do you think a woman president would make the US a happier place?

Depends on who the president is. I don't vote based on race or gender.

Oh God no....

[QUOTE="Victorious_Fize"]

I've literally the faintest idea of what you just said... you have a serious knack forsophistry or ignoring the other party's content. I've told you countless times the origins of the statement. An empire lacking leadership so much that they needed a woman is one that will not succeed.

BTW, was the dear supposed to be patronizing or extenuating?In all rates, lets make this easier:

1- what are you stating?

2- what is your evidence?

3- what do you think it means?

4- on what grounds?

5- were the context and/or origins that lead to the statement included in those grounds, if so, what are they?

ghoklebutter

"Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler."

If it weren't general, then it wouldn't refer to "nation" as a general term and "woman" as a general term. And if it were specific about incompetent women, it would say "Never will succeed such a nation as makes an incompetent woman their ruler." But there is no judgment of competence here. The only thing that is mentioned here is the sex of unsuccessful rulers, namely female. Thus, I conclude that the meaning is as follows: no nation ruled by a woman will succeed.

Also, here's what Ibn Kathir has to say:

Ibn Katheer says:

It means the man is in charge of the woman; he is her leader, the ruler over her WHO DISCIPLINES HER if she goes astray.

"because Allaah has made one of them to excel the other" means, because men are superior to woman, and a man IS BETTER THAN A WOMAN. Hence Prophethood was given ONLY TO MEN, as is the role of caliph, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "No people will ever prosper who appoint a woman in charge of them."

Tafseer Ibn Katheer, 1/492.

Page 641 of Umdat al-Salik essentially has the same argument.

[QUOTE="Victorious_Fize"][QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

I already made a post about Aisha and you ignored it.

Storm_Marine

No you don't. And my point was perfectly valid. Problem?

Now you're ignoring me, I'm not sure what I did to deserve this.

[QUOTE="lpjazzman220"]

how should i put this...the majority of our international dealings as of late have been with middle eastern dignitaries...what do the majority of people in the middle east thing of women? that they are below men...so yes...lets elect a woman president so that the people we are dealing with will take us as a joke on top of the problems they already have with us...note my sarcasm...

airshocker

Obama is already regarded as a joke by Middle Eastern countries.

Who the f*ck is Ibn Kathir and why do you keep refusing to understand the context? You can dissect the word all you want, its origins will not change no matter how much you refuse to address them. For the last time. It was said in that time for the situation in Persia, so yes, if your nation requires a heir and its people choose an untrained woman purely because of blood, chances are, your nation will fail hard (and guess who defeated the Sassanid?).Victorious_Fize

You don't know Ibn Kathir? That sure shows how much you know. =|

Anyway,

During the battle of Al-Jamal, Allah benefited me with a Word (I heard from the Prophet). When the Prophet heard the news that the people of the Persia had made the daughter of Khosrau their Queen (ruler), he said, "Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler."

Now, Fize, please show me how this is only in regards to the daughter of Khosrau, and not also a general statement for all female leaders. Why did Muhammad say thata nation lead by a woman will not succeed? That the words "nation" and "women" are indefinite necessarily means that they are being used to make a general Islamic rule.

Also, if this was about an untrained female leader only, he would have been more specific. Since he wasn't, and he was being general in saying this, I have a good reason to conclude that he was, in fact, saying that women shouldn't be rulers.

[QUOTE="Victorious_Fize"] Who the f*ck is Ibn Kathir and why do you keep refusing to understand the context? You can dissect the word all you want, its origins will not change no matter how much you refuse to address them. For the last time. It was said in that time for the situation in Persia, so yes, if your nation requires a heir and its people choose an untrained woman purely because of blood, chances are, your nation will fail hard (and guess who defeated the Sassanid?).ghoklebutter

You don't know Ibn Kathir? That sure shows how much you know. =|

Anyway,

During the battle of Al-Jamal, Allah benefited me with a Word (I heard from the Prophet). When the Prophet heard the news that the people of the Persia had made the daughter of Khosrau their Queen (ruler), he said, "Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler."

Now, Fize, please show me how this is only in regards to the daughter of Khosrau, and not also a general statement for all female leaders. Why did Muhammad say thata nation lead by a woman will not succeed? That the words "nation" and "women" are indefinite necessarily means that they are being used to make a general Islamic rule.

Also, if this was about an untrained female leader only, he would have been more specific. Since he wasn't, and he was being general in saying this, I have a good reason to conclude that he was, in fact, saying that women shouldn't be rulers.

I don't know Ibn Kathir and I've no interest into submitting my dogma to an Abbassi author, unlike you.

You are still dissecting the word even though I told who the prophet referred to countless times; not only that, but you are STILL USING THE SHIA NARRATIVE TO BACK YOUR POINT... how dense can you be?

"Now, Fize, please show me how this is only in regards to the daughter of Khosrau"

Now, ghokle, please show me the origins of this hadith and its context. :|

FYI, the hadith doesn't mention a "nation" nor an absolute "never" nor a ruler at all, where the heck did you get that from?

You know Arabic, so read it right will you: "lan yuflihu qawm walu amrahum emra'ah.

Sorry if I seem aggressive, but I've grown tired of you rehashing the same crap with not a single adressing of any of my views. You seem to have a knack to repeat analyzing the word, wheras I continue to explain to you how it referred to a Persian queen, the Prophet's wife lead the Muslims after his death all the way to battles, etc. So since you have a major double-stand with how you handle absolutes with anything leftist and anything Muslim, I think you should translate the hadith yourself with your alleged Arabic knolwedge that allowed you to first-handedly expose Islam.

you got a link or proof of that buddy? or are you just spewing your opinions?ZumaJones07

Oh please, don't quote me and include "spewing" in your post when trying to describe what you think I'm doing when this community has come to a consensus that you're the worst thread creator of 2011.

Iran proceeding with it's nuclear program, Syria murdering it's civilians. If a Republican had been in office those countries wouldn't have dared to defy us.

I don't know Ibn Kathir and I've no interest into submitting my dogma to an Abbassi author, unlike you.

You are still dissecting the word even though I told who the prophet referred to countless times; not only that, but you are STILL USING THE SHIA NARRATIVE TO BACK YOUR POINT... how dense can you be?

"Now, Fize, please show me how this is only in regards to the daughter of Khosrau"

Now, ghokle, please show me the origins of this hadith and its context. :|

FYI, the hadith doesn't mention a "nation" nor an absolute "never" nor a ruler at all, where the heck did you get that from?

You know Arabic, so read it right will you: "lan yuflihu qawm walu amrahum emra'ah.

Sorry if I seem aggressive, but I've grown tired of you rehashing the same crap with not a single adressing of any of my views. You seem to have a knack to repeat analyzing the word, wheras I continue to explain to you how it referred to a Persian queen, the Prophet's wife lead the Muslims after his death all the way to battles, etc. So since you have a major double-stand with how you handle absolutes with anything leftist and anything Muslim, I think you should translate the hadith yourself with your alleged Arabic knolwedge that allowed you to first-handedly expose Islam.

Victorious_Fize

So because he's an Abbassi author, his work is invalid? That's pretty close-minded. Ibn Kathir is a respected scholar whom countless Sunni scholars are fond of.

Why does it matter if I am using the Shia narrative? In any case, here is a reputable Sunni source (and yes, it doesn't like Shi3a Islam AFAIK) that cites this hadith:http://islamqa.info/en/ref/20677/women%20rulers

Also, that Arabic doesn't seem to refer to a specific event. Yes, it was in a certain contex (which is the one you have provided, and I have found it to be correct), but that doesn't mean that it isn't a general rule that Muhammad mentioned.

I mean, let's look at the Arabic (I appreciate the fact that you provided it, by the way):

"Lan yufli7u qawmun wallu amrahum imra2ah."

Now, to my knowledge, "qawm" has the following meanings: kin, tribe, race, people, nation, etc. And in this sentence this word is indefinite. So is the word "imra2ah"; it is indefinite as well.

Indefinite words are used to denote either lack of specifity or generality. If Muhammad was specifically referring to the daughter of Khosrau, then he would speak in a more specific manner to make it clear about whom he was referring to. But he didn't. He is literally talking about aqwam and imra2at in general. Either he wasn't specific because he was making a general statement about female leaders, or he was simply really bad at letting people know that he wasn't making a general statment.

Also, the word "amr" may not mean "ruler" exactly, but it definitely pertains to authority and power. And since this is referring to "imra2ah" (and of course a woman is necessarily a person) clearly it means something like "leader" (it may not be the exact word, but there are no other interpretations of the meaning of that word).

And let's say that "never" is really supposed to be "lan." That just makes the sentence something like "A qawm that appoints a woman as their amr will not succeed," which still sounds general.

Lastly, even if it referred to the Persian Queen, the generality of the statement leads me to conclude that it's not merely applicable to that aforementioned event.

I have no problem with your tone. And I admit that I might be kind of harsh here. I don't want to be too rude. So I'm sorry if you don't like the way I'm arguing with you.

Also, what exactly do you mean by "leftist?" Are you talking about my anarchist and feminist views?

[QUOTE="ZumaJones07"]you got a link or proof of that buddy? or are you just spewing your opinions?airshocker

Oh please, don't quote me and include "spewing" in your post when trying to describe what you think I'm doing when this community has come to a consensus that you're the worst thread creator of 2011.

Iran proceeding with it's nuclear program, Syria murdering it's civilians. If a Republican had been in office those countries wouldn't have dared to defy us.

If she's a republican, then hell yeah!

[QUOTE="ZumaJones07"]you got a link or proof of that buddy? or are you just spewing your opinions?airshocker

Oh please, don't quote me and include "spewing" in your post when trying to describe what you think I'm doing when this community has come to a consensus that you're the worst thread creator of 2011.

Iran proceeding with it's nuclear program, Syria murdering it's civilians. If a Republican had been in office those countries wouldn't have dared to defy us.

sorry, but "worst" is only an opinion word and doesn't hold any truth nor does it phase me. plus all my topics are hits so you obviously have no idea how to vote. and lol at "defy us." what makes you think that old geezer mccain and his milf vp are more respectable to the middle-east than obama and biden? again, you're spewing nonsense. my spewing at least has some merit.ZumaJones07

When OT can come to a consensus on somebody, it's usually true. Couldn't care less if you were the Justin Bieber of OT, that doesn't make you intelligent.

For one the world knows a Republican wouldn't hesitate to use military action in either of those two countries I previously listed. Since you can't see that, this is a pretty pointless conversation. There's only so much stupid I can handle in one day. :lol:

For one the world knows a Republican wouldn't hesitate to use military action in either of those two countries I previously listed. Since you can't see that, this is a pretty pointless conversation. There's only so much stupid I can handle in one day. :lol:

airshocker

which republican are you thinking of? they sound like a meddling little b*tch, but that's what all republicans are, so i guess you're right. you are wrong about a republican using military force in a time when it would plunge us into more debt, you're outta your mind if you think the american people would support more war. it isn't the US' business to police the world, that mindset is dumb and you should stop thinking like that.ZumaJones07

Considering Bush was a northeastern-educated, liberal Republican and took us to war in two countries, what the hell do you think a war veteran, someone who isn't afraid of advocating for military action AT ALL, would do in place of Obama?

Secondly, I don't like the idea of people being murdered by dictators. If you're against military action to prevent things like that from happening you're a heartless coward and you're in the minority.

Secondly, I don't like the idea of people being murdered by dictators. If you're against military action to prevent things like that from happening you're a heartless coward and you're in the minority.

airshocker

it's not our business to protect other people bro, it's our business to take care of the people on our own soil first and bush did a horrible job at that and passed all the bullsht to obama. but i'm happy obama is prez cuz he wants to socialize healthcare to help people here in the US and also end wars. he killed osama, that's what i call Mission Accomplished. :cool:ZumaJones07

It's the business of the strong to protect those who can't protect themselves. It's sad that you're too much of a coward to do what's right.

[QUOTE="ZumaJones07"]it's not our business to protect other people bro, it's our business to take care of the people on our own soil first and bush did a horrible job at that and passed all the bullsht to obama. but i'm happy obama is prez cuz he wants to socialize healthcare to help people here in the US and also end wars. he killed osama, that's what i call Mission Accomplished. :cool:airshocker

It's the business of the strong to protect those who can't protect themselves. It's sad that you're too much of a coward to do what's right.

how am i a coward when i'm not in the military? your attempt to insult me is futile. you're the cop hiding here in the US instead of fighting the real fight you claim i'm too scared to fight. :PZumaJones07

Already fought, and you don't have to be in the military to not be a coward. Simply standing up for what's right is pretty brave. But you're okay with humans being killed so long as it's far, far away from you.

Obama became president and ghetto black people are still an embarrassment to this nation so no, having a female president wouldn't make much of a difference.

[QUOTE="Victorious_Fize"]

I don't know Ibn Kathir and I've no interest into submitting my dogma to an Abbassi author, unlike you.

You are still dissecting the word even though I told who the prophet referred to countless times; not only that, but you are STILL USING THE SHIA NARRATIVE TO BACK YOUR POINT... how dense can you be?

"Now, Fize, please show me how this is only in regards to the daughter of Khosrau"

Now, ghokle, please show me the origins of this hadith and its context. :|

FYI, the hadith doesn't mention a "nation" nor an absolute "never" nor a ruler at all, where the heck did you get that from?

You know Arabic, so read it right will you: "lan yuflihu qawm walu amrahum emra'ah.

Sorry if I seem aggressive, but I've grown tired of you rehashing the same crap with not a single adressing of any of my views. You seem to have a knack to repeat analyzing the word, wheras I continue to explain to you how it referred to a Persian queen, the Prophet's wife lead the Muslims after his death all the way to battles, etc. So since you have a major double-stand with how you handle absolutes with anything leftist and anything Muslim, I think you should translate the hadith yourself with your alleged Arabic knolwedge that allowed you to first-handedly expose Islam.

ghoklebutter

So because he's an Abbassi author, his work is invalid? That's pretty close-minded. Ibn Kathir is a respected scholar whom countless Sunni scholars are fond of.

Why does it matter if I am using the Shia narrative? In any case, here is a reputable Sunni source (and yes, it doesn't like Shi3a Islam AFAIK) that cites this hadith:http://islamqa.info/en/ref/20677/women%20rulers

Also, that Arabic doesn't seem to refer to a specific event. Yes, it was in a certain contex (which is the one you have provided, and I have found it to be correct), but that doesn't mean that it isn't a general rule that Muhammad mentioned.

I mean, let's look at the Arabic (I appreciate the fact that you provided it, by the way):

"Lan yufli7u qawmun wallu amrahum imra2ah."

Now, to my knowledge, "qawm" has the following meanings: kin, tribe, race, people, nation, etc. And in this sentence this word is indefinite. So is the word "imra2ah"; it is indefinite as well.

Indefinite words are used to denote either lack of specifity or generality. If Muhammad was specifically referring to the daughter of Khosrau, then he would speak in a more specific manner to make it clear about whom he was referring to. But he didn't. He is literally talking about aqwam and imra2at in general. Either he wasn't specific because he was making a general statement about female leaders, or he was simply really bad at letting people know that he wasn't making a general statment.

Also, the word "amr" may not mean "ruler" exactly, but it definitely pertains to authority and power. And since this is referring to "imra2ah" (and of course a woman is necessarily a person) clearly it means something like "leader" (it may not be the exact word, but there are no other interpretations of the meaning of that word).

And let's say that "never" is really supposed to be "lan." That just makes the sentence something like "A qawm that appoints a woman as their amr will not succeed," which still sounds general.

Lastly, even if it referred to the Persian Queen, the generality of the statement leads me to conclude that it's not merely applicable to that aforementioned event.

I have no problem with your tone. And I admit that I might be kind of harsh here. I don't want to be too rude. So I'm sorry if you don't like the way I'm arguing with you.

Also, what exactly do you mean by "leftist?" Are you talking about my anarchist and feminist views?

What? I never said his work is invalid, I said I don't take Abassi's authors words as absolute truth, much less bother with them. And holy crap, now you aren't even ignoring the context, you're openly refuting it. :|

amr = matter.

qawm = people, it's also used to denote nationalism "qawmajiah", nation means "dawlah".

lan = not, abadan means "never".

The only thing you were able to understand was imra'ah, which means woman, a little ironic, I'll say.

Yes, you do have an obvious leftist bias, your entire world view is shaped on the rejection of absolutes, yet you will not flinch for a second when you make outlandish claims about Islam, like the one we're seeing (women can't lead).

[QUOTE="ZumaJones07"]how am i a coward when i'm not in the military? your attempt to insult me is futile. you're the cop hiding here in the US instead of fighting the real fight you claim i'm too scared to fight. :Pairshocker

Already fought, and you don't have to be in the military to not be a coward. Simply standing up for what's right is pretty brave. But you're okay with humans being killed so long as it's far, far away from you.

i am okay with people dying far away from meZumaJones07

...

What? I never said his work is invalid, I said I don't take Abassi's authors words as absolute truth, much less bother with them. And holy crap, now you aren't even ignoring the context, you're openly refuting it. :|

amr = matter.

qawm = people, it's also used to denote nationalism "qawmajiah", nation means "dawlah".

lan = not, abadan means "never".

The only thing you were able to understand was imra'ah, which means woman, a little ironic, I'll say.

Yes, you do have an obvious leftist bias, your entire world view is shaped on the rejection of absolutes, yet you will not flinch for a second when you make outlandish claims about Islam, like the one we're seeing (women can't lead).

Victorious_Fize

Why don't you bother with them? What is it about their being Abbasi that makes you ignore them?

My point was that the context is insignificant if Muhammad's statement was absolute and not only applicable to the daughter of Khosrau. Obviously, it was said in that context, but as you know, context doesn't always limit the meaning of some statement.

I forgot about that meaning of "amr, but please tell me how it can only mean "matter" here. I'm curious. Also, here's a translation that uses that meaning: "No people will prosper if they delegate their affairs to a woman."It's still problematic AND it still sounds general (affair is another possible meaning of "amr", I believe). And my interpretation is still reasonable if the meaning of "qawm" is people (in fact, I listed that meaning; I didn't ignore it at all). Lastly, I know that lan = not. I just implied that in my earlier post. I know it doesn't mean "never." But the sentence can still sound general with "not."

Also, your claim about me having a "leftist bias" is strange. First, I don't base my worldview on the rejection of absolutes. I disagree with certain absolutes, but not all of them. A good example is morality. That is irrelevant here, though.

Second, I should tell you that I am willing to believe you if you can show me that Muhammad's statement was not general and was only applicable to the daugher of Khosrau. I may be averse to Islam, but (surprisingly) I can change my views. For example, I used to adamantly believe that Islam doesn't punish rape; I was proven wrong, and now I don't believe that. I now know that there is a 7add punishment for rape in Islam. What makes me adamant regarding my views of Islam is that most arguments that defend the religion are flawed and clearly apologetic.

Also, here is the link to a reliable source that agrees with me (reposting it again in case you conveniently ignored it):http://islamqa.info/en/ref/20677/women%20leader

[QUOTE="Victorious_Fize"]

What? I never said his work is invalid, I said I don't take Abassi's authors words as absolute truth, much less bother with them. And holy crap, now you aren't even ignoring the context, you're openly refuting it. :|

amr = matter.

qawm = people, it's also used to denote nationalism "qawmajiah", nation means "dawlah".

lan = not, abadan means "never".

The only thing you were able to understand was imra'ah, which means woman, a little ironic, I'll say.

Yes, you do have an obvious leftist bias, your entire world view is shaped on the rejection of absolutes, yet you will not flinch for a second when you make outlandish claims about Islam, like the one we're seeing (women can't lead).

ghoklebutter

Why don't you bother with them? What is it about their being Abbasi that makes you ignore them?

My point was that the context is insignificant if Muhammad's statement was absolute and not only applicable to the daughter of Khosrau. Obviously, it was said in that context, but as you know, context doesn't always limit the meaning of some statement.

I forgot about that meaning of "amr, but please tell me how it can only mean "matter" here. I'm curious. Also, here's a translation that uses that meaning: "No people will prosper if they delegate their affairs to a woman."It's still problematic AND it still sounds general (affair is another possible meaning of "amr", I believe). And my interpretation is still reasonable if the meaning of "qawm" is people (in fact, I listed that meaning; I didn't ignore it at all). Lastly, I know that lan = not. I just implied that in my earlier post. I know it doesn't mean "never." But the sentence can still sound general with "not."

Also, your claim about me having a "leftist bias" is strange. First, I don't base my worldview on the rejection of absolutes. I disagree with certain absolutes, but not all of them. A good example is morality. That is irrelevant here, though.

Second, I should tell you that I am willing to believe you if you can show me that Muhammad's statement was not general and was only applicable to the daugher of Khosrau. I may be averse to Islam, but (surprisingly) I can change my views. For example, I used to adamantly believe that Islam doesn't punish rape; I was proven wrong, and now I don't believe that. I now know that there is a 7add punishment for rape in Islam. What makes me adamant regarding my views of Islam is that most arguments that defend the religion are flawed and clearly apologetic.

Also, here is the link to a reliable source that agrees with me (reposting it again in case you conveniently ignored it):http://islamqa.info/en/ref/20677/women%20leader

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="ZumaJones07"]you got a link or proof of that buddy? or are you just spewing your opinions?kingkong0124

Oh please, don't quote me and include "spewing" in your post when trying to describe what you think I'm doing when this community has come to a consensus that you're the worst thread creator of 2011.

Iran proceeding with it's nuclear program, Syria murdering it's civilians. If a Republican had been in office those countries wouldn't have dared to defy us.

and what exactly are you doing about it

- did you tell obama to intervene?

did you tell anyone to tell obama to intervene? Has anybody told him? And if so: how many? And how many opposed to how many told him not to intervene?

do you understand that a democratically elected leader is there to carry out the will of the people? Well, where is the will of the people?

Sigh..

America.

Doesn't matter at all, regardless of whatever different president the US gets the government will still be awful and problematic.

Tell you what... We'll give you Julia Gillard and you give us Barrak Obama. That should answer your question.