idiots!!!!

Islam is still a great religion.


Bina (feminazi)

lets just decide people, if anyone of you think that he/she can interpret islam or quran... thats fine... but one way or the other.. an overwhelming majority of the religious whole of muslims do believe in the teachings and interpretations of clerics like Ghazali directly or indirectly... thats what actually the Dominant perception prevail STILL NOW about women in the circle of enlightened/narrowminded/watever ulemas who endorse Ghazali`s teachings ......

If you do not agree with THEM then PUHLEEZE next time u go for haj or umra then beware not to pray behind the Imam-e-Kaaba and Mir-e-Haj (that blind guy) coz they DO certainly rever Ghazali and the likes of those....

btw nice homework Shiraz with all the references.....

Re: zehra

``i have no doubt omar or the rest of the yahoos you mentined said stuff like that...didnt they steal the khilafat after all?``

Never heard anyone use the word ``yahoo`` for Umar ibn al-Khitab before. He was a very conservative fella - but yahoo? No, that just doesn`t fit. Not for Umar. Your comments would probably draw a lot of fire. Maybe bring out Naqshbandi from his hiding place.

re: Syed Ahmed

``Consequently Ghazali`s views are neither applicable in this modern day and age, nor will they be endorsed by any clergy ( islamic or ortherise) - at least not the sane ones anyway.``

Ghazali is the final word for Sunni clergy (sane or insane and most of them are insane) even today. Ghazali is gospel for them.

``I fail to see the intent of the author`s article, - Is it an critique of Ghazali`s philosophy - is there an insenuation that Islamic thought is soley based on Ghazali`s philosophy and is therefoe static and moribund in this day and age....``

I thought the article is relevant. We are reminded often by orthodox muslims that the reason for our downfall is deviation from the teachings of the Prophet and our inability to enforce the Shariah - the Islamic Law. The Shariah has been defined by people like Ghazali and has not changed for the last many centuries. The article gives you an idea of how absurd these laws/ideas are in the present day. I think Shiraz trivialized his writing by using words like `al-bud`. He has also failed to mention that most modern historians consider Muhammad as one of the first emancipators of women and Islam to be the first religions to give rights to women, previously unheard of. In the context of previous conditions, Islam was no less than a revolution for women. The problem is that there was no progress made after the his death. Rather, there was a degeneration back to the times of jahiliya. In the present context, though, that emancipation seems too little. Instead of making progress our ulemas want us to go back and start living in the 7th century. The article provides a good idea of how that would turn out to be.

p.s. Ghazali has b.s.ed on numerous other topics also.