[AbuAbu]

The following article was published on an Australian Muslim blog at http://www.maryams.n...ves/000199.html

Quote

A Woman as an Imama?

Personally I don't have any problem with the concept of a woman a) giving a khutba and / or B) leading the prayer. I've never seen anything credible from the Qur'an or the Sunnah that would suggest it's prohibited. But one of my favourite sisters (Aussie Muslim of the Year) Susan Carland has written a short email that discusses the issue and I thought - given the current topic of debate in some of my comments - I'd post it here too.

On the issue of women delievering khutbas: Firstly, perhaps we should make a distinction between a woman delivering the khutba, and a woman leading the prayer. Mosques around the world, for example, a South African mosque, had Professor Amina Wadud deliver a Friday Khutba, but she did not lead the prayer (see 'On Being Muslim' by Farid Esack). If the woman is not leading the prayer but delievering the khutba, perhaps we ccould ask why it may be permissbale for a woman to stand up in front of a mixed audience and address them for a public lecture, but not deliver a khutbah?

In terms of a woman leading the prayer, there are hadith references and scholarly opinions to support such an event taking place. Umm Waraqa bint Abdallah, an Ansari woman, was well versed in the Qur'an and was instructed by Prophet Muhammad (SAW) to lead the people of her home, which consisted of both women and men in prayer, narrated by Abu-Dawood, also by Ibn Khuzaimah, who rated it as "sound" or "authentic". This is why some notable jurists, such as Al-Mozni, Abu Thawr, and Al-Tabari, are of the opinion that a woman may lead (both genders) in prayers (the hadith reference for this can also be found in Abu Dawud, in the subchapter on Women as imams, and in Ibn Hanbal's musnad in the chapter of Umm Waraqa). So many could be found in her home that the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) appointed a muezzin for her. She was also one of the few to hand down the Qur'an before it was put into written form. She is also referred to the nickname of 'the female martyr' because of her desire to participate in the Battle of Badr (624 A.D./2 A.H.).

Ghazala, another notable, led her male warriors in prayer in Kufa, after having gained control of the city for a day. She not only led men in prayer, she recited the two longest chapters in the Qur'an during that prayer. Although the practice of women leading prayer is not commonly accepted, one cannot conclude that it is prohibited without first conducting honest and unbiased research into this matter.

Some of the Hanbali Jurists, following the lead of Ibn-Hanbal, agree with the same opinion. Ibn Taymiyah stated that "it is permissible for an illiterate man to be led in prayers by a woman who is a reciter of the Qur'an in qiyam (prayers) in Ramadan, according to the more commonly known opinion of Ahmad" (Ibn Hanbal).

Many scholars, notably al-Tabari of the 10th Century, had taught in their schools of thought early on that women could lead a mixed congregation in prayer; the disagreement was on 'where she should stand.' The major schools of jurisprudence agree on the authenticity of the story concerning Um Waraqa, but the argument that ensued was whether her ability to lead prayer was for her only, or did it apply in all circumstances with any woman. Because she was allowed to lead prayer for the 'Ahlu-Dariha' or people of their home, is unclear whether the word 'dar' in Arabic implied a location in general, or only her specific household. Abi Thawr's argument for women leading prayer includes a hadith about one who is viewed as most knowledgeable on the Qur'an should lead prayer and this may not be limited to men only.

Perhaps there's more permissability for women leading the prayer then we're lead to believe?

[AbuAbu]

What follows is a reply to this issue by Sheikh Tawfique Chowdhury, hafidhullah, who is a scholar of Hanbali fiqh here in Australia. Insha'Allah it clarifies the issue once and for all as there seems to be a lot of confusion about it.

Quote

To my respected and noble brothers and sisters in Islam,

Without doubt, my brothers and sisters will agree that this modern age that we live in has brought with it various movements that have numerous benefits as well as ills. From them is a movement that attempts to free women from the throngs of social taboo and culture into parity with men in all affairs. This movement has its benefits as well as ills. From its benefits are that it advocates freeing women from ignorant customs and social taboo and attempts to restore her God given rights.  From its ills however, is that it goes beyond the boundaries of heavenly wisdom and advocates for itself true justness in the distribution of obligation between men and women. It forgets that just like the day is different from the night and each has its own qualifications and specific activities, so too do men and women. Allah tells us in the Quran: "By the night as it envelopes, and by the day in its blazing glory, It is he who has created men and women, and similarly too are your activities and obligations different." [Surah al-Layl: 1-4]

Unfortunately we find that this movement has also found fertile ground amongst the Muslims such that we find various intellectuals of this time calling for a fresh reading into the Fiqh of women in Islam and their rights and obligations. They forget however that the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam had said: "There will not cease to be a group amongst my Ummah, clear upon the truth; nothing will harm them until the command of Allah comes." Based on this clear authentic hadeeth, it is impossible to think that for the last 1400 years the Muslims have been incorrect in the matter of women and their rights and obligations. Infact based on this hadeeth, one must strongly condemn every new argument that is brought out to "free" women that was not already there at the time of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam. It is as Imam Malik rahimahullah had rightly said: "That which was not religion at the time of the companions cannot be religion today."

In this regard, I have come to know of an article or email written about how women should be allowed to lead men in prayers. It quotes certain scholars who supposedly support permissibility and attempts to quote evidences to validate the claim.

However I have found that this article/email distorts the true picture and does not mention the full scenario and counter claims that are so important in intellectual debates. I have also found that there is a clear misunderstanding of the issues involved showing that the person has little grounding in the sciences of Fiqh and understanding of the texts and has not researched the matter thoroughly. I advise such people to fear Allah and remember that speaking without knowledge and merely cutting and pasting quotes from books and the web without proper authority and qualification can be truly painful and embarrassing in this life and the next. Also to merely rely on books such as Tahreer al-Mar'ah al-Muslimah and other similar books whose deception and distortion of the texts and quotes are so apparaent (as will be made clear throughout the course of this email), is not from justness at all. Rather from justness is that the issue be studied without the prejudice and preconceived ideas.

In view of this, I see it as an obligation on myself, as a student of Fiqh and as a person who has been given ijaazah in the Hanbali madhab, to clarify this issue so that it may serve to end the dispute that ensues from lack of knowledge.

I ask Allah to bless this article and to make it for His sake only and to bless me with justness in what I write.

[AbuAbu]

Women leading men in prayers

This topic has numerous issues pertaining to it; however I will only deal with two issues of contention:

1.. Women leading men in an obligatory prayer
2.. Women leading men in a supererogatory prayer

I will not deal with the issue of women leading other women in prayer as it is not important to our discussion here.

1. Women leading men in an obligatory prayer:

The scholars of Islam have complete consensus on the fact that it is not permissible for women to lead a man in an obligatory prayer.

Ibn Hazm [d. 456A.H.] rahimahullah says: "They [the scholars] have agreed that a woman is not permitted to lead a man in [obligatory] prayer. If they were to do that [i.e. a woman led a man in obligatory prayer], then their prayers are invalidated by complete consensus." [Maratibul-Ijma, Ibn Hazm, p27, Darul-kutub al-Ilmiyyah]

Imam Ibn Hubierah [d. 560A.H.] rahimahullah says: "They [the scholars] have complete consensus that it is not permissible for a woman to lead a man in prayer in obligatory prayers." [Al-Ifsah, Al-wazir Ibn Hubirah, vol. 2, pg 42, Markaz al-Fajr]

Similarly has also been reported by Ibn Abdul Bar in al-Istidhkar [al-Istidhkar, Ibn Abdul Bar, Issue No.6391, Vol.5, pg.179, Maktabah Thaqafa ad-Deeniyyah, Cairo] and by Ibn Qudaamah in al-Mughni [Al-Mughni, Ibn Qudaamah, Vol.3, Pg.33, Dar al-Hijr].

This is based on the fact that it has never been reported that a women ever led men in obligatory prayers (except that which has been reported from the hadeeth of Umm Waraq - wherein she led people of her household - as we will mention shortly). Imam Ibn Rushd mentions in Bidayatul-Mujtahid: "And the majority had agreed upon preventing her from leading the men in prayer because were it to be permissible, then it would have been reported from the time of the first generation [of Muslims]. Similarly, because the Sunnah regarding women is for them to be behind men in prayer, then it is to be understood from this that it is not permitted for them to stand before them." [Bidayatul-Mujtahid, Ibn Rushd, vol.1, pg354, Maktaba-Ibn Taymiyyah, Cairo] Similarly al-Khattabi rahimahullah says in his notes on Sunnah-Abi Dawud during explanation of the hadeeth (no. 612) in the chapter "If there were 3 groups then how are they to stand [behind the Imam]": "And in this [hadeeth] is proof that the leading of women over men is not permissible, because just as she was prevented from being in the same row as men, then for her to be in front of them is more so [in prohibition]." [Al-Khattabi, Ma'alim us-Sunan, vol.1, pg408 (printed with Sunan Abi Dawud), Darul-Hadeeth, Cairo]. It is also to this extent that Ibn Masud radiallahu anhu was reported to have said: "Keep them back just as Allah has kept them back." [Reported by Abdur-Razzaq in al-Musannaf, 3/149, al-Maktab al-Islami, Beirut] - Authenticated by Ibn Hajr in Fathul-Bari [vol.1, pg.400, Maktabah as-Salafiyyah, Beirut] Meaning - keep the women back and prevent them from leading the prayers, just as Allah has kept them back such that the rows of the women in prayer are behind that of the men.

Also what is interesting is that the authentic narrations from Ibn Masud as well as another one from Aishah radiallahu anhuma states (both narrations authenticated by Ibn Hajr in al-Fath [1/400]) that the practise of the women seeking to lead men in prayer was a matter that women of the Children of Israel sought after and it was for this reason and from that time onwards when menstruation was decreed upon the women of this world. Ibn Masud said as reported by Abdur-Razzaq: "The men and women in the time of the Children of Israel used to pray together and the women used to seek to lead the men in prayer. So Allah caused them to have menstruation and so stopped them from the mosques." Thereafter, Ibn Masud said in this same athar: "Keep them back just as Allah has kept them back." As for the narration from Aishah, then it states: "The women of the Children of Israel used to take wooden shoes to be distinguished and in order to seek ascendency over the men in the masjids, so Allah prohibited the masjids upon them [the women] and punished them with menstruation." [Both the narrations from Ibn Masud and Aishah is reported by Abdur-Razzaq in al-Musannaf, Vol.3, pg.149, al-Maktab al-Islami, Beirut]

As for what has been reported to be differences from Ashub, at-Tabari, al-Muzani, Abu-Thawr, may Allah have mercy on them all, then the explanation of it is two fold: a general explanation and a specific one.

General explanation: The differences from the above reported Imams was after the time of Ijma and thus their differences are not taken into account to disrupt the Ijma in this issue. It is to this effect that Ibn Rushd says: "and Abu Thawr and at-Tabari shaddhaa [Ar. Shadhaa - a term in usul-ul-fiqh meaning to be strange in this matter and by themselves going against an opinion which was Ijma and prevalent at that time] and permitted the women to lead the men in prayers in general." [Bidayatul-Mujtahid, Vol.1, pg.354]

Specific explanation: It is only Abu Thawr and at-Tabari who clearly allowed women to lead the prayers over men without restriction. As for Ashub, then he did not hold the same opinion as Abu Thawr and at-Tabari. Rather he held the opinion that - where it to happen that a women lead a man in prayer and the men did not know about it, then later on found out that it was a woman, then they do not have to repeat their prayers - because of the fact that the person did not know who was leading the prayers. He also said the same thing for a person who is led by a kafir in prayer and he does not know about it. As any person can see, this statement from Ashub does not necessarily dictate that women are allowed to lead men in prayer. Also as for al-Muzani, then we do not have a direct statement from him regarding the matter of women leading men in prayer. All we know, is that the analogy of the opinion of al-muzani of a kafir leading the prayer and thereafter those behind him not being obligated to repeat the prayer would therefore necessitate that this opinion would also be that if a women were to lead the prayer and the men did not know about it, then they would not need to repeat the prayer. [See al-Mughni, Ibn Qudaamah, Vol.3, pg32-33, Dar Al-Hijr] So how is this same as saying that al-Muzani held the opinion that women are permitted to lead the prayer? As any person can see, this does not necessarily dictate that women are allowed to lead men in prayer. Also we must clearly remember the principle of Osoolul-Fiqh that says: Idha dakhala ihtimaal batala al-istidlaal [Meaning: If a matter becomes an issue that has numerous possibilities, then using it as a witness is nullified]. So because the reported opinions of Ashub and Al-Muzani can have various possibilities deduced from it, then to conclude that they held the opinion that women can lead men in prayer is not permissible nor suitable as evidence.

As for what is used in our times to say that women may lead men in prayers - then it is the hadeeth of Umm Waraqa radiallaahu anha who was killed by the boy and girl she used to look after and died a Shaheedah just as Rasulullah sallallahu alaihi wa sallam said she would. The Prophet sallaalahu alaihi wa sallam, at the time of the battle of Badr permitted this Shaheedah radiallahu anha to lead her household in prayer and kept a very old man as the mu'azzin to give the adhaan for her. [Reported by Abu Dawud 1/139 and Musnad Imam Ahmed 6/405 and others and certified hasan by Ibn Hajr] However as we know that Rasulullah in fact allowed her to lead the women in prayer and not men. It is for this reason that al-Baihaqi reports this hadeeth under the chapter heading: "Chapter 51: Permissibility of women leading other women in prayer rather than men." - and thereafter al-Baihaqi reports the hadeeth as reported by those before him. Also ad-Daraqutni rahimahullah clearly reports this same incident with the wording "women of her household" and clarifies that the narrations point to the fact that Rasulullah sallallahu alaihi wa sallam only permitted her to lead the women in prayer, and so reports: "Ahmed bin Abbas al-Baghawi reported to me that Umar bin Shabah Abu Ahmed Az-Zubairi that al-Waleed bin Jami from his mother, from Umm Waraqa that Rasulullah sallallahu alaihi wa sallam permitted her to have a person do the Adhan for her and for her to stand and lead the women of her household in prayer." [Sunan ad-Daraqutni, Vol. 1, pg. 279, Darul-Ma'rifah, Beirut]

It is for this reason that Ibn Qudaamah rahimahullah says in al-Mughni: "And the hadeeth of Umm Waraqa is only that she was permitted to lead the women in her household in prayer. Such has been reported by ad-Daraqutni rahimahullah - and it is obligatory to accept this extra [wording]." [Al-Mughni, Ibn Qudaamah, Vol.3, Pg.33, Dar al-Hijr]

Therefore based on this, the statement of some of the ulema who may have understood from this hadeeth to mean that Umm Waraqa radiallahu anha led men in prayer as well such as led the old man who used to give the adhan for her and the young boy who she used to look after because of what they deduced from the narrations in Abu Dawud rahimahullah, then we say to this - that the narration of ad-Daraqutni is the clarification of the unclear wording of "Ahlu-Dariha" (the people of her household) and clarifies that it means women of her household and so we conclude that it cannot be said that she lead men in prayer.

Therefore we say, that the opinions of Abu Thawr and At-Tabari - these two Imams rahimahumullah and may Allah enter them in the highest of paradise - is incorrect and their proofs from this incident (from the hadeeth of Umm Waraqa) are weak. Furthermore how can their statements be considered, when they had gone against the Ijma established before them, as Ibn Rushd rahimahullah had said: "and Abu Thawr and at-Tabari shaddhaa and permitted the women to lead the men in prayers in general." [Bidayatul-Mujtahid, Vol.1, pg.354]

This is as far as the issue of women leading men in obligatory prayers is concerned.

2. Women leading men in supererogatory prayers

As for women leading men in supererogatory prayers, then the ulema are divided on this issue and there is no Ijma available.

The first opinion: That it is not permissible for women to lead men in any prayers at all, even the supererogatory prayers and this is the opinion of the vast majority of the ulema from the present and the past. It the opinion of the 4 madhabs (even the hanbali madhab - See [Al-Insaaf, Al-Mawardi, Vol.2, pg.263]) and the Tabiyyeen and the 7 fuqaha of Medinah and the Dhahiri madhab.

The second opinion: That it is permissible for women to lead men in supererogatory prayers such as nafl and taraweeh prayers provided that all the men that are present do not know how to recite the quran and the woman is far well versed than them in the Quran. There are two narrations from Imam Ahmed rahimahullah, one allowing them to lead in nafl prayers and another one allowing them to lead in taraweeh prayers - this later narration being well known amongst the earlier hanbalis.

The third opinion: Women can lead men in prayers in general - as is the opinion of Abu Thawr and at-Tabari as has preceded and this opinion has already preceded refutation of.

As for the proofs for the first opinion, then it is as has preceded in our discussion of the proofs for why a woman is not allowed to lead in obligatory prayers.

As for the proofs for the second opinion, then it is hadeeth of Umm Waraqa as has preceeded wherein the scholars who are of this opinion specified the hadeeth to mean that Rasulullah had permitted her to lead in non-obligatory prayers. Also they deduced from the extra wording in some of the narrations of the hadeeth which report that Umm Waraqa was one of the ones who had read the quran - that women leading men in prayer is conditional upon there not being any men qualified to lead the prayer.

However this second opinion which is held by some of the scholars of the hanbali madhab is not the correct position in the madhab. Rather it is the marjuuh [Ar. Marginalised and incorrect] opinion as stated by the Ulema of the hanbali madhab themselves. Al-Mardawi states in al-Insaaf which is regarded as the guiding book that defines the position of the hanbali madhab; he says in explanation of the saying: "And his saying: And it is not permissible for a women to lead a man in prayer": "This is the [position of the hanbali] madhab definitely. In alMustawab, it says - and this opinion is correct - and it is the position supported by the author; and this is the choice of Abul-Khattab and ibn Abdoos in his Tadhkirah and it is opinion strongly stated in al-Kafi, al-Muharrar, Al-Wajeez, al-Munawwar, al-Muntakab, Tajreedul-Inayat, Ifadaat." [Al-Insaaf, Al-Mardawi, Vol.2, pg.263, Dar Ihyaa al-Turath al-Arabi, Beirut]

As for the proof of the second opinion, then the Sheikh of the Hanbalis, Ibn Qudaamah rahimahullah says in refutation of those hanbalis who hold the opinion that it is ok in taraweeh prayers provided she knows more Quran: "And to specify that [i.e the hadeeth of Umm Waraqa] is to do with the Taraweeh prayers and putting the condition that she stands back [i.e. stands in the middle instead of in front as the Imam normally does] is legislation without proof and goes against the principles without evidence. Therefore it is not permissible to go towards this [i.e. not permissible to hold this opinion]." [Al-Mughni, Ibn Qudamah, Vol.3, pg.33, Dar al-Hijr]

Thus we conclude that the most correct position is the opinion that states impermissibility of women leading the prayers in nafl and superogatory prayers as well as obligatory prayers over men.

As for what is quoted to the the opinion of Imam Ibn Taymiyyah rahimahullah supposedly that he permitted women to lead the prayers, then the clarification of it is as follows: Ibn Taymiyyah was quoted in the book "Refutation of Maratibul-Ijma of Ibn Hazm" regarding the statement from Ibn Hazm wherein he says men cannot be led by women by Ijma, Ibn Taymiyyah is quoted to have said: "A learned women leading unlettered men in the night prayers of Ramadan is permissible in the well known statement of Ahmed and as for all other superagatory prayers, then there are two narrations." [Radd al-Maratibul-Ijma, Ibn Taymiyyah, pg. 290, Dar ibn Hazm, printed along with Maratibul-Ijma]

The answer to this is two fold. First of all, it is not established that Ibn Taymiyyah wrote this book. There are well known arguments amongst the scholars of the Hanbali madhab whether Ibn Taymiyyah infact wrote this book or not. The well known hanbali scholar of our time, Sheikh Abdullah bin Abdul-Muhsin at-Turki writes in his book "Al-Madhab al-Hanbali [Ar. The hanbali madhab]": "There can be found in the print world, a book by the name of 'Naqd Maratibul-Ijma' that is attributed to Sheikhul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, however I have not found in the sources that mention the books written by him, any reference to such a book, nor to any title near to it. That which is apparent to me, is that this printed book is the same as the book of Ibn Sheikhul-Salaamah, however the distributors and printers thought that it is by Ibn Taymiyyah due to the great number of quotes from Ibn taymiyyah in this book. That is not a strange matter, as what is well known from Ibn Sheikhul-Salaamah - as his biographer had mentioned - used to be very keen on the fatawa of Sheikhul-Islam and supported his views and sayings - So beware. And Allah knows best." [Al-Madhab al-Hanbali, Abdullah at-Turki, Vol.3, pg.387, Darul-Hijr, Beirut]

As well, that which is well know those who have read the fatawa of Ibn taymiyyah, that he was not supporting the view that women should be allowed to lead men, rather only quoting the fact that some of the narations from Imam Ahmed were upon permissibility of learned women leading unlettered men in taraweeh prayer and this is similar to the situation when the Imam is an evil sinner - Imam Ahmed was of the opinion that one should still pray behind him because the benefit of prayer in congregation is greater than than the harm of being led by a sinner. Similarly according of Imam Ahmed, those men who do not know how to read, then it is better for them to be led by women who can read and know the quran. This to him was better than not praying or not praying in congregation. It is for this reason that Imam Ahmed permitted women to lead men who are illiterate in the quran. It is this fact that Ibn Taymiyyah explains in this fatawa. It will not have escaped the people of justness that this is quite far from saying that Ibn Taymiyyah actually was pro-women leading the prayers. [See Majoo al-Fatawa, Ibn Taymiyyah, Vol. 23, Pg. 248]

And Allah knows best.

As for women giving the jumah khutbah then it is a matter never heard of before. Never has it been reported in the time of the Prophet nor with the 4 Khalifahs that a woman was allowed to give the khutbah for jumah and therefore it is a bidaa of our times. It has never been reported that Aishah radiallahu anha and she was the most knowledgeable of people in Makkah (when she had moved there during the time of Uthman radiallaahu anhu's Khilaafah) that she ever gave the Friday khutbah even though she was the most knowledgeable of the companions in Makkah at that time. Infact it has further been reported that when she used to talk and answer questions when people came to ask her for her fatwa, she used to put her little finger of her right hand in the side of her mouth so as to muffle and gargle her speech, so that people may not be tempted by her voice.

So in response to women giving Jum'ah khutbahs we say that this is an innovation and never established in the time of revelation and that which was not religion at their time cannot be religion now.

And I remind my brothers and sisters again and warn them from following the footsteps of the children of Israel where their women used to pray with the men in the mosques and seek to lead the men, at which time Allah punished them.

And Allah knows best.

And may the blessings and protection of Allah be upon our beloved prophet and messenger and upon his family and his companions until the day of Judgement. And our final call is that all praise is to Allah, the Lord of Mankind.

[Bok]

Assalamu 'alaykum,

Being the blogger in question and participant of the MUIS thread which has sprung up, just wanted to pip up and say a complete reply to Br. Tawfique is coming insha'Allah probably around mid-December as until then I am thesis-ing. But feel free to stay posted on my blog

[islaam_is_a_way_of_life]

Feminist takes on the Sheikh Sorry no offence!

[Bok]

None taken. If you need to compare pedigrees My undergraduate degree was in Arabic and Islamic studies and I'm about three weeks away from finishing my MA in Islamic studies at the University of Melbourne under Prof. Abdullah Saeed. I've also been fortunate enough to be his research assistant on a number of works including Freedom of Religion and Apostasy in Islam (Ashgate Publishing) and Islam in Australia (Allen and Unwin).

My initial reply to Br. Tawfique was not posted so I'll pop it here for those interested.

[Bok]

Assalamu 'alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh,

Well Br. Tawfique has very succinctly given us his understanding of a Hanbali position, jazakallahu khayran. I must say, for myself, I am not compelled by the Salafi* technique of deriving fiqh by hadith analysis alone. I find it neglects to encompass the techniques of accommodating legitimate diversity. Islam is wide enough to embrace a spectrum of views: a blessing to this ummah. For example, Sr. Aminah Wadud (who wrote _Qur'an and Woman: Rereading the Sacred Text from a Woman's Perspective_, is one of the founders of _Sisters in Islam_ and is Professor of Islamic Studies at Virginia Commonwealth University) recently gave a talk on this very topic from a Progressive point of view. That seems to cover both ends of the spectrum, and then you have the more common perspective of male imams being culturally normative (eg. as exemplified by this site:
http://www.understan.../rb/mb-071.htm) which would fall somewhere in the middle I suppose.

I think if we were to examine the lives of great Muslim women over the centuries, there appears to be a disparity between the canons of jurisprudence and how Muslim women actually lived their lives. This became clear to me when I began researching the women in mosques issue as classical jurisprudence was nearly unanimous (with the exception of Ibn Hazm) that pre-menopausal women should *not* attend the mosque and yet the architecture of the time period clearly had spaces and facilities for women.(1) I think if we were to give this issue the same treatment as we have on the women imamate thread no sister at MUIS could attend congregational prayer any longer. But we don't - because generally speaking Muslims at the University of Melbourne accept the idea of women at congregational prayer.


I embraced Islam because I saw in it - among other things that drew me to Allah, swt - powerful, magnetic, faith-filled women who defied the sterotypical submissive slave image that many would have us believe sums up the lot of the Muslimah.

Women like the broad-nosed female Companion who stood up to challenge 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) when he attempted to limit the mahr and he acknowledged her correctness and his mistake. Given that she was able to have a public conversation with the leader of the Friday prayer, the women obviously weren't being hidden away behind barriers and curtains, forbidden from speaking in front of men. Can you imagine today one of the sisters challenging a khatib? (2)

Women like the famed Rabi`a of Basra of whom the early Successor Hasan al-Basri is reported to have said:

"I passed one whole night and day with Rabi`a speaking of the Way and the Truth, and it never passed through my mind that I was a man nor did occur to her that she was a woman, and at the end when I looked at her, I saw myself spiritually bankrupt, and Rabi`a as truly sincere."(3)

One of the hagiographical traditions about Rabi`a and Hasan has the latter throw down his prayer mat on water calling Rabi`a to pray with him. When she showed a greater mastery by throwing her prayer mat into the air and then consoling Hasan by saying these were merely tricks but it was more important to attend to the Real, I don't think anyone gave two hoots about whether her prayer mat was before or behind Hasan.

Women like Sha`wana whose voice was so melodious that many students attended to hear her preaching and reciting the Qur'an.(4) Or women like Nafisa bint al-Hasan who was such an authority on hadith that Imam Shafi`i studied under her. Neither of these seemed bothered by fatawa about women's voices being awra or that a woman may not give a khutba or teach men.

Women like Bilqis, the famed Queen of Sheba whose story Allah gives us in the Qur'an. In His wisdom, Allah felt it necessary to tell us she was a consultative leader of a nation. (an-Naml 27:32-35). Or, like I mentioned previously, Queen 'Arwa of Yemen who attended council meetings with her face unveiled and for whom the Friday prayers all over Yemen would begin with: "May Allah prolong the days of al-Hurra the perfect, the sovereign who carefully manages the affairs of the faithful."(5) It seems she and Muslims of Yemen did not pay heed to the Abu Bakra hadith.


When we are told that women shouldn't speak let alone recite Qur'an or pray in front of men, that they should cover themselves from head to toe in black, that women's intelligence is deficient and they should not drive or vote, that women should be hidden away in the mosques or should not come at all, that women are only good for childbearing and being subservient wives, I wonder do we ever read about the lives of the great Muslim women of history? As a Muslim feminist I am interested in these powerful women, precisely because they *do not* fit the mould, and then I ask myself, perhaps that mould is worthy of questioning. Perhaps Allah's will about women's roles and rights can be gleaned in the lives of the Prophet's wives, the female Companions, the great female scholars, mystics, political leaders and queens.

May Allah forgive me for my shortcomings, all good is from Him.


* The Hijazi-based group founded by Ibn Abd al-Wahhab as opposed to the modernist Egyptian Salafiyya movement founded by Muhammad Abduh.

(1) (This point is made in Asma Sayed's article "Early Sunni discourse on women's mosque attendance" in ISIM Newsletter 7/01)
(2) Fath al-Bari, Vol. 9, p.161
(3) Smith, Margaret. _Rabi`a : the life work of Rabi`a and other women mystics in Islam._ (Oxford: Oneworld, 1994). p32-33.
(4) "Sha`wana" in as-Sulami's _Dhikr an-Niswa al-Muta`abbidat as-Sufiyyat_, trans. Rkia Cornell as _Early Sufi Women_, (USA: Fons Vitae, 1999) p106
(5) Mernissi, Fatima. _The Forgotten Queens of Islam_. trans. Mary Jo Lakeland, (Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1993) p115-116

[Bok]

Salaaaaaaaaams A little birdy (Shibshib) told me my name had been mentioned. If only for the thesis I would lower myself onto the divan, pour myself some sha'y and smoke a bit of hubble bubble.

[islaam_is_a_way_of_life]

Assalamu alaikum

While I agree with you on most of the things you mentioned, I'm still not convinced that it is permissable for a woman to lead men in prayer. Do you have proof that a woman ever recited Qur'an in front of a non-mahram man at the time of the Prophet

[Mowlana Vector]

The return of my favourite webloger

Sis, Good 2 C U R Back

... and don't stop the rage B)

[rami]

Bi ismillahir rahmanr raheem

assalamu alaikum

Women's Imamate in Prayer

Answered by Shaykh Gibril Haddad

Sunan Abu Dawud, Volume 1, book 2, number 592: Umm Waraqah, the daughter of Abdullaah bin al-Harith, "the Messenger of Allah (SAW) used to visit her at her house. He appointed a mu'adhdhin to call adhan for her and he commanded her to lead the inmates of her house in prayer." Abdurrahmaan said, "I saw that her mu'adhdhin was an old man." Can you please explain this hadith. Does it mean women can lead men in salaah? What is the tafseer behind this hadith?


Wa `alaykum as-Salam

i.e. the female inmates. If this included the males then it would have been inconceivable for a lone hadith to be remotely probative without stipulating it more explicitly, since it is well established that a condition of imamate for men is maleness.

If she could lead men in prayer then she could definitely raise her voice in adhan, but the hadith indicates that she was not to do so. Further, a stronger and far more probative hadith in the Muwatta' tells us that `A'isha, Allah be well-pleased with her, would pray Tarawih behind her male slave. This is far more probative because `A'isha was a Faqiha of the first rank, the most knowledgeable women of the Umma or of human history according to the Salaf, and if any woman could lead men in prayer it should have been `A'isha. Further, the Tarawih is a non-obligatory prayer that would have been a most appropriate way of illustrating such a possibility if it were valid, because it is well-known that strictures are relaxed in non-obligatory prayers. Yet she did not lead. Finally, the Muwatta' report is much stronger in terms of authenticity.

As for the website that claims there were women imams for men, from an organisation called Muslim Women's League at (url removed) they do well to remain anonymous as do so many anti-Muslim and pseudo-Muslim agenda carriers, since their writings are full of blatant inaccuracies and outright lies.

Hajj Gibril

[Niche]

let me get this straight first, bok ( first welcome back) secondly, are you advocating women lead men in prayer and or give khutbas to men?

[Bok]

Assalamu 'alaykum,
I've got a lot of time for Sheikh Haddad. Having said that:

"i.e. the female inmates. If this included the males then it would have been inconceivable for a lone hadith to be remotely probative without stipulating it more explicitly, since it is well established that a condition of imamate for men is maleness."

Just a quick off the top of my head (because I'm really supposed to be retrieving an Endnote reference off the net - I'm on the laptop the rest of the time to stop me accessing the internet bwaaahahahaha) the criteria I've seen assumes maleness but doesn't stipulate it (but that's by the by). Anyway the hadith says (from memory) ahlul-dar "the people of the house" and not the women inmates. It is hard to imagine, at anyrate, the mu'adhin not praying behind the imam. Is he to call the prayer and then toodle off somewhere else?

"If this included the males then it would have been inconceivable for a lone hadith to be remotely probative without stipulating it more explicitly..."

That's a bit cart before the horse. The hadiths were not intially narrated to live up to the strictures of hadith classification. Put it this way, a Companion of the Prophet (God love 'em all) did not sit him or herself down and say: "I'll narrate a hadith so that it can be legally probative two or three centuries later." They narrated the material as they saw fit. Having said that, I haven't analysed the hadith and would not be able to tell you right now it's strengths / weaknesses / legal value etc. That's what I have to do with Br. Tawfique's reply and that takes more than a quick break at the internet computer.

The 'A'isha argument is a good one I'll admit. Although she was under a proscription that Um Waraqa was not (ie. her seclusion as a wife of the Prophet) and I am presuming as Sheikh Haddad has not relayed the actual hadith, it refers to a post-Prophetic time, as she would have prayed behind the Prophet while that blessed soul was still with them.

Uh oh husband storming down to find out why I am here and not getting an Endnote reference.

Don't have any ahadith on the top of my head about female Companions who recited publically, but have the Tab'iun reference. Will see if I can find anything when I get a chance.

And finally, no not really. Even if I thought there was clear ijma' on the issue I don't think the Muslims of Australia are up for it really. Praying behind an imam you dislike is an enormity and I can't see it happening any time soon. What interested me, and which was another Sister's point, is that we presume that the jurisprudence is clear and the book is shut. But given there are certain circumstances in which it was entertained by some very great jurists (and I'm not sure where Br. Tawfique gets his methodology for maintaining that all minority positions are prohibited positions, I think that's a Salafi thing) it's worth having a look at what is "out there". (This sort of goes in the "Prophethood of Women" and "There is no internal abrogation in the Qur'an" mental file basket if you like: some very great lone minds had some extremely controversial opinions on the topics but for the rest of the Muslim world it's a shut case).

At the end of the day I think there is only so far you can go with 'fiddling' with the great jurists material however. I'm more interested in the concept of reversing the ijma'-ijtihad process back before the Shafi'i era (which Fazlur Rahman talks about). But THAT's a whole other post too.

Cheers and hip hip to all - love your avatar Sheikh Google
wasalam
Bok

[Seeker]

Amateur ijtihad always makes for entertaining reading. I would love to see the proposed deconstruction of br. Tawfique's response, as so far his efforts have been nothing short of a complete wreck-job. May Allah reward him for clarifying this issue.

[AbuAbu]

Here is Sheikh Tawfique's response to Bok's response. Again, he absolutely demolishes the argument that women can lead prayer for men. May Allah reward him for clarifying the haqq from the baaTil:

Quote

Assalamualaikum,

First of all I thank Allah who has cleared up the truth from the falsehood, surely it is as he said: "The truth has come and the falsehood perished. Truly the falsehood was ever destined to perish."

Secondly, I would like to thank all those who have contributed to this issue of women leading prayer and cleared up their arguments and their intentions behind the posting. I hope that since the little article that I wrote was firstly understood and secondly well received by most, I would ask that our moderator brother Asif allows this one last email on this topic and then close this discussion from dragging on. Jazakallahulkhair for all concerned for their patience and understanding.

First of all, thanks to Sister Susan Carland for her clarification, but what she writes in her email that she felt it was needed for people to know that there was differences because people never say there was any when you ask them and that this did not mean that she herself held the opinion - then this requires the following clarification:

My dear sister - may Allah enter you in the highest of paradise and purify you just as he purified Maryam alaihas-salam - as we clarified, Imam Abu Thawr and Imam At-Tabari's opinions were in contradiction to the Ijma of women not leading obligatory prayers. If this is understood that they were in contradiction, then the rules of fiqh dictate that their view is not counted and it is haram for a person to follow them in it. As well if the Ijma is established in a matter (as is in the matter of women not leading men in obligatory salah) then another statement that comes after this established ijma will certainly be falsehood as the prophet had said: "My ummah will never have concensus on misguidance". Therefore, firstly, if it is haram to follow Abu Thawr and At-Tabari in this matter (as they went againt a previous ijma) and secondly, their opinion is definitely false (see above), then why quote them? and if you were to quote them, then why quote without mentioning the ijma and reality of the matter? Rather in gatherings such as this small MUIS list wherein most people including yourself are laymen and laywomen without proper authority in fiqh - (and it is not a shame to say this, rather it is only realizing the true state of affairs - and I hope Allah will increase your status and raise you with the ulema in the a'akhirah for your ikhlaas) - it is not right to bring in splinter opinions that go against what people already know and thus cause confusion and distress in this matter? I feel the reason why you orginally quoted these Imams was because you didn't know that there was Ijma which you mentioned in another email you wrote saying: "and there is no ijma" and you didn't research the matter well and secondly, that which is apparent for anyone reading the email you wrote is that you would hold the same view. However alhamdulillah you have clarified this matter that you do not hold this view and we thank Allah who had guided you to the truth and so that is an end to that. Another issue that needs to be tackled - why does there need to be ijma anyway? 95% of the rulings in fiqh do not have ijma and where we can find ijma, then it is as scarce as the salt in the food. Does that mean that we can follow any tom dick and harry in 95% of rulings? Does not intellect dictate that we follow reasoning and proof? To insist on ijma in every issue inorder to not follow that which is clear and correct just as the day from the night, then that is a methadology which will cause all of fiqh to break down. If I now came to my brothers and sisters and insisted that men can marry 9 wives and kept on insisting this just because Ibn Hazm held this view and I start telling people - no ijma in this issue - imagine the situation? All hell would break loose, there would be no benefit in intellectual arguments anymore and no need for critical analysis and proof - all because we can hold any opinion or quote any opinion - just because there is no ijma??! This is without doubt incorrect.

Lets move on,
Thanks to sister Nazreen for her email and we would all appreciate if she doesn't ruffle any more beards or hijabs for that matter.
Also thanks to sister Amatullah for her email and clarification.

Lastly I wanted to mention the email written by sister Umm Yasin Rachel - and I must say I am a bit dismayed by the email because it shows an underlying misconception of a lot of principles of this religion and fiqh for that matter and had she not sent this email publically, then I would not correct her mistakes publically, but I am compelled to do so as a naseehah to to her and those who have read her email.

Firstly my dear sister, thank you for your contribution, but you start of your email by saying that you are not compelled by the salafi technique of hadeeth analysis and deriving fiqh from that. My dearest sister, I truly hope you would understand the gravity of what you have written here. Since when has hadeeth analysis been a salafi thing, and since when is deriving fiqh from anything other than that? Ibn Hazm rahimullah says in alMuhalla: "Allah the most High has blessed this ummah with something not given to those before us and that is the isnad so if we hold on to it then we hold on to the mercy of Allah on this ummah and if we leave it, we leave Allah mercy and into his displeasure." My dear sister, the ideas you propose of "progressive point of view" - call it what you like, but the reality of this - if you think about it - is what the classical scholars call it - "takdeemul-aql ala-an-nakal" meaning preferring mind and logic before the quran and sunnah. This matter - for the most part - is completely against Islam and the view of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamah. Rather it is the view of the kalamiyyah, or the kullabiyyah i.e. Ahlul-Kalam about which Imam ash-Shafi said: "My ruling about the ahlul-kalam is that they should be beaten with a shoe and then the shoe hung from their necks and then ordered to walk thru the streets of the the city inorder that people may see what is the end of those who delve into kalam." [authentically reported by ash-shafi in mukhtasar ul-ulwu of adh-dhahabi] It is for this reason that the saying of Ash-Shafi : "Man istahsana faqad shara'" - whoever does istahsan (Ar. a term in usul close to the meaning of Equity) then he has legislated [and set himself up as a legislator with Allah]. My dear sister, if we going to using progressive point of view, then progressive point of view differs from person to person according to what their intellect, logic and reasoning tells him - so where does it end? Rather this matter disguises ignorance of the scriptures, lack of scholarship in the texts and proposes pseudo-scholarship and derives rulings from which ruling cannot be drawn from. The pillars of fiqh are essentially 4 - quran, sunnah, ijma and qiyas and if we were to leave this aside by calling it terms like - salafi way to deduction - inorder to fein scholarship and wisdom above that of the scholars of fiqh, then truly that is a disaster. Disaster because the prophet had said: "I will leave 2 things which if you hold on to you will never become misguided, the quran and the sunnah." progressive reasoning and point of view tries to derive the illa (Ar. a term in usululfiqh meaning reason) for the ruling based on intellectual reasoning leaving aside the textual implications. This is rejected by Islam. Furthermore, understanding the goals and purposes of shariah which is of primary importance dictates that a person have vast knowledge of textual evidences and therefore employes his intellect and proposes progressive reasoning if the issue permits it. In the issue of women and mosques, look at the authentic narration from Aishah that says: "If rasulullah were to know of the women of our time, then he would have stopped them from going to the mosque" - from this narration, we can understand that Aishah's understanding of the maqaasid (Ar. goals and purposes) of shariah would be that women were permitted to go to the mosque in the time of rasulullah when they were covering themselves properly and there wouldn't be any chance of fitnah to men. However in her time when the women were doing less than that, then they should not go to the mosque. Any person of logic who understands this illa would automatically agree that women should not lead men in salah because medically and clinically - "men are sexual creatures" - etc.. this is true about many men - then how do you think knowing this and knowing that in our time wherein the emotions are higher, the taqwa of Allah is lower, the age of marriage is higher - knowing all of this, then why do you converse your intellect into progressive point of view; choosing to neglect all of this and say that women can lead men in prayer? Rather the progressive point of view according to Aishah would be that sisters don't go to the mosque! So whose do we follow? Amina Wadud's or Aishah's? I hope this matter is clear. Neither do we hold Amina Wadud's corrupted derivatives, nor Aishah's ijtihaad in a matter in which the texts clearly prohibit anyone from preventing any women from any mosques. Rather we leave both opinions and we stick to the texts because Allah will call us on the day of judgement: "That day will be call mankind with their Imams" [17:71] - so who is your Imam - Amina Wadud or Aishah or is it Rasulullah? And Allah says that on that day He will ask everyone: "With what have you answered the Messengers?" [28:65] With progressive point of view? or by submission and acknowledge of obedience to what the legislations of Islam stand?!

Progressive point of view is only valid in one case and only one case in Islam, and that is in the matter in which Islam has left the matter open to the customs of the people. So whether the mahr is to be paid before or after marriage, how much normally, whether the man should appoint a servant for her wife etc etc.. these are all matters left open to the customs of the people and in which point progressive reasoning can be applied. Apart from that my sister, refrain from these innovated matters of those who fein knowledge. The article by Sister Amina Wadud - is full of ignorance of the topic - void of scholarly research - the common theme with those who propose progressive understanding of this religion because they feel that the religion is not sufficient in its textual evidences and current legislations. They feel that they have a true understanding of what the goals and purposes behind the legislations were and thus propose what they call nature progression rather than the initial regression. This is true misguidance and speaking about this religion without knowledge.

As for your hoping that MUIS will cater for all flavours - then I beg to differ and I do not think MUIS should cater for those ideologies that are at odds with islam. Feminism and that which is associated with it has well and truly crept into our muslim women and I am sorry but it is not the flavour of the month. I don't think MUIS should cater for these flavours that are at odds with the very fundamentals of Islam - when the proper methodology of fiqh is buzzed off by slandering it and calling it salafi technique and the rulings of Islam and Ijma of the Ummah are no longer held in esteem rather the corrupt intellect of a few to try to islamize the western evils that is in feminism.

Towards the end, I would like to clarify one last very important point and that is the hadeeth oft quoted by too many sisters and brothers, and that is the hadeeth of the women who supposedly stood up and argued with Umar when Umar wanted to put a level on the mahr - this is a very weak hadeeth. First of all the narration of Umar saying: "O people do not exaggerate in your Mahr" is reported by Abu Dawud (#2106), Nasai(2/87), Tirmidhi (1/208) and this hadeeth with this wording only (i.e. the saying of Umar only), is authenticated by Ibn Hibban (#1259), Tirmidhee (1/208), Al-Albani (Irwaul-Ghalil, 6/347) and others. HOWEVER the incident of the women getting up and correcting Umar after Umar said what he said, is not reported in the above sources, rather it is reported by Abdur-Razzaq (#10420) and al-Baihaqi (7/233) and others all of them with a broken chain of narrators and with some of the narrators in the chain themselves weak - making the hadeeth 'very' weak. So I would appreciate if this hadeeth is not used as evidence to any thing such as saying "which women would have the courge to correct an imam today" or similar inspirational "hurrah for women!" talk - as it is like taking a punch in the air. Also I am amazed that Sister Rachel quotes this narration from Ibn Hajr in Fathul-Bari giving the following reference in her email - (1) Fath al-Bari, Vol. 9, p.161. Firstly I didn't find Ibn hajr saying anything about this hadeeth in Fathul Bari 9/161, rather I found it in Fathul Bari 9/204 in the print that I have with me. Secondly Ibn Hajr himself mentioned in this reference, that this hadeeth is munqati i.e. has broken chain of narrators and that the Ulema only made the statement of umar to be authentic as against the incident of the woman. This is amazing! How can you quote this hadeeth from this above source and not mention what Ibn Hajr said? It seems that you have either not obtained this hadeeth from the source which you yourself stated, and that you just cut and pasted it from some source on the net or some book you have, or that you got it from fathul-bari but your arabic is not strong enough to understand the texts or that there is deliberate distortion of the texts by taking that which you want and leaving that which you want. Allah says : "And verily mankind is ever a witness over himself, and even if he were to give excuses." [75:14]

Please please brothers and sisters, this religion is a trust from Allah. Do not abuse it. The problem of pseudo scholarship is of epedemic proportions and just cutting and pasting from the web and books without proper authority is not on! I have said this so many times I think I am beginning to sound like a broken record. However the matter is as I said. We will be asked about every email we write and I kid you not - so beware and do not support that which you do not know to be true or have doubts about. I would especially warn my beloved sisters from these sites of muslim feminists because they frequently fein scholarship and try to justify their falsehood through bits and pieces from here and there - truly it is as Ibnul Mubarak said: The sign of the people of innovation is that they will only quote that which is for them and not quote that which is against them.

Also I think our righteous sisters have a better example in our mothers Khadeejah and Fatimah about whom rasullullah had said "there are many who had completed their eman, however from the women, only 4 .. " and amongst them he mentioned in a narration, khajeedah and Fatimah. Also our rightous sisters have a better example in Aishah the scholar of the muslims and our mother - rather than taking examples from sufi mystics who flew in the air and the kabah made tawaf around her(!) or zaidi shiah women who ruled over yemen. Khadeejah, Aishah and Fatimah are better examples by the text of the quran and sunnah than those who you propose as your mentors who didn't care for the hadeeth of rasulullah nor the guidelines of Islam. It is from the deceptions of the shaitan to follow the lesser whist leaving the better. Why follow the lesser when the better are available to you? By which logic and by which argument? Allah says: "And so if they [the people] believe in that which you [rasulullah and the companions believe], then they are guided. And if they turn away then indeed they are in tyranny and falsehood. And indeed Allah will suffice them [in punishment]. And indeed Allah is all hearing and All knowing." [2:137] and Allah says: "And truly in Rasulullah is a good example [to follow] for he who desires Allah and the last day." [33:21]

Jazakallahlkhair.

If you wish to continue on arguing, then you can email me privately, or alternatively you can call me or visit me in my house and I will have my wife present and my library available to you, so that you can argue your points. However please, if you do have a flavour that is at odds with that of the flavours of islam, then please leave the other brothers and sisters who are unaware, from tasting it - rather concentrate on correcting yourself and your soul. "O people, upon you is only yourself. It does not matter if others are misguided as long as you are guided." [5:105]

Your brother,
Abu Yusuf

[Bok]

Is Tawfique/Abu Yusuf a Sheikh?

Are there any women Sheikhs?

Did anyone else find Tawfique just a bit rude?

I thought much of Tawfique's argument was waffle and just an appeal to 'authority' and his personal opinion.

This post has been edited by Bok: 13 November 2004 - 12:29 AM

[AbuAbu]

Why isn't he a Sheikh? His sheikhs think he is a sheikh and that is why they have given him ijaza including in hanbali fiqh which is the madhab from which you attempted to argue your case.

Quote

None taken. If you need to compare pedigrees  My undergraduate degree was in Arabic and Islamic studies and I'm about three weeks away from finishing my MA in Islamic studies at the University of Melbourne under Prof. Abdullah Saeed. I've also been fortunate enough to be his research assistant on a number of works including Freedom of Religion and Apostasy in Islam (Ashgate Publishing) and Islam in Australia (Allen and Unwin).

Your pedigree doesn't seem to qualify you to be giving fatwas on the Hanbali madhab or any other madhab for that matter or even speaking about these issues. You don't have ijaza. You haven't studied in any Islamic institution. You may have been a research assistant on a couple of books pitched at non-muslims but that doesn't stack up to six years of study in arabic in an islamic institution coupled with ijaza from some of the most esteemed sheikhs of the madhab.

Quote

I thought much of Tawfique's argument was waffle and just an appeal to 'authority' and his personal opinion.

People can judge for themselves who is full of opinion. Tawfiques response to you is full of references and quotes from scholars on the topic. It's not just his own opinion and anyone who reads his response can see that. Likewise, anyone can read your response and see it is weak and that you lack the same level of knowledge and training that he has in the islamic sciences.

On the one hand, you try and claim that Tawfique is following some "salafi" method by just taking rulings from hadith (he isn't, he's following the Hanbali usool) but at the same time you are doing the same thing you accuse him of by babbling on about Yemeni Zaidi rulers and what not as though these are definitive proofs. You don't follow any usool or any principles, you have decided that you want women to lead men and prayer and you are grabbing anything that supports this idea.

[Wolf]

Quote

The problem of pseudo scholarship is of epedemic proportions and just cutting and pasting from the web and books without proper authority is not on!

[Bok]

Salams,

I should just point out that the last post from "me" was actually not from me but from my dear Hubby as I'd accidently left myself logged on.

Given that Abdullah also studied at the University of Medina, I'm curious what *specific* problems do you have with my degree in its course content and methodology??? None of this 'it's a western university', I would like to hear exactly what you disagree with. Do you not approve of the texts we studied? Do you not approve of the subjects we covered? Do you not approve of the teachers? What exactly makes my degree so dubious?

There are a number of problems with Br. Tawfique's email, but insha'Allah we are just speaking past each other. For example there is no ijma' on ijma' (ironically) unlike what Br. Tawfique seems to imply. He quotes al-Shafi'is position in kalam but does not give it a contextualisation that shows kalam is not a denigrated Islamic science and it is accepted by other great scholars. He quotes another Shafi'i position (I was under the assumption he was authorised to promote a Hanbali point of view???) on Istishan which is perfectly legitimate in Maliki and Hanafi schools (although known by different names) and doesn't mention its legitimacy etc. etc. etc.

There are many points I need to address, and as I wrote to MUIS (which unfortunately has not been posted yet) I had agreed not to continue on the discussion until after Eid given the 'passion' it has aroused in the respondants and a need to respect the last days of Ramadan. It also happens I'm desparately trying to do a wrap-up on my own academic work for the year (not to mention move house in two weeks) and then I *promise* I will write a series of emails that discuss the various issues that Br. Tawfique has lighted upon. These are such important topics for the Muslims to be educated about (our history, our sciences, the great role models, modern Islamic movements etc.) Insha'Allah. I even discussed with Prof. Saeed setting up a series of regular discussion forums at the University for precisely this reason. As Muslims we are so ill-informed about our own history that we think the last word on everything comes from a glossy Salafi booklet (no offence).

I must say though Wolf quoted: "The problem of pseudo scholarship is of epedemic proportions and just cutting and pasting from the web and books without proper authority is not on!"
What... like Br. Tawfique's email?!?!?!?

[Wolf]

Assalamu alaykum sis,

It applys to whomever is guilty of it sis. I don't know either of you so I am just emphasising the point to all concerned. But I am enjoying reading the discussion.

Wasalam
Wolf

[Niche]

In the Shafi'i Madthab, it is not permissible(or valid) [ LA Yajuzu, wa la yasuhu] to follow an imam who is......a woman leading men.

there simply isnt any other way in this madthab.

reference, reliance of the traveller p 183 section f 12.27

[AbuAbu]

Bok, the bottom line is that neither you or your sheikh (Abdullah Saeed who only studied Arabic language at Medina and not shariah) are qualified to be making itjihad on these issues.

You seem to want to push a "progressive Islam" and have come up with all sorts of strange ideas in your head that you think are "progressive" and now you want to grab any proof you can find to support your ideas. For example, I noticed on your blog you are even trying to argue that Muslim women can marry kafir men at http://www.maryams.n...ves/000172.html Are you honestly qualified to make a claim that goes against 1400 years of 'ijmaa?

Seriously, to speak about Allah and His Messenger in this way, without proper authority or knowledge, is dangerous and it will only lead to kufr if anyone continues down this path. The only thing that is progressing, is a progression towards the hellfire for anyone who abandons Islam and starts trying to twist and contort Allah's religion to suit their whims, desires and some kafir interpretation of "women's rights".

[rami]

bi ismillahir rahmanr raheem

assalamu alaikum

Quote

at anyrate, the mu'adhin not praying behind the imam. Is he to call the prayer and then toodle off somewhere else?

Why not it is not liked for the female to make the call to prayer especially if there are men present.

Quote

That's a bit cart before the horse. The hadiths were not intially narrated to live up to the strictures of hadith classification.

he was saying you can not base a ruling simply on one hadith, especially since the majority of scholars say otherwise.

Quote

"I'll narrate a hadith so that it can be legally probative two or three centuries later." They narrated the material as they saw fit. Having said that, I haven't analysed the hadith and would not be able to tell you right now it's strengths / weaknesses / legal value etc. That's what I have to do with Br. Tawfique's reply and that takes more than a quick break at the internet computer.

So then how are you asumming to know more than the scholars since you dont have any more information then they do and are not even at there calibre.

Quote

The 'A'isha argument is a good one I'll admit. Although she was under a proscription that Um Waraqa was not (ie. her seclusion as a wife of the Prophet)

They followed rasu allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) more closely and better than any other women they didnt have a seperate set of rules.

Quote

is that we presume that the jurisprudence is clear and the book is shut

The majority opinion is clear and that door is shut.

Quote

At the end of the day I think there is only so far you can go with 'fiddling' with the great jurists material however. I'm more interested in the concept of reversing the ijma'-ijtihad process back before the Shafi'i era (which Fazlur Rahman talks about). But THAT's a whole other post too.

Why?

is there an abundance of scholars at that level, Imam Malik said "I showed my book to seventy jurists of Madina, and every single one of them approved me for it (kulluhum wâta’ani `alayh), so I named it ‘The Approved’(muwatta)." Imam malik aksed 70 jurists to scheck his work beffore he was happy with it, do you think there are 70 indaviduals alive today who imam malik would even consider to be jurists, knowledge is decreasing not increasing.

university based learning does not suit islam it asks for "progressive" thinking, new ways of understanding something, change. The sciences in islam were devloped to preserve Islam not change it.

you may like to read what sidi afroz has said in this thread.

[Bok]

woops typo - istihsan

[Bok]

Abdullah did his B.A. in Arabic language, literature and Islamic studies at the Islamic University, Medina.

Seriously, I'd like to know - what *specific* problems do you have with the course? Which subjects do you disagree with? What texts don't you like? What is wrong with the methodology?

If we have boiled this argument down to: "You're not Imam Malik" then Br. Tawfique has nothing to say on it either.

[AbuAbu]

The thing that you are ignoring is that Tawfique's reply to you and the other sister isn't based on his opinion, he is just relaying with scholars such as Ibn Qudama (Hanbali jurist), Ibn Rush (maliki jurist) and others have written on the issue. All you have brought are some arguments ripped without attribution (plagiarised?) from Jamal Badawi's Gender Equity in Islam and some weird philosophical arguments. As far as I am concerned, it's pretty clear where the haqq is here. and its not with the Ahlul Kalam.

You are quite welcome to believe that muslim women can marry kafir men and that women can lead men in prayer, but just don't call this religion you are creating 'Islam' because it isn't and the methodology you are following to come up with your fatwas isn't assisting or progressing Islam, it's trying to destroy it from within by replacing legitimate scholarship with following whims, desires and trends like feminism or appearing 'progressive' and 'groovy'.

[Shibshib]

Assalamu `alaikum everyone,

Allow me to begin by making clear that I am not with Bok on this issue, which is to say, I do not share Bok's view.

But I must also say that I find it objectionable that our discourse has become so authoritarian that one has to make such a disclaimer to save one’s self from having their reputation absolutely ravaged.

Such are our times, unfortunately. It seems Muslims can no longer encounter minority opinions (even if very small minority views) with which we are not familiar, without resorting to sanctimonious language. It is not enough for us to present our view and our disagreements respectfully. We must warn everyone else to fear Allah (since it seems holding a dissenting view somehow means you lack taqwa). We must speak of clarifying “the haqq from the batil”. We must talk of “crushing the mukar”.

Some of the stuff in this thread is even worse. It’s heading towards rancid.

However, the fact that I disagree with Bok’s position, and in this case, agree with Br Tawfique’s does not mean I think Br Tawfique's analysis does not have some very curious features, to which I will come in due course.

But first:

"AbuAbu said:

Why isn't he a Sheikh? His sheikhs think he is a sheikh and that is why they have given him ijaza including in hanbali fiqh which is the madhab from which you attempted to argue your case.

At this point, I'm not about to enter the who-is-a-sheikh argument because I think it is purile and, ultimately, self-defeating.

But it seems to me that the original post was not arguing from a Hanbali basis. In fact, it wasn't arguing at all. It merely provided some references and said maybe there's more evidence than we think for the alternative view. Bok may have stated the view that a woman could lead men in prayer, but the actual post was not Bok's - it was from someone else who didn't advocate a position. In fact, that original post explicitly said:

Quote

Although the practice of women leading prayer is not commonly accepted, one cannot conclude that it is prohibited without first conducting honest and unbiased research into this matter.

Doesn't sound like asserting a concluded view to me.

But even if we assume (erroneously) that it was advocating a position - how was it proceeding from a Hanbali basis? It mentoined Ahmad bin Hanbal and ibn Taymiyyah only in passing. The strongest support was really taken from at-Tabari and ath-Thawri.

Now - I would relish it if anyone could explain to me how on Earth the invocation of at-Tabari could be seen as an appeal to the Hanbali madhhab. The Hanbalis were his staunch opponents who often persecuted him in Baghdad because they felt he was disrespectful to ibn Hanbal himself (at-Tabari claimed that ibn Hanbal was a muhaddith, not a jurist). They would prevent people from seeing him, and one report even says that upon his death, some Hanbali students burned his books and buried his body in an unmarked Christian grave. Put simply, he was hardly a bedfellow of the Hanbalis.

Is it suprising then, that someone claiming an ijaza in Habali fiqh would disagree with his view so vehemently?

The only person, it seems, coming from a Hanbali perspective, is Br Tawfique himself. That’s fine – I have no objection to the Hanbali madhhab – but it does raise some very interesting questions.

For example, if Br Tawfique is stating a Hanbali view, why is his discourse so absolutist? That is, why is he not simply stating the Hanbali position, as opposed to purporting to speak for all Islamic thought?

But perhaps even more curious, is the legal theory used to construct his argument. For example, I don’t understand why a Hanbali would say that the only legitimate sources of Islamic jurisprudence are the Qur’an, the sunnah, ijma` and qiyas as though that were a definitive, universal truth.

I could understand that coming from a Shafi`i, because that is precisely the Shafi`i formulation of usul. But every other madhhab refers to other juristic sources, including the Hanbalis themselves. Why, for example, does not Br Tawfique refer to that oft-invoked Habali principle (also used by some Malikis) of sadd adh-dhara`i? What of maslaha, which is also used (to differing degrees and in differing ways) by all three mainstream non-Shafi`i madhahib?

And why does he give such a pasting to istihsan when that has also found use in Hanbali usul? True, ash-Shafi`i didn’t think much of it, but in its staunch opposition to the principle, his school is generally alone.

I am prepared to admit the shortcoming is probably all mine, but all this seems very curious to me.

But then there are other curious features of Br Tawfique’s analysis.

For example, I do not understand why his diagnosis of the conversation is that it is a product of “various movements” of the “modern age”, before admitting that the issue really begins with the likes of at-Tabari. Is he arguing that at-Tabari was some twentieth century secular feminist centuries ahead of his time? Surely not. Speaking for myself, the impression I get is of a discourse seeking to dismiss the alternative view as some kind of deviant, progressive and modernist thought without having to confront the diversity of traditional Islamic scholarship over the centuries. Perhaps that is not the intention – but it is my impression.

But the other feature of Br Tawfique’s response that surprises me, is that it does not seem really to present any direct evidence. It is largely a hit-parade of various scholars who disagreed with at-Tabari’s view and asserted the existence of an ijma` on the issue. It does not demonstrate the textual prohibition of women leading prayers, or even deal with the question of the onus of proof. Instead, it is an appeal to the authority – not of primary Islamic texts – but of scholarly opinion generally, and the concept of ijma` in particular.

Of course, that discourse brushes past ijma` as a jurisprudential source. It does not unpack how ijma` has been perceived differently by different scholars, and limited by different scholars. It therefore does not explore the limitations on invoking this principle to silence a dissenting view. We see no discussion whatsoever of the radical change in the perception of ijma` that ash-Shafi`i brought (almost the reverse image of Abu Hanifah and Malik’s approach) to which Bok has referred.

Of course, the ambiguity surrounding the concept of ijma` raises some fascinating questions. If ijma` is binding, but there is no consensus on the meaning of ijma`, and accordingly no definition of it is binding, then what are the implications for ijma` as a binding principle. Fascinating legal metaphysics all this, but for now, beside the point, so sorry for the digression.

"Seeker said:

Amateur ijtihad always makes for entertaining reading.

Are you referring to the “amateur” ijtihad of at-Tabari, or ath-Thawri? Or, if some traditional `ulema from Syria to whom I spoke recently are to be believed, are you referring to al-Qurtubi?

Or perhaps you're referring to Br Tawfique's? Maybe you are because he might be the only one of these who is not a mujtahid (in the traditional sense).

However, I suspect you're referring to Bok's. Fair enough. But if your objection is to the ijtihad of an amateur, then I feel it would probably be worthwhile being even-handed: be entertained by everyone's contributions to the discussion.

”Seeker” said:

I would love to see the proposed deconstruction of br. Tawfique's response, as so far his efforts have been nothing short of a complete wreck-job.

I look forward to it as well. Seems to me there is a lot to discuss, and I anticipate there is much I can learn from it.

I only hope the discussion can proceed without the condescending warnings of self-proclaimed mukar crushers.

Perhaps it might be best, when speaking to Bok, to keep in mind that we are also addressing at-Tabari's view - not just that of someone you can unfairly dismiss as modernist.

Ma salaama,

Shibshib.

[rami]

Bi ismillahir rahmanr raheem

assalamu alaikum

Bok, on Nov 13 2004, 04:41 PM, said:

Abdullah did his B.A. in Arabic language, literature and Islamic studies at the Islamic University, Medina. 

Seriously, I'd like to know - what *specific* problems do you have with the course?  Which subjects do you disagree with?  What texts don't you like?  What is wrong with the methodology?

If we have boiled this argument down to: "You're not Imam Malik" then Br. Tawfique has nothing to say on it either.

May comment about Imam Malik was in rrefrence to your " ijma'-ijtihad process back before the Shafi'i era" comment not university.

What is wrong with madina university? its not traditional based education, specifically speaking i dont trust the level of scholarship there, which is not only my opinion but the opinion of people who have studied there and scholars i have heard speak i can not comment on specific texts or subjects since i have not been there.

What is wrong with university based education in general? its enough to know where this system came from to not agree with it, but i dont base my opinion just on history learn a bit about tassawuuf human nature, Human conditioning and how people develop you will gain a bit more insight into the matter its not as simple being taught the wrong thing.

this subject has been discussed beffore so i dont want to hijack this thread if you are interested here are some prior discussions on the subject and some realted issues which may be of interest.

American Forced Schooling

How University Betrays Students

A Warning to Idealistic Students

Why Schools Don’t Educate

Madinah University

What is wrong with the Islamic University, Medinah?

you may not find some relavent but they are to understanding what is wrong.

Just wondering earlier you criticised the br for being a salafi the type created by muhammad abduh not abdul wahab do you prefer one above the other or were you criticising both, if both how can you say you dont trust a movment but then see nothing wrong with learning from them ie madinah university or have i got all this wrong?

[Seeker]

"Shibshib said:

Are you referring to the “amateur” ijtihad of at-Tabari, or ath-Thawri? Or, if some traditional `ulema from Syria to whom I spoke recently are to be believed, are you referring to al-Qurtubi?

The fact (or possibility, in the case of al-Qurtubi) that they held that view doesn't decrease their status in my eyes whatsoever, they were proper scholars with proper qualifications, and God forbid that I would ever undermine them. At the very least, they have one 'ajr.

"Shibshib said:

Or perhaps you're referring to Br Tawfique's? Maybe you are because he might be the only one of these who is not a mujtahid (in the traditional sense).

However, I suspect you're referring to Bok's. Fair enough. But if your objection is to the ijtihad of an amateur, then I feel it would probably be worthwhile being even-handed: be entertained by everyone's contributions to the discussion.

You suspected right. However, from what I can see, Br Tawfique hasn't done any ijtihad, rather he has (quite authoritatively) put forth the mu`tamad opinions from his madhhab and clarified the ijma` stance on the matter. I would call that informative, not entertaining. What I do find entertaining (and I use that word loosely) is the low level analysis of hadiths performed in this thread, among other things.