Re: [Dar-al-Masnavi] Rumi's Attitudes Toward Women

[Reema B]

Salaam alaykum,

This is a very interesting discussion especially as I identify as a Muslim feminist who is currently in a Naqshbandi tariqah. I've only read parts of the Masnavi and so far I noticed Mawlana use the feminine in metaphorical ways, sometimes positively (i.e. as symbol of Divine Love and the feminine aspects of Divinity) and sometimes negatively (i.e. as symbol of ego, lust, and dunya). 

Aside from what I had read from the Masnavi, I recall reading a few quotations in articles or quoted by people I know that were attributed to Mawlana which seemed to portray women as capable of reaching spiritual heights faster than men. I do not remember what those passages were or where I had read them. A friend of mine also quoted this to me and told me it was by Rumi: "A woman is God shining through subtle veils." (unfortunately, she didn't tell me where did she find this). Since this topic came up in the discussion group, I thought of asking you regarding the existence and the authenticity of passages such as these.

Thanking you in advance wa jazak Allah khayr,

Reema

On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Ibrahim <daralmas...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Iljas,

Salaam,

Certainly, we can reason that since Mawlana was educated as a religious scholar, he would have accepted the equality of Muslim men and women worshipers of God as taught in the Qur'an--believing, for example, that God will judge all on the basis of their righteous, pious, prayerful, sincere, generous, etc. intentions and behavior, with no advantage or disadvantage from being male or female.

Still, Mawlana retained certain attitudes, as exemplified by the following from Rumi scholar Annemarie Schimmel ("The Triumphal Sun: A Study of the Works of Jalaloddin Rumi," 1978, pp. 255-56):

"One creature in which Satan can hide his ruses and which he often uses to lead men astray, is women. Classical Sufi tradition was by no means very positive with regard to woman--not much more than medieval Christianity, although the Prophet's fondness for 'the fair sex' and the important role of the women in his family, mainly his daughter Fatema, never allowed the pious to completely disavow women's religious role. Women were accepted as saints and their spiritual capacities were, though sometimes grudgingly admitted. Rabe`a al-`Adawiyya is the first famous example of a Muslim woman saint. But Rumi, faithful to the medieval tradition, makes one of his heroes sigh: 'First and last my fall was through woman!'* The ruse of women is great, and they cause the spirit to descend into the realm of corporal existence by seducing man into sexual intercourse. Since the animal quality prevails in woman, she brings things into the material, i,e, animal, world. Was not the first blood on earth, that of Abel, shed for the sake of women?** Rumi agrees with the Prophetic tradition that one should seek counsel with women and then act contrary to their advice.*** For women have less intelligence than men: even a woman's dream is less true than a man's.**** ....Woman is a trial for man, as Rumi has underscored in a longish passage of Fihi ma fihi where he describes the good way leading to God: "What is that way? To wed women, so that he might endure the tyranny of women and hear their absurdities, for them to ride roughshod over him, and so for him to refine his own character.... By enduring and putting up with the tyranny of women it is as though you rub off your own impurity on them. Your character becomes good through forbearance; their character becomes bad through domineering and aggression."*****

*through woman: Masnavi VI: 2799 f

**sake of women: Masnavi VI: 4471 f

***their advice: Masnavi VI: 2956

****than a man's: Masnavi VI: 4320 f. "Know that a woman's dreams are inferior to those of a man because of her deficiency of intellect and weakness of soul."

[khwâb-e zan kam-tar z-khwâb-e mard dân/ az pay-e naqSân-e `aql-o Za`f-e jân]

خوابِ زن کمتر زِ خوابِِ مرد دان *** از پیِ نقصانِ عق لو ضعفِ جان

*****and aggression: Discourses, 98 (= Discourse no. 20)

Ibrahim

-----------

Salaam,

Ibrahim wrote:

"One factor, seldom mentioned, is that Mawlana was very much an ascetic (and therefore tended to have an ascetic's views of women in general)."

I'm guessing you mean that ascetics, including Rumi, had a somewhat negative view of women, seeing them as a temptation, an obstacle on the way. Well it depends on what you mean by "women". Yes if you are referring exclusively to the "form" of  women but I doubt your statement is true if you are referring to women more comprehensively as both form and content or physical and spiritual being. After all, he was familiar with the Quranic perspective and he was spiritually mature within a true Islamic perspective.

Iljas

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dar-al-Masnavi" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/dar-al-masnavi/-/lco17a-ntYsJ.
To post to this group, send email to dar-al-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to dar-al-masnav...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/dar-al-masnavi?hl=en.

--
**Tea_Time** within ourselves, with others, with life...& beyond at the *Tea House**!: http://teatimereflections.blogspot.com

[Iljas Baker]

Dear Ibrahim I'd appreciate it if you replace the version already sent with this one which has numerous errors corrected and a few bits added for clarity. Thanks.

-------------------

I think it is difficult to sort out all the strands of this topic - the Sufi view of women/Rumi's view of women - partly because we cannot really treat Sufism as some kind of unified thing. Many of the great Shaykhs including Mevlana, Abdl Qadir Jilani etc were critical of so-called Sufism and false shaykhs. I seem to remember a 8th or 9th century luminary saying something like "During the time of the prophet there was Sufism but no name, afterwards there was the name but no Sufism." So when AM Schimmel talks about Classical Sufism then we have to question what that actually means. Then there is the whole issue of the authenticity of hadith: "One should seek the counsel of women and then do the opposite." Do you really think that is authentic? It doesn't really matter from Rumi's perspective because he is using "women" metaphorically here - do the opposite of what the lower self prompts you to do!

Sorry Ibrahim but I am not trying to shed a negative light on Sufism, which you seemed to think was my intention many posts ago when we talking about shaykhs. I'm just pointing to what has been said about Sufism and then questioning the notion of something like a classical Sufism and the usefulness of such a term.

It seems that most of the famous shaykhs of times past were addressing themselves to men and women were a very small minority of seekers within the Islamic tradition. This of course meant that it was normal to refer to women as a sort of obstacle on the path and given that Islam eschews monkhood this is no mere metaphor. And the talk about enduring the "tyranny" of women - well why not? Remember they were talking about the path, it is not a general moral critique of women! This kind of talk of course seems awkward at least and at most insulting nowadays given the different attitudes towards gender and the fact that many more women are joining Sufi tariqas. But even wives on the path will still from time to time show their "tyrannical" side in a marriage. If one were addressing women one could easily talk about the "tyranny" of men. And of course even men on the path from time to time show their "tyrannical" side in a marriage.The important point is not to treat these things as moral critique but to note that normal life is the path and whatever one is confronted with is the will of God at that time.

One of the biggest temptations/failings of numerous contemporary shaykhs and gurus of all sorts (and of course those on the path) may be that they become sexually involved with their followers (or if they are followers, with other followers or shaykhs) and as most shaykhs and followers are men then what was said in Mevlana's time is still very pertinent. But in truth it equally applies to men if women are being addressed.

Mevlana's and other Sufi writings are not a moral critique of women, they refer to what men will meet on the path and offer advice about what to do.

My apologies if what I have written offends anyone. I feel I am struggling to convey something of what I take to be the reality behind the words and admit I may have failed for one reason or another.

BTW after Sakinah posted her response to my original post I did reply saying I was sorry that something I quoted pained her but that I felt that Mevlana was only referring to the physical dimension of women and in no way intended to demean women. I also stated that what was said also applied to men if women were being addressed. It did not as far as I can see appear on the discussion board.

Iljas

[Esther]

Dear Ibrahim, Reema, and All,
  Using the term "woman" as a metaphor for the lower nafs has done great harm, to both sexes.  Often Mevlana represented the lower nafs by an animal, which clearly is a more appropriate and accurate metaphor since both the male and the female have nafs-y-ammara  (the self that commands to the lowest, to injustice), a term usually translated by Nicholson as 'the fleshly soul.'  Unevolved men are only too eager to forget that demeaning statements about women are meant metaphorically; and uneducated, powerless women sometimes buy into these concepts in order to survive. 

It's crucial  for today's Muslims to deconstruct  these medieval and patriarchal concepts which  we see in the passages  from Mevlana that  Schimmel cites. As Ibrahim points out, the Qur'an acknowledges the "metaphysical equality"  of women. However, that alone  point has not been sufficient  to undo the deep-rooted,  negative, psychological projections  which women have had to carry for centuries: that they are more animal-like, less intelligent, a trial for men and the source of carnal temptation. Each time a spiritual tradition/teacher repeats this language without correcting it, he or she reinforces these distortions and falsehoods.

There's a simple solution: each time the terms women or woman is used as a metaphor for the carnal nafs, the teacher or translator can put in brackets a correction:  for example --see underlined: "But Rumi, faithful to the medieval tradition, makes one of his heroes sigh: 'First and last my fall was through woman! [my desire for the opposite sex]'* The ruse of  women [sexual desire] is great, and they [ it] cause[s] the spirit to descend into the realm of corporal existence by seducing man [and woman] into sexual intercourse. Since the animal quality prevails in woman, [both sexes] she [they] brings things into the material, i,e, animal, world........."  Do you feel that any of these changes distort what Mevlana really meant?

It is our human nature-- shared  equally by both sexes--that is  source of  the forgetfulness of The Divine that brings violence and all other forms of oppression and injustice into our world.

Salaam Alaykum,
Sakinah


On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Ibrahim <daralmas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Reema,
> Wa `alaykuma 's-salâm,
>
> Have mentioned this in an earlier post that led to this new topic header:
>
> He did have women disciples, such as the saintly Fakhrunisâ and the "Georgian Princess." Mawlana usually uses the term “woman” in a metaphorical way, often in the negative sense as a metaphor for the base ego [nafs] of human beings, but sometimes in a positive sense such as: “She is a ray of [the Beauty of] God” (Masnavi I: 2437)
>
>
> Also, it should be added that when Mawlana said that women are a trial for men, he began by quoting the Tradition of the Prophet (peace be upon him) that "There is no being a monk in Islam." Then he said that the best way is to marry women, but that ...
>
>
> Ibrahim
>
> ------------------------------

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/dar-al-masnavi/-/CfWdSPUhZ2wJ.

[Iljas Baker]

Salaam Sakinah,

First of let me say I am not a scholar of Islam, Mevlana or gender relations within Islam or Muslim lands in general, but I am not entirely ignorant about each of these.

Please do not think that I am dismissing your concerns but possibly you are exaggerating the victimhood of women and underestimating their agency. I have read anthropological studies of women for example in Iran  (in connection with a "veiling of women in Islam" component of an introductory anthropology course that I teach) and it is clear that women have not simply been passive victims of patriarchal Islam. Sure they have lived in patriarchal societies but that is not the same as what you have claimed.

I wouldn't agree that translators make the "corrections" you stated, whether in square brackets or not. I think a translation should be true to the original as far as possible whatever the motivations of those who want to introduce "corrections"/alterations. Where would you draw the line? What would be lost? I think a note would be preferable. On the other hand it would of course be very reasonable for a teacher to verbally indicate the non-literal meaning of the text where appropriate. 

Iljas

[Esther]

Salaam, Ibrahim.
The issue is not  Mevlana's behavior toward the women in his community. I have no doubt about his kindness and wisdom, although I do wonder why the Sufis had to guard the door during these sessions. Can you say anything more about that?

The issue  I'm trying to bring to light through our discussion is the underlying cultural attitudes about women expressed through language and how such sexist rhetoric can perpetuate and unintentionally can condone the demeaning of women. Your  well-reasoned example of  "consult them and do the opposite" (shâwirû-hunna wa khâlifû-hunna ) illustrates this  very point.  Because the inferiority of women was an accepted belief at the time of the Prophet, people were willing to adopt a hadith that contradicts reason and without knowing its context precisely because it reinforced and validated  a pre-existing prejudice they had.

As for the word nafs , which is a feminine, singular noun, grammatical correctness required that it take a feminine, singular pronoun for agreement, I understand. But the leap from "her" to "them"( i.e. women as a class) has no grammatical justification. The Arabic words for the essence of God dhat and for sun shams are also feminine nouns, but I don't believe that Rumi or other Sufi poets used the words woman or women  to fill in for these nouns in a metaphorical way. In other words, when a noun  represents something reprehensible or low, such as nafs-y-ammara, there was a willingness to replace it with the words woman or women; but was that willingness balanced by replacing valued nouns with woman or women?

At this point, I feel there's not much else I can contribute to the discussion. It's disappointing, however,  that no other women have really joined in.

Sincerely,
Sakinah

On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 6:50 PM, Ibrahim <daralmas...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes, according to Mawlana's biographer, Aflaki (who was a disciple of Mawlana's grandson), there are a number of stories about Mawlana's kindness toward women. For example, he led private gatherings of women disciples in samâ` (involving mystical poetry and music that induced spontaneous ecstatic physical movements), during which their husbands guarded the doors (and his grandson also led such sessions). He personally taught his adopted daughter, Kiimiiyaaa ["Alchemical Elixer"] to read Qur'an and later married her to Shams. He wrote a letter to his son, Sultan Walad, in which he reprimanded him for unkind treatment of his daughter-in-law and threatened to cut off all relations with him unless he treated his wife more kindly. 

Masnavi I: 2956, "(The Prophet said), 'Consult them (women) and then oppose (them in what they advise): he that disobeys them will not be ruined.'" --trans. Nicholson

I agree with Iljas, there is something wrong with the Tradition [Hadeeth}, "Consult with them (women), then act contrarily to them." This is quoted by Mawlana in Arabic, slightly altered for metrical purposes. The commentaries include it as:

 شاٰوِرُهُنَّ فَخاٰلِفُوهُنَّ 

Am certainly not qualified to evaluate the soundness of Traditions [ahâdîth] attributed to the Prophet (peace be upon him). However, this one strikes me as missing the context, which might have been something like: "Consult women on war strategy? You might as well ask their advice and then do the contrary." This would have been gender-specific and not condescending, equivalent to a woman saying, "Consult men on breast-feeding babies? You might as well ask their advice and then do the contrary." One of the hallmarks of Traditions is the spontaneous wisdom and impressive good judgment of the Prophet (pbuh) expressed in so many different situations. How could he say we should do the contrary of what another person advises, which is equivalent to a random (and therefore risking an unwise) choice of action?

In Arabic, the word nafs (used here to mean the animal soul, the appetitive self, the base and craving ego, the soul that commands to do evil) is a feminine noun. Therefore, to oppose the (greedy lazy, stingy, envious, arrogant, etc.) desires is to oppose "her" wishes. Nicholson commented on this verse of Masnavi: "An expansion of the Hadîth shâwirû-hunna wa khâlifû-hunna. The pronoun refers to the female sex (al-nisâ), but its application to the nafs is obvious." 

Ibrahim

------------

On Friday, December 28, 2012 10:37:19 PM UTC-8, Ehsan Ashrafi wrote:

Dear Friends:

 I tell you a few examples, then you can conclude.

1- Rumi held Sema ceremonies for women.

2- Rumi gave his beloved daughter, Kimia Khatoon, to Shams.

3- In his point of view, men and women are all souls and this carnal body is just a roadster.

Rumi sometimes uses the word "woman" instead of "Nafse Amareh" and I think it is because in that time this was prevalent.

Best Regards.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/dar-al-masnavi/-/wl00XOuimoEJ.

[Esther]

Salaam,Iljas.

I appreciate your thoughtful response but have to disagree about the extent of victim-hood borne by women worldwide, not just in countries with a Muslim majority. Kind men, of whatever religion or non-religious persuasion, have a hard time grasping this reality  because they themselves are not oppressors. Yet, we need look only at the statistics for crimes against women for irrefutable evidence. The recent horrendous case in India has revealed a pervasive  social and legal  willingness to overlook violence against women, an attitude often rationalized by the claim that  women should have their personal agency and movement controlled "for their protection"--rather than coming to terms with the fact  that men  must learn to control their animal nature in order for women to be treated as fully equal members of society. It is this very "rationalization of protection" that supports and furthers  the projection that women as a gender are more "animal" than men. The truth is that our rhetoric reveals our cultural assumptions.  This quotation below  is not  an exception to this truth.
The ruse of women is great, and they cause the spirit to descend into the realm of corporal existence by seducing man into sexual intercourse. Since the animal quality prevails in woman, she brings things into the material, i,e, animal, world. Was not the first blood on earth, that of Abel, shed for the sake of women?  Surely you can see how appealing it could be for men who can't control themselves to take these words, and others in a similar vein, as "proof" of their gender's  "more spiritual" nature and as a reason to begrudge the sainthood of women.

 Do you really think that the average man reading these words of Rumi's and  living in patriarchal culture does not take them at face value? These words are disturbingly similar to the language used by real men who abuse real women. Real women have been harmed because of this type of rhetoric, regardless of the fact that the particular men using it would never harm a woman. It's this connection between rhetoric and behavior that I'm trying to communicate. I  have never been so harmed and have been blessed with loving support and respect from the men in my life ; it is my empathy for the sisters who do suffer abuse that impels me not to simply ignore or gloss over with academic explanations these "troubling" passages.
 
As for the use of brackets in a translation,I think  they are less  intrusive than are the parentheses used by Nicholson, since as a writing convention they indicate inserted words. However, it's true that an explanatory footnote could also serve this purpose--for the conscientious reader who takes the time to read footnotes that is.

Sincerely, Sakinah

[Iljas Baker]

Salaam Sakinah,

I am in agreement that the inferior position of women in a patriarchal
society leads to violence and oppression, often reinforced by
religious authorities and by "middle-aged" shaykhs, but our topic here
is the writings of Mevlana and I think a more nuanced response is
called for. As I said earlier, what is in Rumi's writings isn't meant
to be a moral critique of women but is guidance on the path for men,
predominantly, perhaps exclusively at that time. In Rumi's time very
few women were members of Sufi tariqahs. The quote below we easily
apply to the "ruse" of men who "seduce" women although we'd have to
find another example.

But when you go on to say:

"Surely you can see how appealing it could be for men who can't
control themselves to take these words, and others in a similar vein,
as "proof" of their gender's "more spiritual" nature and as a reason
to begrudge the sainthood of women."

Agreed but then this isn't the fault of Rumi. I know you are not
directly finding fault with Rumi but you do want to "correct" his
writings. We (men and women) have a great capacity for misinterpreting
the sacred scriptures. Should we blame God for the contents of the
Qur'an that appear to be anti-Jewish, or criticizing certain Christian
beliefs or condoning violence etc.or for all the things that our
modern conscience finds difficult to accept. Should it be re-written?
I would not like that. I think it's better to address (or work with)
the original as far as is possible.

Is it your experience that Sufi men see themselves as "more spiritual"
than Sufi women? And that they "begrudge the sainthood of women"?
Presumably the last part refers to women such as Rabia because talk of
sainthood, male or female, is surely best not engaged in in our
time.However, I find it easy to accept that a woman might be more
spiritually developed than a man. I have met more than one.

My apologies if I've misread you or attributed to you any view or
position you would not recognize as yours.

Iljas

[Iljas Baker]

Perhaps we have exhausted this topic or at least have become exhausted
by it. But it seems to me worthwhile to acknowledge Sachiko Murata's
"The Tao of Islam: A Sourcebook on Gender Relationships in Islamic
Thought", published in 1992 by SUNY. Without being too disrespectful
of the book, I think both Ibrahim and I conveyed something of her
perspective. I don't imagine the book will satisfy Sakinah as she
seems to prefer a more politically activist approach (one I would
support incidentally but not to the extent of "correcting" sacred
texts). The Tao of Islam is full of insights pertinent to our
discussion but let me just quote two selections from the book:

"Nowadays some people might assume that a woman's duty in writing a
study of Islam is to help undermine Islam's patriarchal structure. In
a sense I am doing that, since I have brought out the 'matriarchal'
elements in islamic thought clearly enough. But to bring out the
feminine stress of Islamic spirituality does not necessarily mean
criticizing the masculine stress of the Sharia and Kalam." p. 322

"Writing in the seventh/thirteenth century, Najm al-Din Razi looks
back and sees Islamic society already far from perfect at the time of
the famous Sufi saint Husayn b. Mansur al-Hallaj (d. 309/922). For he
has this to say about al-Hallaj's sister:

'Husayn ibn Mansur had a sister who laid claim to manliness on this
path. She was also beautiful. She would come into Baghdad with half of
her face covered by a veil and the other half exposed.A great one came
to her and said,'Why do you not cover your face entirely?'

She replied, 'You show me a man, and I will cover my face. In the
whole of Baghdad there is only half a man, and that is (my brother)
Husayn. Were it not for him, I would leave this half uncovered also.'"
p. 326.

Salaam,

Iljas

On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 4:12 PM, GrahamTritt <g.t...@gmx.net> wrote:
> Thank you Sakinah and others for your excellent explanations.

>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Dar-al-Masnavi" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/dar-al-masnavi/-/uf9wIAuQvgYJ.

[Reema B]

Salaam alaykum everyone,

Sakinah, as a woman, I would've liked to contribute more to the discussion but I feel that I have not read enough of the Masnavi, especially where the aforementioned appear or even Fihi ma Fihi to be able to contribute fruitfully to the discussion. Furthermore, I have not read the works in the original language. 

Yes, I do agree strongly that for the uninitiated or for those who want to justify the oppression of women, the use of "women" as metaphor for "ego" reinforces harmful manifestations of masculinity which involves control of women, unfortunately to the degree of violence as seen with recent events you brought up. 

Although I agree that mystics may be more inclined to use the feminine for solely negative metaphors such as nafs, I feel that it is through what I have so far read from Mevlana that I was exposed to the idea of the feminine as a manifestation of the Divine. This is why I was personally shocked when I read the aforementioned quotes and thought I ask brother Ibrahim about them and about other quotes I heard that seemed to contradict these. 

 No matter Mevlana's intentions and attitudes towards women, we cannot deny that not everyone will read the works of Mevlana holistically with consideration of his treatment of women, the cultural context in which he was in (i.e. the overwhelming majority of men in such circles, therefore the quotes, though addressing men, apply to women also), and the metaphors he uses.Given the prevalence of patriarchy, a lot of uninitiated people will read passages such as the aforementioned ones with this societal filter, thereby missing all this. The passages therefore, whether intentionally or not, reinforce patriarchal attitudes towards women and this is a concern. Furthermore, people of power can use rhetoric such as these to justify the status quo. Because rhetoric has such a power over people, no matter what the writer intended, I believe it is our duty as members of mostly patriarchal societies and as people who are living in a post 9/11 to deconstruct the rhetoric we consume. 

I think this is the most I can share and I apologize if I have repeated what was already said and that I do not have much to contribute.

Reema

[Esther]

Reema,
Thank you for coming back to our discussion.  Your perspective as a young Muslim woman and lover of Mevlana is  an important one. It is our duty to dig into this issue least other readers of Rumi become so disheartened by the apparently misogynist passages that they dismiss him and the Sufi path as outdated. Many spiritually-minded men and women are making real efforts to reclaim the rightful place of the Feminine fact of God and  to undo the harm that's been done-- to both genders-- by shall we say "unenlightened patriarchal attitudes."  You have contributed to that effort!

Sincerely,
Sakinah

[Esther]

Iljas --
Murata's book has been a favorite of mine for many years: it offers wonderful nuggets from Ibn Al-Arabi and provides  a  contribution to the understanding Islam from a unique point of view.  She makes a thorough and sound case of how and why gender was used metaphorically in various Sufi texts. But....now here comes the "however" phrase you might be expecting. :) 

Even though her thesis is well-supported, it doesn't persuade me that it's acceptable or necessary to use "women" as a metaphor for the lower nafs. My reason for not being persuaded has nothing to do with a preference "for a more politically activist approach." It's because of a preference for a spiritual approach to gender issues, one based on adab. The simple fact is that the metaphor (and all its extensions) that Murata and others defend by reference to the cultural context of Mevlana's time and to his unquestionably noble intentions is, nevertheless, hurtful to women in today's world and "risky" for the reasons I already stated. The power of language is awesome. For example, in the phrase "All men are created equal", which was created during a time when "men"  meant all people in some people's minds but not in others, many people understood the phrase to mean that all males are created equal--if their skin was white and if they owned property. It doesn't matter if some of the men writing that document meant one thing and some meant another. I believe that were Mevlana alive today, he--from the spirit of  his deeply compassionate and wise adab-- would not use this metaphor because he would not  wound women dervishes or wish to be associated in even the remotest way with the oppression of any class of human beings.

 Inserting a gloss in brackets or  explanatory footnotes is standard practice in scholarship; neither constitutes a "correction" to a sacred text.

I really appreciate our conversation because it has pushed me to think through this issue and try to pull together several thoughts and feelings that have swirled around inside for some time now. Insha'llah it may be of use to others, too.

Sincerely,
Sakinah

[Esther]

Graham,
Do you have any thoughts or questions to share?

On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 2:12 AM, GrahamTritt <g.t...@gmx.net> wrote:

Thank you Sakinah and others for your excellent explanations.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dar-al-Masnavi" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/dar-al-masnavi/-/uf9wIAuQvgYJ.

[Iljas Baker]

Salaam Ibrahim and Friends,

Al nisa does not, apparently, only refer to women.

A friend and colleague sent me the following:

"The root from which the word an-nisa' (i.e. women) originates from is N-S-Y- which among other things means ' souls which forget God'.

The hadith recorded in Bukhari which talks about women (an-nisa') being deficient in mind and religion (din) is a misunderstanding of the root and does not mean 'women' but 'souls which forget God'.


The above is position of Adi Duderija

http://us.macmillan.com/constructingareligiouslyidealbelieverandwomaninislam/AdisDuderija"

I am not equipped to make a judgement on this matter. I offer this for those who may have an interest in exploring this issue further. I have no idea where it will lead. What might apply to Qur'anic verses or hadith may not necessarily apply to Mevlana's poetry.

Iljas

On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Ibrahim <daralmas...@gmail.com> wrote:

Certainly, more can be said on this topic, such as to clarify Mawlana Rumi's attitude toward women when he quoted the alleged hadith, "Consult them (females) and do the contrary [of what they say to do]." As said before, there seems to be something wrong with this saying, which could lead to irrational, randomly reactive, and unwise decisions if followed literally. 

The saying also seems to have a mocking tone, which is uncharacteristic of the sayings of the Prophet (upon him be peace), which mention the special love he had for women.

It should be clear from the following that Mawlana used this saying metaphorically to refer to the base ego [nafs]. Indeed, to oppose the worldly cravings of the ego and to cultivate virtue is a major part of sufism. (For example: to oppose the temptation to gossip by practicing kindness, to oppose the desire to be stingy by practicing generosity, to oppose the temptation to yell angrily at someone by practicing patience, etc.)

Masnavi I: 2956-58, "(The Prophet said), 'Consult them (women) and then oppose (them in what they advise): he that disobeys them will not be ruined.' Be not a friend to (sensual) passion and desire, since it leads you astray from the Way of God. Nothing in the world will break (mortify) this passion like the shadow (protection) of fellow travellers.” --trans. Nicholson

 "An expansion of the Hadîth shâwirû-hunna wa khâlifû-hunna. The pronoun refers to the female sex (al-nisâ), but its application to the nafs is obvious."--Nicholson's Commentary on Book I

“You may at first be one of those who does not know the right path. If that is so, ask your [[appetitive]] soul where it wants to go. Be smart and go in the opposite direction! For if a person is able to stay on a path contrary to the one his soul desires, it means he has found the right path. Remember the hadith, Consult females. . . Talk with your soul,* ask it the way, ask it what it thinks, but whatever it says, do the opposite. For all those who have not chosen a way contrary to that of their souls, but rather conformed to them, have been separated from the path they should follow and been destroyed on paths of error.”

--Kenan Rifai, “Listen” (commentary on Book I of Masnavi), pp. 380-81

*“The Arabic hadith phrase in fact begins, ‘Consult them,’ where ‘them’ is grammatically feminine, and the Arabic word for ‘soul’ used here, nafs, is also grammatically feminine. So the hadith is interpreted as meaning: ‘Consult your souls (and do the opposite).’” --Footnote of translator, Victoria Holbrook

“Consult with them. . . A reference to verses 6: 116-17": "Now if you pay heed to the majority of those (who live) on earth, they will but lead you astray from the path of God: they follow but (other peoples’) conjectures, and they themselves do nothing but guess.” 

--“Qur’ân ve Masnavî,” compiled by Bahâ’uddîn Khoromshâhî and Siyâmak Mokhtarî, p. 113:

Ibrahim

------------

On Saturday, December 29, 2012 5:50:30 PM UTC-8, Ibrahim wrote:

Yes, according to Mawlana's biographer, Aflaki (who was a disciple of Mawlana's grandson), there are a number of stories about Mawlana's kindness toward women. For example, he led private gatherings of women disciples in samâ` (involving mystical poetry and music that induced spontaneous ecstatic physical movements), during which their husbands guarded the doors (and his grandson also led such sessions). He personally taught his adopted daughter, Kiimiiyaaa ["Alchemical Elixer"] to read Qur'an and later married her to Shams. He wrote a letter to his son, Sultan Walad, in which he reprimanded him for unkind treatment of his daughter-in-law and threatened to cut off all relations with him unless he treated his wife more kindly. 

Masnavi I: 2956, "(The Prophet said), 'Consult them (women) and then oppose (them in what they advise): he that disobeys them will not be ruined.'" --trans. Nicholson

I agree with Iljas, there is something wrong with the Tradition [Hadeeth}, "Consult with them (women), then act contrarily to them." This is quoted by Mawlana in Arabic, slightly altered for metrical purposes. The commentaries include it as:

 شاٰوِرُهُنَّ فَخاٰلِفُوهُنَّ 

Am certainly not qualified to evaluate the soundness of Traditions [ahâdîth] attributed to the Prophet (peace be upon him). However, this one strikes me as missing the context, which might have been something like: "Consult women on war strategy? You might as well ask their advice and then do the contrary." This would have been gender-specific and not condescending, equivalent to a woman saying, "Consult men on breast-feeding babies? You might as well ask their advice and then do the contrary." One of the hallmarks of Traditions is the spontaneous wisdom and impressive good judgment of the Prophet (pbuh) expressed in so many different situations. How could he say we should do the contrary of what another person advises, which is equivalent to a random (and therefore risking an unwise) choice of action?

In Arabic, the word nafs (used here to mean the animal soul, the appetitive self, the base and craving ego, the soul that commands to do evil) is a feminine noun. Therefore, to oppose the (greedy lazy, stingy, envious, arrogant, etc.) desires is to oppose "her" wishes. Nicholson commented on this verse of Masnavi: "An expansion of the Hadîth shâwirû-hunna wa khâlifû-hunna. The pronoun refers to the female sex (al-nisâ), but its application to the nafs is obvious." 

Ibrahim

------------

On Friday, December 28, 2012 10:37:19 PM UTC-8, Ehsan Ashrafi wrote:

Dear Friends:

 I tell you a few examples, then you can conclude.

1- Rumi held Sema ceremonies for women.

2- Rumi gave his beloved daughter, Kimia Khatoon, to Shams.

3- In his point of view, men and women are all souls and this carnal body is just a roadster.

Rumi sometimes uses the word "woman" instead of "Nafse Amareh" and I think it is because in that time this was prevalent.

Best Regards.

On Thursday, December 27, 2012 3:40:51 AM UTC+3:30, Sakinah wrote:

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dar-al-masnav...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to dar-al-...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/dar-al-masnavi?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Esther]

Thanks, Ibrahim. For those who followed our discussion , I recommend a refreshing perspective on the larger context of this topic. See this link

ASK Conference 2012: "Gender, Spirituality, Justice/ Gender and Unity (Ibn Arabi):" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=einnImB6KeA

Salaam Alaykum,

Sakinah

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dar-al-masnav...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to dar-al-...@googlegroups.com.