Egypt’s Mufti Ali Gomaa Declares Muslim Woman Can be President
5 February, 2007
The Grand Mufti of Egypt, Sheikh Ali Gomaa, says that Islam does not prohibit a Muslim woman from becoming the president of her country. This came in a press statement issued by the Mufti yesterday in response to a magazine article that attributed to him the opposite view. A week ago, al-Ahram Newspaper published a religious verdict, which it attributed to the Mufti, prohibiting a Muslim woman from becoming president of her country. The published verdict argued that since the person who holds that office is required to lead the public prayers, a woman cannot hold that office, since leading prayers is restricted to men. The Mufti explained in his statement that “the religious verdict that these news agencies are alluding to refers to the office of caliph – the supreme leader of the Muslims. This office is part of the Islamic legacy, and it is an office which does not exist today and has not existed since the fall of the Ottoman state in the year 1924.” The statement goes on to explain that “the earliest Muslim jurists issued verdicts wherein they explicitly stated that a woman was not capable of assuming the office of caliph. However, the legal reasons cited for their issuing that verdict clearly show us that the office of caliph is very different to our present concept of a president.” Ali Gomaa then cited the verdict that he gave a year ago, where he had said: “Women, according to Islamic Law, have every right to be appointed to the post of judge and to assume the office of governor or head of state.” Muslim women have been elected Prime Minister or President in a number of Muslim nations, including Pakistan, Bangladesh, Turkey, and Indonesia, all of which rank among the five most populous Muslim countries.
(islamtoday.com)
5 comments:
06 February 2007
Salam
I cannot express my surprise subhannallah at this "mufti’s" fatwa.
Anyway, for him to say this - Allah knows best - but he is fabricating a lie against Allah and His Messenger by making such a statement, as the Prophet said clearly a nation that has a woman as its leader will never succeed.
So where he is issuing this dodgy fatwa from I do not know, but then again it is not surprising, since the majority of the scholars of Islam are sell outs, and the Prophet said in a hadeeth “I fear for my ummah something more than the Dajjal” Then he said “evil scholars”.
And they only make such statements to please their payroll masters anyway.
wasalam
06 February 2007
Harsh words. Harsh words.
It might be the view of the majority that a woman cannot be president, but it would be difficult to make a case that it is a point of consensus (ijmaa). Disagreement on this matter is not kufr. A person who disagrees cannot be called a liar or other bad things.
There is no direct evidence prohibiting a woman from being leader of her country. The hadith you quote is where the Prophet (pbuh) said: “A people will not prosper if they put a woman in charge of their affairs.” (Bukhaari 7099)
The Prophet (pbuh) said these words right after hearing that a woman had become ruler of Persia. It is an observation, not a command.
Scholars interpret this hadith to mean that Islam prohibits women from being leaders. The hadith does not say that. It is just those scholars’ interpretation. Nowhere in the Sunnah does it say “A woman is forbidden to become a leader.”
You might argue that the hadith is general in meaning – i.e. “Every time a woman becomes leader, the country will not prosper.” Therefore, it is a bad idea to have women leaders.
The hadith is general in wording. This does not mean it has to be interpreted as a universal axiom. A hadith can be general in wording, but be specific in meaning if the context shows it to be specific. In Usool al-Fiqh, a contextual indicator is called a qareenah. There is a strong qareenah here that the statement was meant as a specific observation and prediction and that no universal ruling was intended. The Prophet (pbuh) said the statement regarding the queen of Persia. Moreover, it was only a statement and a prediction. It was not worded as a command or prohibition.
If someone says something similar today: “No country will prosper if xyz policy is adopted”, then everyone will understand that he is talking about today’s situation. He does not mean that if ancient Rome had adopted the same policy it would not have worked. He does not mean that it will not work for a society thousands of years form now. He is talking about the here and now. We understand this because the context is one of political analysis.
Language and context are just as relevant to understanding hadith as they are to understanding what we say and read today. A major part of Usool al-Fiqh is how to understand the Arabic language in context.
You may disagree with Sheikh Ali Jomaa’s conclusions. That is your right. You will have many scholars agreeing with you. But you cannot accuse and slander him for expressing his honest opinion.
- Ziad
06 February 2007
Assalam Alaykum,
I'm afraid however you (Ziad - last feedback) try to interpret the hadith - it is clear to anyone who is sincere about this Deen, that IT IS A GENERAL ruling regards women. Look at the wording, look at what all the classical scholars have said, and look at what you're saying.
You are attempting to open the doors to comprise. This would all trivialise all the aspects of Deen that certain people (kaffir?) don't like, essentially by saying they are relevant only to specific contexts. This sounds similar to those saying that much of Islam was only relevant to those living 1400 years ago alongside the Rasul, and not today.
May Allah guide and forgive us.
– Amr
07 February 2007
You have misunderstood what I said. I did not claim that the hadith was relevant in the past but irrelevant to this time. I was discussing what the hadith actually means – about what the Prophet (pbuh) intended by it.
I admit that I suggested an interpretation, but then so did the scholars who derived a legal ruling from it prohibiting women from being heads of state. The hadith has no prohibition in it. It has no command in it. Scholars interpreted it to indicate a legal ruling. They derived a legal ruling from it using ijtihaad.
As for understanding a hadith in its context, that is exactly what scholars have always done. Open up any fiqh book that discusses the evidence and you will see thousands of cases like this one. For example, we have the hadith where Hind goes up to the Prophet (pbuh) complaining that her husband is stingy and does not provide for her needs. The Prophet (pbuh) told her: “Take from his wealth what suffices you and your children according to custom.” (Bukhaari and Muslim)
Classical scholars are considerably divided about what this hadith means because of how they understand its context. Some say that any wife has the right to take from her husband’s money without his knowledge if he is not providing for her according to custom. Others say it is unlawful for her to take anything without a court order. Why do they disagree? Because of how they understand the context. Some scholars see the Prophet (pbuh) as giving a general legal verdict, and say it applies to all women at all time. Others say that the Prophet (pbuh) was acting as a judge – he was judge as well as legislator in Madina – and he gave Hind a judicial verdict. Accordingly, a woman must petition the courts to have such a right.
This is just one of countless examples from the classical scholars. This is how fiqh works. The Salaf were very concerned about this. Al-Shafi’ee, in his Risaala, devotes more than one chapter to the topic of “general statements which are meant to be specific”.
Ibn Taymiyah was well-known for assessing hadith evidence according to the context in which it came. For instance, Ibn Taymiyah held the view that a fornicator can claim paternity for his child as long as the mother is unmarried. He knew the hadith that says: “The child is to be attributed to the one upon whose bed it is born, and for the adulterer there is stoning.” (Bukhaarî 2053 and Muslim 1457) The vast majority of scholars understood the hadith to be general, applying to all fornicators in all situations. Ibn Taymiyah differed. Why? He considered the context of the hadith. The context was a case of adultery. The woman was married and her husband claimed paternity. There was a paternity dispute going on between the fornicating man and the woman’s husband. Ibn Taymiyah did not see the hadith to apply to a case when the woman is single, since there is no other man who has a greater claim to paternity. He interpreted the hadith to be more specific because of the context. This opinion has also been adopted by Ibn al-Qayyim and Ibn Uthaymeen.
We can see that Ibn Taymiyah went against the vast majority of scholars on this issue. He followed the Qur’an and Sunnah and the approach of the Salaf. However, he did not blindly follow the majority view. Though only a few of the Salaf held his view about paternity, he considered it to be the most correct, and so he adopted it.
He also went against the vast majority of scholars – from the Companions on down –regarding three pronouncements of divorce given on one occasion, by saying it counts as a single pronouncement In this case, some of his enemies even accused him (wrongly) of going against ijmaa.
He went against the majority on numerous other issues. He did so many centuries later, since he was an 8th century AH scholar.
Saudi Sheikhs Saud al-Funaysan (former Dean of Islamic Law at Imam University) and Salman al-Awdah go against the majority view on a menstruating woman entering the mosque. They argue that she can do so. Al-Albani goes against the vast majority in Tamaam al-Minnah when he claims that a man who masturbates in the day in Ramadan does not break his fast, arguing that the evidence that it breaks the fast is not direct enough. He does so again when he says, in Ahkaam al-Janaa’iz 229-237 that women can visit the graveyards, considering the contexts and differences found in the various hadith concerned.
So why, when a scholar does something similar today about a different question of Islamic Law – like a woman becoming president – is he met with such hostility, abuse, and slander? We can disagree all we like, but we must respect each other.
– Ziad
07 February 2007
Salaam
If one looks at the opinions of the scholars, then one sees that they considered all the evidences.
There are many other evidences prohibiting female rulers- usually implicit.
For example, the Qur'an maintains that men are the protectors and maintainers of women.
The opinion that women can be rulers was unknown to the salaf, and perhaps a small number of scholars held it.
However, in this age, there seem to be people who think they can overrule this consensus. No, such an issue does not make one a kaafir. However, it certainly shows:
1) A lack of knowledge
2) A lack of sincerity
3) An inferiority complex
As for me, then I am pleased with Allah as my Lord, Islam as my religion and Muhammad as my Prophet.
– Tarek
Post a Comment