Can A Woman Become A Head Of An Islamic State?

[Nur]

Can A Woman Become A Head Of An Islamic State?

 

 

This article was triggered by a question posed to me by Brorther Xiinfaniin, after I have favorably responded to an article that was sympathetic to allowing women to hold highest office in an islamic State. Before I started out the research and reading of different sources, I was of the opinion that due to the current circumstances in which we find ourselves, and because of scarcity of sane men and abundance of wise women , that there must be a venue in the Sharia to Justify the leadership of women to safeguard Islam. However, the more I read, the more I realized that the ruling was contrary to my own desires, I came face to face with clear proofs that have no room to manuever around, simply put, I felt humbled by rock solid daleels ( proofs) that leave no room but hear and obey, my duty is thus to best relay that intention of the lawmaker, Allah SWT, as clear as I can.

 

 

Bismillah, wa bihi nastaciin, wassalatu wassalamu calal mustafaa, waa alih wa saxbih wa man ittbacahum bi ixsaanin ilaa yowmadiin. Amen.

 

 

Alahmadulillah, Allah SWT said : Today have I completed for you your Deen ( way of life), filled your(hearts) with my Nicmah ( Imaan), and thus became satisfied that you live as those surrendered (to my will) as your way of life

 

Islam, thus is a:

 

1. Unique Way of Life

2. It is from Allah SWT, The Author

3. It is a form of unconditional surrender to highest authority

4. The highest authority that questions everyone, but is above questioning.

 

 

Based on the above understading, Allah has sent a prophet SAWS, to mankind to teach them wisdom, justice and elevate them from decadence to the honor of His Sole worship.

 

Thus, When an issue is raised that touches on the lives of Muslims in an Islamic state, its important to refer to Quraan as a guide, and sunnah as the practical interpretation of the Quraan since the purpose of the example of the prophet SAWS was to lead by example known as SUNNAH.

 

So, in that sense, we must be certain that Muslims today can not expect to better their condition by going against the Sunnah, becaue no success will be derived from other than the Quraan and Sunnah since it was completed by Allah SWT.

 

Men and women are a wholsome unit in a society, and no single gender can achieve success witthout the other, Allah SWT says, " Walaa tansawu al fadla beynakum" meaning, do not forget (to pay attention to) the FADL ( responsibility of men for women) and ( womens contribution to family welbeing) between you ( men and wolmen). That fadl, when forgotten, we have a break up of the family unit, and the community in general.

 

So, what is the role of a man and a woman in a Muslim Society according to Quraan and Sunnah as we shall show the sources?

 

Primary role of a man in a Muslim Society:

 

1. Bread winner and helper at home.

2. Defender of Family, Islamic values and society

3. Upholder of Law and Order

4. Worshipper of Allah

 

Primary role of a woman in a Muslim Society:

 

1. Caretaker of Family

2. Education of Children

3. Advisor to Husband

4. Worshipper of Allah

 

 

Now these gender roles are based on a society that is following Islam as a wholesome way of life ( Deen).

 

In that ideal society, can a woman hold an office to lead men in government or law?

 

That question can now be seen that it is out of place since it falls outside of the roles mentioned above,. Because, when a woman is required to do a job that is not in her sphere of influence, ( in which she is most effective given the above conditions ), she will fail as predicted by the prophet SAWS, and likewise when we ask men to do a job that is outside of the sphere of their influence, thet will also fail.

 

Allah SWT says in Quraan :

 

 

قال الله عز وجل : ( الرّÙجَال٠قَوَّامÙونَ عَلَى النّÙسَاء٠بÙمَا Ùَضَّلَ اللَّه٠بَعْضَهÙمْ عَلَى بَعْض٠وَبÙمَا أَنْÙÙŽÙ‚Ùوا Ù…Ùنْ النساء / .34

 

Men are Qawaamuun ( Head of households, Guardians, caretakers, Trustees, defenders, protectors) of women, as an excercise of that (authority) which Allah has vested upon them (instead of women), and for their (role) as (responsible) for funding requiremnts (of household expenditure)

 

That trusteeship is an objective of Allah by itself, removing that trusteeship and giving it to woman over men requires another mandate derived from the same authority that gave the trusteeship to men over women in the fisrt place.

 

It was also reported by Bukhari (4163) that the Prophet SAWS upon hearing the news that the Persians have appointed the daughter and heir apparnet of their King as the New Queen of Persia, said : A nation that placed a woman as their national leader never have/will never succeed"

 

Imam Shawkani in his book Neil Al awtar said that the above hadeeth is a proof that women are not vested with the previllage of authority over men, since her rise to such a position will result in failure of the Muslim nations mission due to break up of natural responsibilities and roles in the society.

 

Since the beginning of the Islamic caliphate, that principle was held without any questioning, it was well understood that women and men have different roles and the rulership of a woman was never an issue to tackle as the order of the Muslim society had a wholesome vision of an Islamic society.

 

So, if we look at the issue from the point of view of the lawmaker ( Allah) we can ask, are these rulings eternal or are they changeable?

 

Well, according to the Moral of the Islamic law ( Maqaasidul Shaaric), a ruling can be addressed to have an objective in something, or as a mean to another objective.

 

In the case of the prohibition of the national leadership of women, it was done for the good of the Ummah, yet, the Hadeeth rules out the possibility that at anytime any woman will lead her ummah to success, in our particular case, success among other things means success of obeying Allahs laws, to attain role of rightful Khalifa on earth, so by going against that rule, a nation is deemed failed and not successful.

 

 

Thus, in an islamic society, the role of trusteeship has been demarcated by a clear verse in Quraan and a hadeeth, which together serve as inviolable commandments of Allah SWT as they meet conditions of THUBUUT and DALAALAH in a clear from.

 

 

2006 eNuri Fiqh Explorations

Surrender First, Wisdom Follows

[STOIC]

Nur, Allah has created this world.He created us and also gave us a heart, head, and intellect. There is no doubt(on my part) that Allah created of all that is nice and bad. He has given us the wisdom and the free will to decide on our own what is good and bad. We as a human being surely understand that if we take the wrong path we are destined to failure. It is a huge responsibility and a big significant that we follow whatever that our prophet (SAW) has instructed us to follow.

The ongoing debate about the role of women in Islam seems to have captured my imagination. I personally have some critical things to point out on this issue of women leadership that I have read on a paper. Let me warn you that I am in no way making a claim to be an expert in the Quranic and Hadith here nor am I suggesting this to be my own work. There is no doubt in my mind that a hadith quoted in the Bukhari has been verified thoroughly! We are all created equal by one God. What I am not getting is if we men are superior intellectually in our leadership to women then how come that when the prophet (SAW) died people went to Aisha for advice on the religious matters? Isn’t it inconsistent with the faith people had with Aisha? I know that I am making intellectuality and leadership to be a coin of the same side. There is this scholar who would argue that these hadith was fabricated by Abubakar(RA).This scholar claim that when Aisha(RA) was fighting with Ali in the famous battle of Basra (the battle of Camel), Abubakra( RA) did not take any sides . Aisha army lost in the battle. Since positon of neutrality was not accepted when Abubakra was asked to explain why he failed to support Ali in this war, He quoted this hadith for the first time. What is on your take on this claim by this scholar?

 

Edit: Thanks Amelia for the spelling mistake-I was supposed to say Abubakra and not Abubakar(they are two different people)

[Khalaf]

^^^^^Excellent point about that hadith brother stoic. I heard it as well. Out all those hadtihs collected, only one mentions a woman can't become leader of nation. There is another hadith that says: Obey your leader even if he is ethopian slave.

 

Also the imam at my masjid said u can't prophit or make haraam that which was not directly forbidden in the Qu'ran or by the Prophet. What where the opinions of the Madhabs? In islamic history a woman was never president, however the subject is open to interpretation and times can change doesn't mean it haraam.

 

For example: the issue of divorce by uttering I divorce thee three times. All the Madhabs agreed that if man utters these words three times at once, the woman is divorced from him therefore she most marry another, get divorce then only then can they marry again.

 

However ibn Taimiyah (Allah bless him) issued a fatwa that went against that ruling. He said if man utters I divorce thee in one situation that is counted as one, another situation utters I divorce thee, counts two, then another counts as three-then only then is there a divorce. Ibn tamiyah was jailed for this fatwa since it went against the rulings of long standing tradition and the madhabs, and he died in jail-May Allah reward him Jannah. Now today his fatwa is used in majority of Muslim Lands. There are many examples of how fatwas were changed throughout islamic history. The flexibility of Islam is raxmah.

 

What I am saying is there is no direct order that prophbits women from holding top office, its open to interpretation.

 

With that said, I believe a woman’s most honorable role is to be a wife and mother and raise God-fearing Muslim generation who will lead the world. But I or any man has no right to deny her anything which Allah has not denied her.

[Nur]

STOIC Walaal

 

Excellent points, I was thinking the same way until i recieved a PM from a bother on this forum, I went back to lookj up at many sources that I can not reference here for previty, but the gist i get is that when we look back in Islamic Histor, the best generation lived in the first three decades, during the Caliphate of Abu Bakar, Omar, Othman and Ali.

 

I must say that Aisha role was far different than any other woman during her time, she was the living archive of the Prophets tradition, from personal hygine to family affairs, our mother was a woman of piety and devotion to Allah SWT.

 

What we can learn from Aisha during the fitna is that she was active in the community, she was protected by companions who regarded her as their mother, She had the title of the Mother Of Believers, and for that reason, her stand in the Camel battle was that of a just activist, although she was wrong according to the famous Hadeeth of the dogs barking which reminded Zubeir go back after realizing that he was on the wrong side of the battle.

 

Anyway, the issue at hand is that our knowledge of the sunnah and Quran compared to the first generation is so limited, they were close to the time of the prophet SAWS, and their interpretation was much more in line than ours, since we are corrupted by non islamic idealogies that is mixed with our islamic idealogy, therefore, its my humble opinion that when Allah says men are Qawaamuun, that is what it means plain and simple. The pressure to put a woman on the highest office is not even practiced by those who preach, in recent times, Muslim countries have produced, a woman head of state, in Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonisia, when combined their populations exceeds that of Europe, yet, with all the lizard tears, the westen nations are run by men, serving lip service to women, while trying to impose what they have failed to implement on Muslims who have done their fair share against their will. One must ask, who is driving this womens agenda for the Muslim world, and why?

 

 

Khalaf brother

 

You know that no woman has assumed a head of state during the Caliphate that lasted for 1300, I know that latent Muslims went wrong on many occasions, and we are the worst breed of Muslims that lived, now, how can you justify that the worst newcomers to reform what the best of us , the companions have failed?

 

 

Nur

[Khalaf]

Brother Nur,

 

First I commend u for bringing up this topic, indeed interesting and as years pass we will see issues like this take front stage in the Islamic world. This is not about the west, excellent point tho on whose agenda is being shaped in the Muslim world.

 

I would never call for reform of Islamic system-that is shirk when one thinks Allah’s Laws can be reformed. Islamic way has already been interpreted and lived physically by the companions in both personal and public spheres-and they are our best guide to follow. And I believe a woman shouldn’t become president of the Land. This job entitles she be leader, Imam of whole lands, leader of the military, Jihad, Imam of all the Muslims. We know this is not the role that Islam reserved for women. Is this discrimination against her or doubt of her abilities? Absolutely not. No one knows creation better then Allah The Creator, this is mercy for the woman who no matter how many times people tend to argue or deny is weaker then men-thus her duties are different.

 

 

We have to realize as Muslims there is an intellectual attack against us and we most confront that attack intellectually. What do I mean? First, those who oppose women becoming head state use the same arguments you outlined above-men are protectors, sustainers, the Hadith, a single Hadith I should mention that says nation will not prosper with a woman as its leader, and of course our history.

 

 

With that said my brother, how do we confront those who say where is no verse in the Qu’ran that directly says a woman can’t lead a nation? Since there is no direct order against it, it can be open to interpretation? And what are the opinions of the 4 imams? I am sure this issue has been discussed by the different schools of thought. InshaAllah maybe this can be presented here. Salaam

[- Femme -]

I'm sorry, this is a serious topic, but these kind of debates always make me laugh. There are millions of sisters being denied their rights left, right and centre in the name of Islam all over the world and we get fixated on whether or not she can lead a nation. Why are the more important ones always ignored?

 

But I digress, continue on with ur talk.

 

For myself I'm more concerned about a sister having the right to walk down the street without a mahram, get an education, work if she wants to, drive a car, go get her own groceries, not worry about being killed for 'honour', not being mutialted for 'culture', etc. When those needs are met then we can really think about the bigger fish. It amazes me how people get all hot and bothered with the subject of women and horror of horrors, her rights in Islam. Seeing as the state of the world under the rule of men, I welcome anyone who can do better.

[S.O.S]

a/c,

 

Khalaf, you say...

Qu’ran that directly says a woman can’t lead a nation?

As you may know, the style of the Qur'an is in a way that it sometimes orders and sometimes forbids us to do or not to do. We Muslims should obey and refrain from what Allah prohibits, and comply with whatever Allah orders. In this case, the style is as follows...

 

"Men are protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means. therefore the righteous women are devoutley obedient..." (3:34).

 

one can guess which style that command is belongst to. Thus, to clarify the issue:

 

a) men are made responsible to lead women

b) righteous women are obedient to Allah

c) righteous women are obedient to their husbands

 

Therefore, women leadership is in conflict with the Qur'an, with her role as wife and with the rights of the Muslims (for practical reasons).

 

w/c.

[pink]

no you cant....although i think somalia would have been beter off with a woman...a kind one not like margret thacher.....

[-Serenity-]

Salaams Nur,

 

Since you’ve taken it upon yourself to research on the matter and present your ‘informed’ analysis, I hope you’ll be willing to clear a few things for me.

 

Let me first address the hadeeth by Abu Bakrah (not to be confused with Abu Bakar Al-Siddique RA) stating that those nations who entrust their affairs (A clarification of this word in its Arabic context would be nice) to a woman are doomed to failure (And if I may add the contradiction in reality, specially in the case of Somalia, led by our 'God-blessed' Somali men). Have you really done a thorough research and come to a conclusive conclusion? Or like most people, skimmed, read what you wanted to read and taken the path of least resistance?

 

Having done my own bit and read the historical context of this hadeeth, as Stoic said, it was reported by Abu Bakrah - an ex-slave who embraced Islam and whose freedom was bargained for by the prophet scw and as a result had his status catapulted and gained economic progress. Like most people of his status at the time, his lineage is unclear and history blur. He reported this hadeeth at a rather opportune moment when he didn’t join one or the other in the ‘battle of the camel’ between Aisha and Ali, as his reason for not joining Aisha, who enjoyed the support of the populace of Basra, where he resided. Some contemporary writers, historians and scholars doubt the authenticity of this hadeeth due to his murky past, both in his personal history and the fact that he was convicted of and flogged for false testimony in a zina case by Umar Ibn al-khattab. According to Malik, one of the criteria for taking a hadeeth from a transmitter depends on them being known not to lie in other affairs. So, why is this hadeeth in Bukhari then? The closest collection to authentic hadeeth? And why is this single hadeeth taken as unequivocal proof when there is nothing in the Quran for the same?

 

Moving on, I’m confused as to what this hadeeth exactly vindicates. Is this the position of Amir al-Muminin in an established Islamic State? The Presidency of a Muslim Country by majority? Does it extend to other roles in politics?

 

Men and women are a wholsome unit in a society, and no single gender can achieve success witthout the other, Allah SWT says, " Walaa tansawu al fadla beynakum" meaning, do not forget (to pay attention to) the FADL ( responsibility of men for women) and ( womens contribution to family welbeing) between you ( men and wolmen). That fadl, when forgotten, we have a break up of the family unit, and the community in general.

Men are Qawaamuun ( Head of households, Guardians, caretakers, Trustees, defenders, protectors) of women, as an excercise of that (authority) which Allah has vested upon them (instead of women), and for their (role) as (responsible) for funding requiremnts (of household expenditure)

I can’t say your interpretation of these verses and using them as justification for the above hadith plus your pigeon-holing of a woman’s role in society leaves a lot to be desired.

 

Will b back upon your reply to the hadeeth issue!

[Pi]

Ummm, I think the issue is a little bit more complicated than Nur made it out to be. It aint no slam dunk.

 

Anywho, not sure if ya'll know Fatima Mernissi , Morrocon author, professor and researcher, but I think she provides a comprehensive explanation of this whole women leadership issue in her books and essays. Here are some of her articles on the subject:

 

Can A Woman Be A Leader Of Muslims? Part -1

Can A Woman Be A Leader of Muslims?-Part 2

Can a Woman Be a Leader of Muslims?-Part 3

 

That's what I call actual research.

[Khalaf]

Brother Pi,

 

With due respect my dear brother, do you even know Fatima Mernissi and aware of her writtings?

She is well known Moroccan sociologist and strong feminist who is against Islam. My brother and you bring this flith of a character to an Islamic dicussion.

 

And provide a website that says hijab is not obligotry, a ruling agreed upon as Salat is agree upon. Her research is usless, the opinions of our ulma and our history far outweigh the ramblings of confused feminist. Peace

[Johnny B]

Originally posted by Scarlet:

For myself I'm more concerned about a sister having the right to walk down the street without a mahram, get an education, work if she wants to, drive a car, go get her own groceries, not worry about being killed for 'honour', not being mutialted for 'culture', etc. When those needs are met then we can really think about the bigger fish.

That is your delimma lil Scarlet , you can´t have it both ways, you can´t talk the talk of "Coffe Anan"´s women rights and walk the walk of a covered Muslim girl/women. your rights has been well taken care of Allah, now you don´t wanna question that do you?

The role you been so justly allotted to in an Islamic society has been well defined.

 

1. Caretaker of Family

2. Education of Children

3. Advisor to Husband

4. Worshipper of Allah

 

And if you girls/women happen to take Men´s role which most of you already happen to do , that is:

 

1. Win half or whole of the family bread and take care of home.

2. Defend the Family and Islamic values .

3. Abide by the Law and Order.

4. Worship Allah.

 

then that is fine, since you only make it easy for men to concentrate on the god-given but un-accomplishable right of finding three more of your type, but never ever i repeat never ever threaten men´s holy role, that is to lead.

 

You´ve never entertained the thought of what the Muslim world would look like, have Aisha won the "camel war", have you?

 

I think the above plain sarcasm is intellectually called for , becouse what i see is a clear pattern of behavior, a willingness to deceive. Specifically a demonstration of Mullahs who are willing to pass themselves off as an authority on godly and spiritual things.

 

I actually see little or no diffrence between the justification of the deprivation of women rights in Islam and the justification of the racial slavery,racial inferiority/supremacy in christianity.

 

Having said that, i can´t help but conclude that something is contradictory about the idea of having total and genuine faith in Islam yet questioning it´s script. Faith is a confident belief in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing, idea in this case.

[Khayr]

Originally posted by Amelia:

 

Let me first address the hadeeth by Abu Bakrah (not to be confused with Abu Bakar Al-Siddique RA) stating that those nations who entrust their affairs (A clarification of this word in its Arabic context would be nice) to a woman are doomed to failure (And if I may add the contradiction in reality, specially in the case of Somalia, led by our 'God-blessed' Somali men). Have you really done a thorough research and come to a conclusive conclusion? Or like most people, skimmed, read what you wanted to read and taken the path of least resistance?

 

Having done my own bit and read the historical context of this hadeeth, as

Stoic

said, it was reported by Abu Bakrah - an ex-slave who embraced Islam and whose freedom was bargained for by the prophet scw and as a result had his status catapulted and gained economic progress. Like most people of his status at the time, his lineage is unclear and history blur. He reported this hadeeth at a rather opportune moment when he didn’t join one or the other in the ‘battle of the camel’ between Aisha and Ali, as his reason for not joining Aisha, who enjoyed the support of the populace of Basra, where he resided. Some contemporary writers, historians and scholars doubt the authenticity of this hadeeth due to his murky past, both in his personal history and the fact that he was convicted of and flogged for false testimony in a zina case by Umar Ibn al-khattab. According to Malik, one of the criteria for taking a hadeeth from a transmitter depends on them being known not to lie in other affairs.

So, why is this hadeeth in Bukhari then? The closest collection to authentic hadeeth? And why is this single hadeeth taken as unequivocal proof when there is nothing in the Quran for the same?

A Response

 

Abu Bakrah and the Feminists

by GF Haddad

 

As-Salamu `alaykum,

It began with a feminist who said out of the blue that the hadith in al-Bukhari where Abu Bakrah says that the Prophet said, upon him and his Family blessings and peace, "A nation that is led by a woman will not succeed" is a lie and that Abu Bakrah may not have been truthful because he was whipped by Umar ibn al-Khattab for lying about a charge of fornication against someone, and the testimony of one who is punished is not acceptable as mentioned in the Qur'an (24:4).

 

Ah, but the Qur'an also commands the noblest, most knowledgeable, AND most feminist women in creation (the mothers of the Believers) to stay home; and the Sunna curses women that imitate men. So a nation that is led by a woman may not succeed regardless. How typical are God and His Messenger of the "male elite"!

 

Then there was that neo-Mutazilite creature who said he keeps a kennel at home and prays behind his wife (presumably au naturel? or at least en cheveux), and he calls our liege-lord Abu Bakrah "this character."

 

Abu Bakrah3 - Allah be well-pleased with him - was convinced by his own eyes that the man and woman in question were guilty of fornication and he refused to pray behind that man, wrote to the Commander of the Believers, went to see him, and then bore witness against that man according to his conscience along with three other witnesses as the Law demands. But because the fourth witness retracted his testimony or was found unacceptable, the conviction fell through and the witnesses whipped and declared unreliable, as the Law also demands. After the whipping, Abu Bakrah still said, "I spoke the truth and the man did do what I said." `Umar motioned to whip him again but `Ali said, "If you do, then have the other one stoned!" i.e. the testimonials would now amount to four.

 

Abu Bakrah suffered through this trial all his life and would say incredulously, "Fassaquni" - They declared me corrupt! This, however, as Ibn Hazm said in the Muhalla, is NOT how countless subsequent generations of hadith Masters consider him but rather - beginning with the most stringent of them, al-Bukhari and Muslim - a faultless Companion-reporter of the utmost probity whose hadiths are 100% reliable including this one which is in the Sahih, despite what the feminists claim.

 

Then, in a hurry to make sense out of nonsense, someone proposed the reasoning that "If you can't be a witness you can't transmit hadith, if you have slandered someone you can't be a witness, thus if you've slandered someone you can't transmit hadith... ergo Abu Bakrah and MORE IMPORTANTLY Nafi', a major hadith transmitter [sic], are not kosher.... This reasoning is correct if you're a Hanafi or Mutazilite (or both) during the first three centuries of Islam."

 

No, it is not. First, countless Muslims who couldn't be witnesses such as children, women, and slaves, can and do transmit hadith.

 

Second, there is no established Hanafi report in the early books of riwaya questioning Abu Bakrah as a transmitter of hadith except a disputed report from Imam Abu Hanifa which his own practice disproves. In this respect the Hanafis do not differ from the rest of the Sunnis in that Abu Bakrah is a Companion and the Companions are all Upright (`udul) without exception among the Sunnis by Consensus as per Imam al-Haramayn and others. The Fiqh al-Akbar and `Aqida Tahawiyya show no exception and from the first moments of the discussion on whose riwaya is accepted and whose not, the category of potentially impugned1 narrators is precluded2 from the Compa-nions of the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace.

 

Third, the Nafi` meant above is Abu Bakrah's half-brother, Nafi` ibn al-Harith ibn Kalada al-Thaqafi who is NOT a hadith transmitter except for a lone hadith transmitted by him in Ibn Sa`d, much less a major one, - much less in Malik or al-Bukhari as the same poster also seemed to suspect, but later he seems to have changed his mind.

 

More on the claim about the early Hanafis. Hanafi texts and practice in the first three centuries of Islam show that they accepted the hadiths of Abu Bakrah (who is by the way among the Fuqaha and Ahl al-Fatwa of the Companions in whose time *extremely few of whom* were more knowledgeable than him contrary to the claim made on zaytuna.org/.

 

Al-Sarakhsi in his Usul does mention a report from Abu Hanifa to the effect that someone in Abu Bakrah's case cannot report hadith but he questions that report because it contradicts what he calls "the predominant position of our School":

 

"The repentant one after having suffered the penalty for leveling a rejected charge of fornication (al-mahdud fil-qadhf), in the transmission of reports, is like anyone else according to the predominant position of our School (zahir al-madhhab). For Abu Bakrah - Allah be well-pleased with him - is an accepted reporter (maqbul al-khabar) and no one busied themselves checking the dates of his reports to see whether he was reporting after the sentence was carried out against him or before, as opposed to [his] testimony. For the rejection of his testimony is part of the completion of his penalty. This is firmly established by textual stipulation [i.e. the Qur'anic verse] while *the narration of reports does not have the same meaning as testimonies.* Do you not see that women cannot witness over penalties at all? Yet their narration in the chapter of penalties is the same as the narration of men. And [contrary to this], in the narration of al-Hasan [ibn Zyad al-Lu'lu'i] from Abu Hanifa - Allah be well-pleased with both of them: The repentant one after having suffered the penalty for leveling a rejected charge of fornication is not an acceptable reporter." Usul al-Sarakhsi (p. 354-355).

 

But Abu Hanifa's practice belies that he ever said the above since he narrated from Abu Bakrah as did his early and late Companions. All of the following narrate Abu Bakrah's hadiths: Abu Hanifa in his Musnads, Muhammad ibn al-Hasan in the Muwatta' and the Hujja, Zufar in al-Tabarani's Awsat, Waki` ibn al-Jarrah in Ahmad's Musnad, Yahya ibn Ma`in (a fanatic Hanafi) in Muntaqa Ibn al-Jarud (a book of exclusively sahih reports), Yahya ibn Sa`id al-Qattan in Ahmad's Musnad, al-Tahawi in his books....

 

All those early Hanafis were certainly aware that the Sahaba one and all accepted the riwaya of Abu Bakrah and so did they. What "some early Hanafis" did or said otherwise" Apparently no one known to al-Sarakhsi in al-Mabsut, nor to al-Kasani in Bada'i` al-Sana'i`, nor to Ibn al-Humam in Fath al-Qadir and Tahrir al-Usul. All of them explicitly concurred that the Sahaba accepted the riwaya of Abu Bakrah while al-Kasani went on to explain, like al-Sarakhsi: "because bearing testimony is different from reporting."

 

The late School in this respect echoes the above position. [From Musa W Furber]:

 

 

Sadr al-Shari`ah says: "...Shahadah being rejected eternally is part of what completes the hadd [min tamam al-hadd]..." Sa`d al-Din comments that after tawbah, their shahadah will never be accepted [since it is part of the hadd], though their hadith is accepted because they are `udul. This is at the end of al-rukn al-thani (al-sunna), fasl fi shara`it al-rawi. Source: Sa`d al-Din Mas`ud ibn `Umar al-Taftazani, Sadr al-Shari`a `Ubayd Allah ibn Mas`ud. _Al-Talwih ila Kashf Haqa'iq al-Tanqih_. Ed. Muhammad `Adnan Darwish. Dar al-Arqam. 1419/1998. 2:17.

So do the Shafi`is. Al-Shirazi in his Usul goes a step further to explain why the uprightness of the flogged accusers remains unquestionable. [From Musa W Furber also, slightly modified]:

 

 

In Al-Shirazi's _Sharh al-Luma`_ (2:638, paragraph 738) and in the just the Luma` (p. 165, paragraph 208.). Both read: "As for Abu Bakrah and those who were flogged with him for qadhf, their narrations are transmitted since they did not say what they did as qadhf, rather they said it as shahadah. `Umar only flogged them - may Allah be pleased with him - based on his own ijtihad, so it is impermissible to question their uprightness for it, nor can their narrations be rejected."

Similarly in Imam al-Ghazzali's Mustasfa (p. 287): "`Umar flogged Abu Bakrah when the minimal requirement of testimony was not met although the latter came as witness in a tribunal (shahidan fi majlis al-hakam), not as an accuser of fornication (la qadhifan). However, he [`Umar] judged him by analogy with the accuser of fornication."

 

The above shahada-is-not-qadhf distinction with relation to Abu Bakrah's upright status is faithfully echoed in the Hanbali sources such as Ibn Qudama's Rawdat al-Nazir (1:234-235), the Miswadda of Al Taymiyya (p. 233), and Ibn Muflih's Nukat `ala Mushkil al-Muharrar (2:250-255), the latter mentioning in detail the reasoning of their early authorities (such as Ibn `Aqil, the Qadi Abu Ya`la in his `Idda and Abu al-Khattab) then citing Ahmad ibn Taymiyya's point that "[hadith] reports are not rejected for the same type of suspect causes as testimonies, such as kinship, friendship, enmity, or the like; or because a reporter and what he reports can be one and the same, contrary to testimony."

 

Hence Ibn al-Qayyim accurately reports Consensus in I`lam al-Muwaqqi`in (1:127) over the universal acceptance of Abu Bakrah's narrations.

 

Also preposterous is the linkage of al-Bukhari's chapter on the testimony of the defamer, in which he supposedly "devotes a commment disagreeing with "a certain person" i.e. Abu Hanifa over whether or not Abu Bakrah and Nafi are acceptable hadith transmitters [see Abd al-Ghani al- Ghunaymi (d. 1298AH), Kashf al-iltibas 'amma awrada al-imam al-Bukhari 'ala ba'd al-nas, ed. Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghudda (Aleppo: Maktabat al-Matbu'at al-Islamiyya, 1414/1993), 22."

 

Not at all! There is not one word of discussion nor even an oblique reference whether or not Abu Bakrah and Nafi` are acceptable hadith transmitters, whether in al-Bukhari or al-Ghunaymi and you are confusing the two issues: "Ba`d al-nas" here does not extend to a purported rejection of hadith riwaya but only to the rejection of "the testimony of the transgressor who leveled a charge of zina that was dismissed" based on the verse that forbids acceptance of their testimony forever.

 

Nor is there an ahl- al-hadith vs. Hanafis rift on the acceptance of hadith riwaya from Abu Bakrah whatsoever, nor does al-Ghunaymi's discussion in Kashf al-Iltibas say otherwise.

 

Al-Ghunaymi only says that the position of the Kufans is the everlasting rejection of the testimony of the transgressor who leveled an inacceptable charge of zina. He then cites Ibn al-Qayyim in I`lam al-Muwaqqi`in showing [as per Ibn Abi Shayba in his Musannaf] that the same position is also reported from Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, `Ikrima, al-Hasan, Masruq, al-Sha`bi, and Shurayh.

 

Before him, Ibn al-Humam in Fath al-Qadir cited this everlasting rejection of testimony as the position of Sa`id ibn al-Musayyab, Shurayh, al-Hasan, Ibrahim al-Nakha`i, Sa`id ibn Jubayr, and Ibn `Abbas.

 

Before Ibn al-Humam, al-Tahawi in Ikhtilaf al-`Ulama' had cited it as the position of Imam al-Awza`i. So the khilaf "pre-repentence / everlasting" very much pre-dates and is wider than the Fiqh of Ahl al-`Iraq, including the Kufans, including Hanafis and Thawris.

 

Note well that al-Hasan al-Basri narrates liberally from Abu Bakrah even though he believed, as we cited, that the testimony of the repentent qadhif remains forever rejected. And Allah knows best.

 

Not most but all of what rears up its head today as progressive, feminist, liberal, South African liberation theology, Syrian do-it-yourself(-dare-to-be-ignorant), contemporary, top of the pops re-readings, is in fact a banale catalogue of ancient heresiographical history. All of those strange and new positions or the arguments that prop them up have long crumbled to dust in the vaults of deviant Usul! The sooner we learn about the historical non-Sunnis that specialize in Companion-character-assassination, the sooner we can identify the near-totality of the mashrab of today's "progressive" dona ferentes.

 

After this, why be circumspect and polite with those that are bigger losers than the {she-wood carrier}?

If the same Abu Bakrah were reporting, let us suppose, something that said, "Woman was the first creation and she is man's boss, godfather, and capo di tutti capi here and hereafter," the same critics would have made him infallible. But they have a problem with the hadith "A nation will not succeed" so they set out to find ways of undermining it.

Their aims are of course much more ambitious and the Abu Bakrah issue only one trojan horse among many others in their program, as their books and arguments have made abundantly clear.

 

GF Haddad

[Jan 14, 2005 ]

Source

 

JB,

 

Your badly timed jabs are an Ad Nauseum!!!

[Nur]

KHEYR Brro: Jazakallah KHEIRAN

 

 

Khalaf bro.

 

You write:

 

With that said my brother, how do we confront those who say where is no verse in the Qu’ran that directly says a woman can’t lead a nation? Since there is no direct order against it, it can be open to interpretation? And what are the opinions of the 4 imams? I am sure this issue has been discussed by the different schools of thought. InshaAllah maybe this can be presented here. Salaam.

 

Answer:

 

If we indeed accept only DIRECT orders from the Prophet SAWS and Allah than, then either we have to drop a lot of implied rulings that make up Salaat, fasting etc, and also, abstaining from haraam, because there is no direct verse in Quraan making Zinaa haraam, the verse only suggests, Laa taqrabuu, dont get close to it, which implies do not do it, but not as explicit as the verse that prohibits eating pork, which clearly says its haraam.

 

Those who are asking this DIRECT rulings are also looking for trouble, because if we ask them to accept and apply all direct rulings of teh Quraan, they will back up in no time, try them, ask them about the application of the Shariica, and see how quickly they switch gears to explain it away.

 

The Sunnah is not only words brother, its a collection of words, actions, Lack of actions, prevailing ways of doing things, things the prophet SAWS approved by not objecting to it, etc. which collectively made up the living tradtion of the Prophet SAWS by example. Islamic history records that NO WOMAN has even been suggested as a Caliph after Prophets death, as the the Prophet SAWS died on Aisha's lap, there are clear hadeeths that predicted that Aisha was on the wrong side of a battle that was not for power but a rebellion to bring criminals to court, so her role was that of counterweight to Ali, the Caliph by those who wanted the Fitna to burn the nascent nation, but Alhamdulillah it failed.

 

as for the hadeeths, i have written a complete primer on this great science, i am glad that all in a sudden that its an interest area of study, because, the more they dig it, the more they will face stark facts about how far we have drifted from oujr faith, which is good.

 

The consensus ( Ijmaac) of all four imaams is that Al wilaayatul Kubraa the condition is the Waali must be a MALE, no one disputes that, however when it comes to JUDGESHIp, there are few voices that support a woman to hold the position of a judge again as a Qiyaas to the Witnesses, where clearly trhe Quraan mandates two women in the plave of a single man in witness stand.

 

The main problem as I see is that it is impossible to understand the Islamic rulings when one is practically living in a non Muslim society, accepting its norms and ways, from a weswtern perspective, it would be fair if we compare apples to apples, but when we pick and choose, the comaprison looks awkward.

 

In the current system most of us live, a woman is an attached, has her own place, no male guardian to look after her, her body is her business, she supports herself, so she doesnt depend on a amn for support, she picks them and dumbs them as often as she pleases, if she is unemployed, state pays her, and if she runs out of money, she can cross moral barriers, because religion is personal affair, she acts just like men do, children are cared in day care centers and the old are in nursing homes.

 

From that perspective, I understand it is very difficult to explain the concept that a woman's molst important role to be raising kids, educating them and influencing decisions through her husband.

 

 

Pink

 

I agree, any decent Somali woman would be better off than these 9 guys ( Wa kaan fil madiinati tiscatu rahtin, yufsiduuna fil ardi walaa yuslixuun)

 

 

Amelia

 

If indeed your true intention is to establish islam on earth, an that you believe that women can lead the Ummah to such a goal, then, by all means i support your drive, all we have to do is to try and apply all of islamic principles that will make this ummah take its rightful places, the questioning of the authenticity of the Hadeeth is a poor tactic, because, Bukhari and others who founded the foundations on which this science stands were far more diligent than that woman, specially when she is relying on their own work as a reference, but still anyone is allowed to question a hadeeth, however, we should not pick and choose, islam is no Supermarket aisle, we take it as a whole, or leave it as a whole.

 

inshAllah in the days to come I shall shed some light on the questions you have raised.

 

 

Pi

 

I am glad that you have shared with us an article of the woman you admire, an avowed femminist against the Sharia, after digging into her past, it was no surprise to find out where she was coming from, here is a good link for your favorite reseracher of islam: Please read Martin Kramer, Israeli writers piece on the "Muslim' woman

 

http://www.geocities.com/martinkramerorg/PoliticsandProphet.htm

 

 

Selections For Reading:

 

 

Politics and the Prophet

 

 

The New Republic

 

 

Can Islam and democracy be reconciled? The vexed old question has enjoyed a revival since January of last year, when Algeria's ruling party voided the results of that country's first free parliamentary election. The election gave an overwhelming mandate to the party of Islamic fundamentalism, whose most outspoken leader affirmed that "it is Islam which has been the victor, as always, not democracy. We did not go to the ballot boxes for democracy."

 

There are some in the West who have tried to sweep such fundamentalist disavowals of democracy under the rug. They include not only apologists for Islam, but also engineers in the democracy foundations, for whom no job is too big. The masses vote for Islam, they admit, but really they want democracy; the leaders talk revival, but really they mean reform. Yet the fundamentalists continue to spin their indictments of dimuqratiyya as a foreign and superfluous innovation. "One does not vote for God," declared the same Algerian fundamentalist. "One obeys Him."

 

Unlike many of the West's democracy doctors, Fatima Mernissi entertains no illusions about the fundamentalists. Mernissi, a feminist who teaches sociology at the Université Mohammed V in the Moroccan capital of Rabat, has seen them up close. And they have seen more of her than they would like — "an educated woman, unveiled, agitating in the street in the name of the Charter of the United Nations and against the shari'a," the revealed law of Islam. At times they have tried to smother her voice. Her earlier book, The Veil and the Male Elite, was banned in Morocco after its publication in France. In this newest statement from the front line of the cultural war, Mernissi has ventured beyond women's rights into human rights. Yet now that a generational surge of Islamic fundamentalism threatens to stuff the ballot boxes of the Arab world, this courage is also quite useless as a realistic guide to what should be done.

 

Mernissi's point of departure is a dissenting interpretation of Islam's historical legacy. It is currently fashionable to argue that an Islamic civil society, born with the faith, survived and even thrived despite a rapid turnover of absolute rulers; that, under the tumultuous surface of politics, Islamic society maintained an inner harmony that lasted for a millennium, until the rude intrusion of the West. Mernissi will have nothing to do with this anodyne reading of history. She sees an Arab past marked by "incessant bloodbaths," and a present haunted by "the phantom ship of those who were decapitated for refusing to obey":

 

 

Mernissi and the Arab liberals, in short, cannot escape the need for politics. Still, who cannot admire the pure flame of her own extraordinary humanism, and her refusal to compromise principle? This is a rare book, written from within the Arab world but without fear. It is dangerous to walk this path without minding one's back, but it is also liberating.

 

© Martin Kramer

 

 

Martin Kramer, "Politics and the Prophet," The New Republic, March 1, 1993.

 

The article is a review of Fatima Mernissi, Islam and Democracy: Fear of the Modern World, published by Addison-Wesley.

[Blessed]

Assalamu Alaikum,

 

This is interesting. I think, I might have to reassess my thoughts on the matter but I need to read up on more scholarly works.

 

Edit: Just found the following article, can ya'll (those against female leadership) address the issues raised.

Women in Society: Political Participation

 

JB wrote;

You´ve never entertained the thought of what the Muslim world would look like, have Aisha won the "camel war", have you?

If you were informed, you’d be dangerous.

 

I think you need to stop consuming all that drivel in the media that you call intellectualism and read more on Islam. I find your belittlement of Muslim women and Islam boring. :rolleyes: