4 ms·
No, most mosques admit both sexes all the year, although some segregate. Segregation during prayers has no real Islamic basis, unlike segregation in social life
by anticensor 7y ago
No, most mosques admit both sexes all the year, although some segregate. Segregation during prayers has no real Islamic basis, unlike segregation in social life, which is covered in Quran in detail.
- rolltiide 7y agoEveryone: > Segregation during prayers has no real Islamic basis Self Appointed Cleric: challenge accepted
- dang 7y agoWould you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and/or flamebait to HN?
- jesssse 7y agoI don't get on hacker news much, so I just noticed about a month ago you accused me of posting flamebait. I can't reply to that comment because it's too old, so I will reply here. My comment is not flamebait. Go ahead and ban me, this forum is not a place I care about. Enjoy your curated bubble devoid of real dialog, faggot.
- amriksohata 7y agoI have been invited to many mosques as part of multi faith, in the UK anyway, most I found women stayed at the back or were not allowed in the prayer hall
- faissaloo 7y agoNot quite, segregation during prayers is compulsory and this is well established, it is the creation of physical separators that you're probably referring to, which while permitted is not required. One such example: "I offered the funeral prayer behind the Prophet (PBUH) for a woman who had died during childbirth and he stood up by the middle of the coffin." [Bukhari 1331]
- anticensor 7y agoThe hadith you quoted says nothing about seggregation during prayers. It is about Janaza, the Islamic funeral ritual, which is a very short passage of stand-up prayer. External accounts say segregation during prayer did not exist when Quran was being authored, not even when being compiled; in stark contrast to segregation during regular social life, which was well documented, and was part of nomadic Arabic culture well before Quran, though not as far as practiced by Muslims. Hadith books are not completely reliable; authentic narrations are intermingled with made-up passages (even authors themselves state that), Quran is the only fully reliable source of Islam (although more than 30 variants are found, the constitutional parts are consistent with each other, and variations are minor literal differences, some of which affect core theology).
- faissaloo 7y agoI provided one example, there are countless other hadith indicating the same thing. Also, Quranism is not a widely held belief, please stop trying to pass off something fringe as if its what most Muslims would be inclined to believe. If we were to discard the hadith we simply could not practice a number of tenants of our religion, since they contain explanations for things like how to perform hajj, janaza and prayer. You shouldn't discard something that's been so well authenticated (as the sahih have been) simply because there are 3 hadith in their entirety over which there is slight doubt (which most have scholars have concluded was unwarranted).
- anticensor 7y agoWhy do all hadith chains and Quran compilation stories start at 9th century if Islam arose in 7th century? Deliberate omission of recordings is the only sound explanation, because common Arab slave owners and traders were not illiterate (Muhammad, or who used that name, was definitely not, in fact, same hadith books -also verified by external accounts- say he avoided peace treaties and forced remove his name from one such treaty). I am well aware you cannot practice Islam so far without hadith, but as a former Muslim, it's their problem, not mine. In addition, hadith as a source has its limits, e.g. you cannot invent a crime out of hadith, unless it is already hinted at Quran; because that would be equivalent to inventing a new Quranic verse, which is forbidden by Quran.