|
|
|
WELCOME LIFE
IN MAKKAH STUDYING
ABROAD Q&A TRANSLATIONS ARTICLES INTERACTIVE SCHOLARS RECOMMENDED COMMERCE
|
A response to Nevin Reda's article: What Would the Prophet Do? about Muslim women leading prayers Scholarly Concensus The spearheads of this movement claim that there is no consensus on the issue and that there is a scholarly precedent to their position. This is not entirely accurate. While it is reported that a few scholars – three, to be exact: at-Tabaree [35], Aboo Thawr, and al-Muzanee, – held that it was permissible for a woman to lead men, the following points should be noted: - 1 - Even if a majority of the scholars held this opinion, it would not be valid in the face of the clear evidence from the Sunnah. - 2 - We have no way of determining the accuracy of ascribing this opinion to the above scholars. Their original works have not reached us, and there exist no chains of narration whereby we can be sure of their actual positions. - 3 - As the actual statements of these scholars have not reached us, we cannot be certain whether they placed any limitations on women leading men in prayer. However, none of them are recorded as allowing women to lead Jumu'ah and give the khutbah. It can be safely concluded, therefore, that there is absolute consensus on the impermissibility of such an action. - 4 - None of these scholars began a "woman's liberation" movement and insisted on placing women as imams and khateebs of mosques. In her article, Reda declares that "there were at least four schools within Sunnism that allowed women to lead men in prayers" – namely, the schools of al-Tabaree, Aboo Thawr, al-Muzanee, and Daawood ath-Thaahiree. Her statement, however, falls short of accuracy in several aspects: First, with respect to at-Tabaree and Aboo Thawr, this cannot, as we have seen, be verified; notwithstanding the fact that they did not have major schools or a significant number of followers. Second, al-Muzanee did not have his "own school of law with adherents in various parts of the Islamic world," as Reda claims. On the contrary, he is widely known as a prominent student of Imam ash-Shafi'ee, and a proponent of his math-hab. Imam ash-Shafi'ee is recorded as saying, "Al-Muzaneei is the protector of my math-hab." [36] Al-Muzanee's biography is well documented; there is no mention whatsoever of him having a school of law or followers. [37] It is also doubtful whether he actually held this view. [38] Third, this was not the position of Daawood ath-Thaahiree. Reda fell into this error by relying in her research solely on Ahmed al-Banna's Buloogh al-Amaanee, which is a relatively modern work, and not an authoritative source. [39] We do not find this opinion ascribed to Daawood in any authoritative source, and an-Nawawee, in his al-Majmoo’, explicitly states that Daawood was with the majority [40]. The only major source of the Thaahiree math-hab which has reached us is Ibn Hazm's al-Muhallaa, and in it, he says, "It is not permissible for a woman to lead a man or men in prayer. There is no difference of opinion about this." Then after mentioning a number of evidences, he continues, "from these texts, the invalidity of a woman leading men can be established with certainty." [41] Reda also claims that "whether the majority of the Muslim population supported women’s leadership or not is difficult to determine." It is not. As for the scholars, we have seen how few allowed women to lead men in prayer. And as for the public, we have no record of anyone – before "PMU" – instituting a woman as the imam of a masjid. The majority, if not all, of the Muslims – male and female – accepted the ruling of Allah and His Messenger (sallallaahu 'alayhe wa sallam): ( But no, by your Lord, they can have no (true) faith until they make you (O Muhammad) judge in all that arises between them, and find in their souls no resistance against your decision, and submit (themselves) completely. ) [4:65] Not that it would matter much to Reda if the entire Ummah were agreed on the matter. She shamelessly calls for a "reevaluation" of the exemption of women from prayers during their menses, despite the unassailable consensus on this issue and the mountains of incontrovertible evidence from the Sunnah. Contrary to her claim that the evidence from the Sunnah is "mixed," there is not one hadeeth – be it authentic, weak, or even fabricated – that women should pray while on their menses or that the Prophet's wives did so. We can only assume that Reda has encountered something which she has misread or misunderstood. [42] That being the case, the Ummah does not need to reevaluate the issue, it needs to reeducate Nevin Reda... [ Part Four: The Hadeeth of Umm Waraqah... ]
FOOTNOTES [35] It may interest the reader to learn that on a website that patronizes Ms. Reda, al-Tabaree is misquoted, defiled, and referred to with an obscene seven-letter epithet. [36] Siyar A'laam an-Nubalaa', vol. 12, p. 493 [37] See ibid., vol. 12, p.492, footnote, for sources of his biography. [38] In his al-Mughnee, Ibn Qudaamah quotes al-Muzanee as holding that one who prays behind a non-Muslim does not have to repeat his prayers if he was not aware of his imam's condition. Ibn Qudaamah then says that by way of analogy on this position of al-Muzanee's, a man who prayed behind a woman (i.e. unknowingly) would not have to repeat. If this is accurate, it would mean that al-Muzanee did not explicitly allow men to pray behind women, but that it could be understood from his other positions that if a man were to do so unknowingly, he would not have to repeat his prayer. See al-Mughnee (Riyadh: Daar 'Alam al-Kutub, 1419) vol. 3, pp. 32-33 [39] It is assumed that the attribution of this position to Daawood in Buloogh al-Amaanee is either a misprint or simply an error from al-Banna. [40] Al-Majmoo' Sharh al-Muhath-thab (Beirut: Daar al-Fikr) vol. 4, pp. 254-255 [41] Al-Muhallaa, (Beirut: Daar al-Aafaaq) vol. 3, pp. 125-126 [42] "Medieval [sic] scholars," Reda says, "attempted to harmonize between the two groups of hadith. (i.e. the narrations prohibiting prayer during menses and the (non-existent) narrations permitting it.) They constructed a distinction between two types of blood: menstruation (hayd) and pseudo-menstruation (istihada). Any blood that was outside the normal period was considered pseudo-menstruation. Thus, if a woman’s normal period was a week, and for some reason it suddenly became two weeks, she would be exempted one week and pray the other. However, this distinction is artificial: there is no difference in the substance, color, or odor of the blood of pseudo-menstruation and menstruation." We ask the reader to compare the above statement with the narrations of Allah's Messenger (sallallaahu 'alayhe wa sallam): Aa'ishah reported: Faatimah bint Abee Hubaysh asked the Prophet, "I experience vaginal bleeding [istihaadhah], and it doesn't stop. Should I stop praying?" He replied, "No, that's just (blood from) a vein. Don't pray during the days in which you used to have your period, then take a bath and pray." Reported by al-Bukhaaree (325) and Muslim (333). Aa'ishah also reported that Umm Habeebah complained to Allah's Messenger (sallallaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) about vaginal bleeding (one narration states that she experienced istihaadhah [using that exact word] which lasted seven years). Allah's Messenger said, "Don't pray for the period of time during which your menses would come, then take a bath." Muslim (334); al-Bukhaaree (327) In another hadeeth, Aa'ishah reports that Allah's Messenger said, "Menstrual blood is a black, distinguishable blood; if you see that, stop praying. But if it's the other [(i.e. normal) type of blood], make wudhoo' and pray." Aboo Daawood (286); an-Nasaa'ee, vol. 1, p. 185. For many more narrations on the subject, the English reader may refer to the translations of al-Bukhaaree, Muslim, Buloogh al-Maraam, or Mishkaat al-Masaabeeh, in the chapters concerning menstruation.
MORE FROM THIS SERIES Part Two: The Evidences Against Nevin Reda's Argument Part Four: The Hadeeth of Umm Waraqah Part Five: Conclusion - Compare and Contrast
|
