DESPITE THEM BEING on the frontline of rearing, educating and nurturing the hearts and minds of the young, day in; day out, the sad reality is that Muslim teachers are still hugely undervalued by us Muslims as a community. And yet it is undeniable that young people are more positively influenced by teachers than they are likely to be, at their ages, by any scholar, shaykh or da’i. They are far more likely to air their problems or their concerns to a trusted teacher than to a distant, albeit qualified scholar. Young people are convinced, and rightly so, that if any adult is going to get what they are going through, it’s likely to be their teachers than it is the unapproachable imam in a mosque, or some Muslim celebrity scholar on the internet. If it is to be an adult, then it is to a trusted teacher that a young person is likely to air their life problems. So how can this frontline of Muslim teachers not be given the respect, or given their due, when it is they who most engage, or who are most instrumental in nurturing and caring for the wellbeing of the young today? Their role and influence upon young people; in general, and on young Muslims; in particular, is surely second to none?!
The Prophet ﷺ once said of the act of earning a lawful income and of being responsible for one’s dependants: ‘If one leaves [home] striving for his young child, he is in the path of God. If one leaves [home] striving for his two elderly parents, he is in the path of God. If one leaves [home] striving to be self-sufficient, then he is in the path of God. If one leaves [home] striving to be boastful or to show-off, he is in the path of Satan.’1
So Islam elevates a worldly job, conferring on it honour, by placing it in the distinguished category of fi sabili’Llah – “in the Path of God”; provided it is a lawful job, done with the overall intention to earn Allah’s pleasure and approval.
If this is the case with the job of a farmer, trader or candlestick maker, then more so is the case for those whose professions it is to educate and nurture young minds and hearts in Muslim schools; or Muslim teacher who work in state schools with the godly intention of imparting whatever moral, ethical or religious instruction possible in such environments. Given this reality, the role or status of Muslim teachers cannot be underestimated.
It’s about time that we gave proper recognition to these unsung heroes of our community. It’s time we gave credit where credit is long overdue. We must invest in those individuals and institutions which will help to nurture future generations of young Muslims who are religiously and ethically grounded and, who are at one and the same time, conscientious believers and responsible citizens.
While we Muslims do seem to value the building of Muslim schools, we must value even more so the teachers that work there, as well as those Muslim teachers employed in state schools hoping to attain likeminded outcomes. We continue to do both ourselves, and our younger generation, a great disservice if we do not appropriately value Muslim teachers, or realise their paramount role in the community. The Qur’an says: Give just measure and weight, nor withhold from people the things that are their due. [Q.11:85]
1. Al-Tabarani, Mu‘jam al-Saghir, no.940. The hadith was declared as sahih in al-Albani, Sahih al-Jami‘ al-Saghir (Beirut: al-Maktab al-Islami, 1986), no.1428.
Q. Is there any religious justification which forbids women from going to the mosque to attend congregational prayers? Or is this “forbiddance” just an Asian cultural thing that’s been grafted on to the religion? And is it also true the hadith that says the best place for women to pray is in their homes isn’t a general order, but was specific to a given situation and to a particular woman?
A.Alhamdulillah, wa’l-salatu wa’l-salamu ‘ala rasulillah. The issue is such that, on the one hand, women are being turned away from some mosques at prayer times, sometimes having to pray in carparks or other unbefitting places. And if they are grudgingly allowed into such mosques, they can often be met with very unwelcoming glances. On the other hand, there are growing accusations of misogyny being hurled against (almost invariably male) mosque committees, and even against scholars, as they believe they are following orthodox formulations of Islamic law on not letting women attend mosques. Given how the issue is now a battle ground of sorts; and given that some now allege certain classical juristic consensus on the issue are plainly wrong; and given also how ill-informed many men and women are about the evidences on the matter – often for every proof-text they may know, they are ignorant of at least five others – let me break it down for analysis into the following points:
1. Let’s [re]acquaint ourselves with some of the hadiths on the topic. One hadith says: ‘Do not prevent the female servants of God from the mosques of God.’1 In another hadith, we read: ‘When your women folk seek permission to go to the mosque, don’t prevent them.’2 The next hadith cautions believing women thus: ‘If any of you attends the mosque, do not touch perfume.’3 These, and other like-minded directives from our Prophet ﷺ, ostensibly demonstrate the shari‘ah permissibility of women attending congregational prayers in the mosque.
2. The above apparently being the case, it’s still only part of the story. Other hadiths tell us: ‘Do not prevent your wives from the mosques, but their houses are better for them.’4 And: ‘The prayer of a woman in her house is better than her prayer in her courtyard; and her prayer in her chamber (fi makhda‘iha) is better than her prayer in her house.’5 So the majoritarian view, taking both sets of hadiths into consideration, is that while it is lawful for women to attend mosques for congregational prayer, their prayer at home is better. As for the view of at least one contemporary shaykh, who claims the hadith about a woman’s prayer at home being better was said in a specific context for a particular woman and was not intended to apply to all women, that is addressed in point number thirteen.
3. At this point, we should also bring into play those hadiths that speak about women’s attendance being more particular to the night and pre-dawn prayer – times where, under the cover of dark, women can be better concealed from the male gaze and the male gaze will be better obscured from possible feminine allure. One such hadith says: ‘Prevent not your women from coming out to the mosques at night.’6 Another stipulates: ‘Permit your women to go to the mosques at night.’7 Based upon this, many early jurists understood the hadiths allowing women to attend mosques to be an unqualified (mutlaq) statement, which is qualified (muqayyad) by the “night” hadiths. In other words, women may attend mosques, but only for the fajr and isha’ prayers when it is dark; for the darkness will help conceal them. Hence Imam al-Bukhari’s chapter heading in his Sahih: ‘Chapter: Women going to mosques at night and at dusk.’8
4. As for the shades of grey in the madhhab rulings, they run like so: Maliki jurists hold that young women attending prayer in the mosque is khilaf al-awla – “contrary to what is preferred.” The Shafi‘i school particularises this allowance to elderly women, whereas the Hanbalis deem it offensive (makruh) for attractive women to attend congregational prayer in the mosque (putting aside the obvious question of who decides what woman is pretty or likely to entice some men to take more than a restrained, mindful glance).9 The cue for these legal restrictions is taken from the fact that the Prophet ﷺ forbade women who perfume themselves from going to the mosque. Similarly, argue the jurists, any lady who is likely to disturb the Islamic character of the public space by displaying her charms in a manner forbidden by Islam’s teachings can be stopped or discouraged from attending the mosque. Some hadiths actually state that a woman’s prayer in her houses is better, except for the ‘ajuz or “elderly.”10 Another insists: ‘Prohibit your women from wearing attractive clothes or perfume when attending the mosque.’11 As for the Hanafis, their stance shall be dealt with below.
5. There is a social context and behavioural factors behind the above legal nuances, that give rise to a certain reluctance to allow just any or every female to attend congregational prayers in mosques. The main two that often appear in our fiqh commentaries are: [i] the fear of temptation (fitnah) between the two sexes (hence an allowance for the elderly, but not those that are younger or who are in the prime of their femininity); and [ii] the reality, as unfortunate and deplorable as it is, of male harassment.12 A traditional Muslim public space, while allowing women to go out for their needs and their trade, was undoubtedly the preserve of men. And while the latter could linger or loiter without their honour or ‘ird necessarily being impinged, the former could not; would not; and usually did not.
6. Now for the slightly tricky fiqhi bit. Having meticulously scrutinised the entire gamut of proof-texts that bear upon this subject, Muslim jurists were able to identify the ‘illah, the “legal cause” or ratio legis, that allows women to go to the mosque. Most jurists held that the issue revolves around the ‘illah or legal causation of safety from fitnah (‘adm khawf al-fitnah/al-amn min al-fitnah). And although a few jurists held the ‘illah was the honour and prestige of praying behind the Prophet ﷺ, most jurists concurred with safety from fitnah as being that actual ‘illah. What they meant by fitnah in this context was women and men casually intermingling or socialising with one another, and women dressing or adorning themselves in ways that is likely to be tempting or enticing to men, and women being safe from general harm and male predatory harassment.
This being so, the ruling of allowing women to attends prayer in mosques must be judged in the light of a well-established juristic maxim: al-hukm yuduru ma‘a ‘illatihi wujudan wa ‘adaman – ‘The ruling revolves around the presence or absence of its legal causation.’ In other words, if the factor which gives rise to the ruling no longer exists, then the ruling no longer stands. Or to use a simplified version of this juristic maxim: intifa’ al-hukm li intifa’ ‘illatihi – ‘The ruling ends with the absence of its legal causation.’ When applied to the issue at hand, if safety from fitnah is absent – in that casual mixing will not be avoided, or women dress in alluring ways that don’t accord to shari‘ah teachings, or they are likely to be harmed or harassed – then the ruling, in general, of the allowance for such women no longer stands.
7. A more straightforward way of looking at the issue is in terms of the conditions (shurut) revelation insists must be fulfilled if women are to be permitted to go out in public. Again, analysing the evidences, scholars inferred the following conditions: [i] Wearing a shari‘ah-complient hijab (one which includes a khimar or “head covering” and an outer garment; a jilbab): And that they draw their head coverings over their chests. [Q.24:31] Also: O Prophet! Tell your wives and daughters and the believing women to draw their outer garments around them. [Q.33:59] [ii] Not to reveal their beauty, except for the face and hands, provided there is no fear of temptation (or, as per the second view, not even the face or hands, due to the presumption it will cause a fitnah): And not to display their adornments, except for what is apparent. [Q.24:31] [iii] Not to wear perfume, nor alluring attire or make-up: And flaunt not your charms in the manner of the past Times of Ignorance. [Q.33:33] [iv] That the interaction with the opposite gender is respectable, kept to a courteous on-a-need-to-do-so basis, and wisely guarded: Be not soft of speech, lest he in whose heart is a disease aspires to you, but speak honourably. [Q.33:32] [v] Not to dress, speak or act in a manner that unduly solicits mens’ attention or incites their passions: And let them not strike their feet together so as to reveal their hidden adornments. [Q.24:31] Of course, when these rules of public decorum are not observed by women, then strictly speaking the textual proofs simply do not grant them permission to go out to the mosque.
8. Before elaborating the Hanafi position, here are a few hadiths regarding the prophetic concern for safeguarding decency and respectability in the public sphere. The hadith of al-Fadl b. ‘Abbas is interesting in this regard. His brother, ‘Abd Allah b. ‘Abbas relates: ‘Al-Fadl b. ‘Abbas rode behind the Prophet ﷺ upon the back of his she-camel, on the Day of Sacrifice (yawm al-nahr); and al-Fadl was a handsome man. The Prophet ﷺ stopped to give people fatwas. Meanwhile, an attractive lady from the Khath‘am tribe came seeking a ruling from Allah’s Messenger ﷺ. Al-Fadl began staring at her, being enamoured of her beauty. The Prophet glanced behind while al-Fadl was still gazing at her. The Prophet ﷺ then extended his hand backward and turned al-Fadl’s cheek, so he would stop staring at her …’13 In another version, when he was asked why he turned the cheek of his cousin, he replied: ra’aytu shabban wa shabbatan falam aman al-shaytan ‘alayhima – ‘I saw a young man and woman who were not safe from [the influence of] Satan upon them.’14 Here we see that the Prophet ﷺ did not make a fuss or a hoo-ha about the situation: he gently did what needed to be done and politely said what needed to be said. It is also interesting to note how the Prophet ﷺ seemed to put the onus on al-Fadl averting his gaze, rather than sending the young lady away.
There are other hadiths which we moderns would do well not to ignore, and to figure out godly and intelligent ways to weave them into our public spaces and gender interactions. They include this saying of the Prophet ﷺ: ‘The woman is ‘awrah, when she leaves [her house] Satan beautifies her.’15 Ibn Khuzaymah and Ibn Hibban also recorded it in their respective Sahihs, but with this addition: ‘and the closest she is to the Face of her Lord is when she is in the depth of her home.’16 These, along with a volley of other narrations, lent themselves to the juristic inference that the overall idea for women was one of satr or “concealment”. Also there’s this next hadith, the implications of which don’t need much spelling out: ‘I have not left a fitnah after me as harmful to men, than women.’17 The cure for much of this temptation and over-sexualisation of society lies in the Quranic wisdom of ghadd al-basr – “lowering the gaze”. Jarir reported: I asked Allah’s Messenger ﷺ about the accidental glance, so he ordered me to avert my gaze.18 All-in-all, the believing man’s sense of public decency is in notions of respectability, lowering the gaze, and a mindful glance: Tell believing men to lower their gaze and guard their private parts; that is purer for them. [Q.24:30] As for a believing woman, it is rooted in principles like: And stay in your homes and flaunt not your charms in the manner of the past Times of Ignorance. [Q.33:33] They can, of course, go out for their needs or necessities (be they worldly, spiritual, social or psychological), but in a manner approved of by Allah and consistent with the rulings and aims of His Sacred Law. There is also no doubt that the ummah stands in dire need of womens’ active input and participation in terms of Islamic scholarship and teaching, and in Muslim social affairs; in general. How they square such circles, or overcome religiously unwarranted obstacles, is one of the most pressing challenges facing us Muslims. That said, this must be kept at the forefront of our minds lest we forget: Even the devil tempts to virtue, if it leads to a greater vice.
9. This brings us nicely on to the minority juristic view on the matter of women attending mosques; that of the Hanafi madhhab. Hanafis base their ruling on what the lady ‘A’ishah said: ‘If Allah’s Messenger ﷺ had seen what the women have introduced, he would have prevented them from the mosques, as the women of the Israelites were prevented.’19 For Hanafis, this pretty much tilts the balance against women attending prayer in mosques. In typical Hanafi legal reasoning, al-‘Ayni stated: ‘If ‘A’ishah, may Allah be pleased with her, had seen what the women of these times have introduced, of all sorts of innovations and evils, her rebuke would have been even stronger.’20 So due to the changing [worsening] of the times (taghayyur al-zaman), Hanafis consider it to be makruh tahrimi – “prohibitively detested” – for women to attend mosques for prayers.21
10. To be clear, this is not a case of Hanafis opposing clear-cut hadiths, or mischievously ‘superseding the texts’. Rather, it’s a case of them identifying the conditions (shurut) and legal causation (‘illah) for the lawfulness of women attending mosques for prayers, or for other religious activities; then asking: Are these conditions being fulfilled? Or is the legal causation (safety from fitnah) still present? And have times changed such that the ruling may need tweaking or reevaluating? The answer to the first question is a “No! Conditions aren’t usually fulfilled” The second is also a “No!”. And the third is a “Yes” – the ruling of them going to mosques now changes from an allowance to a practical forbiddance. This, then, has been the legal reasoning of the Hanafi school since its outset.
11. It won’t come as a surprise when I say that the majority of scholars have a response, or rebuttal, to the Hanafi view. Ibn Hajr al-‘Asqalāni wrote: ‘Some held ‘A’ishah’s prevention of women attending mosques as being absolute; but this is questionable. Since it doesn’t entail any change in the ruling, as she made it conditional on a non-existent condition; she said: “If he had seen … he would have prevented.” But he didn’t see, and nor did he prevent … Furthermore, these innovations were introduced by some women, not by all of them.’22 Ibn Qudamah stated: ‘The Sunnah of Allah’s Messenger ﷺ is more deserving to be followed; the statement of ‘A’ishah is confined only to those women who introduced the innovations.’23 Another persuasive reason why ‘A’ishah, may Allah be pleased with her, did not intend to alter or abrogate the default ruling of it being lawful for women to attend the mosque is that Imam Malik, and the other renowned jurists of Madinah before him, never understood her statement as a blanket, absolute prohibition. The point here is that the Madinan school was built on – amongst others – the juristic fatwas and legacy of the lady ‘A’ishah.
12.Fiqh isn’t the parroting or fossilising of classical juristic rulings formulated in Mamluk or Ottoman times … end of! It must be a living, vibrant enterprise culminating in practical and liveable law and guidance for our age. So as should be expected, some contemporary Hanafi scholars themselves are eager to revisit the issue, given that times have worsened even more. They, like jurists from other schools too, point out that the issue of taghayyur al-zaman can work both ways.24 On the one hand, they say, there’s the ever-diminishing reality of “safety from fitnah” at play between the genders (or within the genders too!). On the other hand, these Hanafi scholars argue, it appears that – on balance – there is a greater harm in not permitting women to go to the mosque in these times, for a variety of reasons. Thus they should not be prevented, provided they observe the basic decorum in terms of their attire and how they conduct themselves. One such reason is that in the prophetic era and long after, women’s primary role would be in and around the house, they wouldn’t really venture out except for necessities or a pressing need. This is unlike the complexities of the modern age, in which it’s the given norm for both men and women to be out and about in public for a whole host of reasons such as work, shopping, visiting others, or education. The reality is that they too need dedicated spaces to pray: mosques being open to them is part of such accessibility. Another reason is for women to be able to access scholarly talks and classes which often take place in mosques. To suppose that the internet or that YouTube can be an adequate substitute for gaining such knowledge is to be poorly informed about the adab required when seeking sacred knowledge, as well as the barakah or the psychology of being in the company of other [female] seekers. Female converts having a religious or social focal point is another vital reason why mosques need to be accessible to women. And then there’s the reality that mosques offer a far better sacred space where people can experience spiritual tranquility and connection than does a modern home in which some forms of haram or disapproved distractions from God have invariably taken root. Such are the arguments some Hanafi jurists use to insist that the classical madhhab view should be reviewed in favour of women’s attendance at mosques.
As to the very real issue of temptation, then if we’re to be perfectly honest, people have so many other avenues to indulge in such fitnah than while at their local mosque. Given the nature of social media, relatively-speaking, mosques are probably the least or last place today to be in that type of fitnah zone. Nevertheless, occasional healthy reminders about gender conduct, for both men and for women, wouldn’t go amiss. Or perhaps Allah will cause the environment of the mosque itself to be a gentle reminder of how a believer’s character must lend itself to modesty and respectability? For what better example could their be for wayward or weak souls than to see godliness and pious restraint in collective practice? Mosques might even be one of the rare times when some women put on some sense of hijab whatsoever. Of course, the larger the mosque complex, in that the more social, cultural and educational activities it holds under its roof for young people and the wider community, the more mindful everyone needs to be in terms of gender decorum.
13. One last matter before I conclude. It’s been claimed that the view that it is better for women to pray at home is actually an erroneous one. This claim asserts that it’s equally preferable for women to pray in a mosque, as it is for men. The reason for this error, it is alleged, lies in a faulty understanding concerning the hadith about Umm Humayd. Umm Humayd, wife of Abu Humayd al-Sa‘di narrated: She came to Allah’s Messenger ﷺ and said: ‘O Messenger of Allah ﷺ, I love to pray with you.’ He replied: ‘I know that you love to pray with me. However, praying in your house is better for you than praying in your courtyard; and praying in your courtyard is better for you than praying in the mosque of your people; and praying in the mosque of your people is better for you than praying in my mosque.’ So she ordered a prayer-place be built for her in the darkest part of her home, and she always prayed there till she met Allah.25 They say that this hadith has a context that can be found in a few other versions of the same incident. The claim is that other hadiths show that the reason the Prophet ﷺ said what he said to Umm Humayd is that, according to at least one contemporary author, the Prophet ﷺ ‘intended to resolve a martial disagreement’ between her and her husband, ‘which was about the long distance she had to walk five times a day to pray behind him in the mosque.’26
The reply to this somewhat bizarre juristic claim comes from a few angles: Firstly, it is true that Abu Humayd, the husband, objected to his wife going to the Prophet’s mosque (in all likelihood, due to how far it was from their home); the wording of two supporting reports substantiate this. In one, it states Umm Humayd as lamenting: ‘O Messenger of Allah! Our husbands prevent us praying with you, but we love to pray with you …’27 And in another: ‘O Messenger of Allah, we love to pray with you, but our husbands object.’28 However, to infer from this that there was a marital dispute which required reconciliation – and so the Prophet ﷺ alledgedly inverted the default ruling of it being recommended for women to pray congregational prayers in the mosque, as it is for men, and instead made it particular to Umm Humayd for it to be better to pray at home – is reading into the hadiths something that just is not there. This view simply doesn’t hold up to textual or legal scrutiny. Or, if we were to fall into line with our “post-truth era” of “alternative facts”, it could even be said that such a view is fake-fiqh!
Secondly, even if we were to concede that such was the case just for Umm Humayd, what about the previous authentic hadiths quoted in Point.2; the hadith of the Prophet’s wife, Umm Salamah: ‘A woman’s prayer in her house is better than her prayer in her courtyard, and her prayer in her closet is better than in her house.’29 And the hadith of Ibn ‘Umar: ‘Do not prevent your wives from the mosques, but their houses are better for them.’30 Are we to infer from these two different hadiths that they too were said in the context of some marital spat? Obviously not! Rather, the ruling about the preferability of women praying in their homes is applicable to women, in general; and mosques, in general. In another hadith, again related by Umm Salamah, we read: ‘The best places of prayer for women are the inner parts of their homes.’31
Thirdly, the above is something that is borne out by at least one salaf-report, or athar: The sahabi-scholar Ibn Mas‘ud stated: ‘A woman does not pray a prayer more beloved to Allah than one prayed in her home, save if it be the Sacred Mosque or the Prophet’s mosque.’32
Fourthly, Although it is true that Ibn Hazm considered the hadiths about the afdaliyyah, or preferability, of women praying at home to all be weak and inauthentic, his view simply goes against the established proofs. A number of hadith scholars have affirmed that some of the hadiths mentioning this preferability are authentic. Such hadith scholars include: Ibn Khuzaymah, al-Hakim, Ibn Daqiq al-‘Id, al-Nawawi, al-Dhahabi, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali, Ibn Hajr al-‘Asqalani and al-Shawkani; more contemporary scholars include: Ahmad Shakir, al-Albani and Shu‘ayb al-Arna’ut. Between such hadith experts, they have directly and indirectly rebutted the seemingly hasty judgements of Ibn Hazm on certain narrators in these hadiths, demonstrating how many of these hadiths are actually sahih or hasan. As for those who have used Ibn Hazm’s erroneous claim to oppose the agreement of the four madhhabs (especially in our age), they have, in all likelihood, uncritically and blindly followed him in this blunder of his.
To conclude: Based upon the textual proofs, there are four issues that the classical jurists generally agreed to in terms of women and mosques: [i] Women’s attendance at mosques and their participation in congregational prayers isn’t forbidden in and of itself, nor is it obligatory or even recommended. [ii] Their attendance is permitted, but only with certain qualification and restrictions. [iii] A woman’s prayer at home is better than her prayer in a mosque with men. [iv] Fear of temptation (fitnah) and the moral deterioration of society has a bearing on whether women should attend mosques.
However, one simply cannot or must not ignore the fact that times have changed. Today, there are many female converts who have no Islamic environment to take refuge or solace in, other than mosques. The home environment of most Muslim woman (with their usual modern distractions and prevalent harams) make it nigh on impossible to grow in sacred knowledge and iman: local mosques are probably the best bet for such woman to now and again have the chance to be in some godly atmosphere and sacred space. Then there’s the practicality of the modern work-shop life, and the need for woman to have other than a cramped changing room or some similar inconvenient spot to offer the obligatory prayer, if there is a local mosque nearby. For these reasons and others, the following should be considered by the mosque-funding and mosque-attending communities:
Where they can, mosques should have a good, designated space to accommodate women. Women should also be encouraged to participate in study circles, classes or talks held in the mosque, and that are given by qualified scholars. And whilst it seems that some men need to learn basic adab in terms of how not to give women attending the mosque cold or unwelcoming looks, some women need to learn the adab of seeking sacred knowledge by not chatting among themselves while others are trying to listen to the actual talk! Without doubt, being able to see the person delivering the talk would greatly help women be more focused and attentive.
When seeking women’s rights that are related to the mosque, advice must be given to the committee in good faith. Rights should be sought with the desire to venerate Allah’s laws and uphold the ways of the Lord, in contrast to cherrypicking what religious obligation to accept and thereby play fast and loose with the shari‘ah. Of course, women being part of mosques committees (not for the sake of some quota, or to tick the gender equality boxes; but from a conviction that they will add value, piety and professionalism to the currently dull, dim and lowbrow all-male mosque committees that have for too long tribally ruled the roost) is to be welcomed and encouraged. Perhaps then we may see more Islamically enlightened activities, or some fairness and inclusiveness from most of our local mosques. I suspect that most Muslims in 21st century Britain, especially those born and raised here, are not interested in mosques that offer belongingness primarily on the basis of a pride of Panjabis, a brethren of Bengalis, or a gang of Gujratis.
Now I offer the following with some tentative reservation. But it seems that many of those who seek to empower Muslim women are selling Muslim women short! For while much has been made about whether woman can lead men in congregational prayer or not, little energy has gone into helping women become actual scholars or muftis. The simple truth is that leading prayer is of little merit in Islam compared to the honour and distinguished rank of being a scholar. Again, whilst much has been made about a woman’s conditional rights to go to the mosque, little emphasis has been put on creating a sacred space in the home for a woman to pray, learn, or quietly remember her Lord.
And finally, while it is commendable that Muslim women are actively and wisely seeking out their religiously given rights – not waiting upon Muslim men to help them secure such rights, which in all likelihood would be an insufferably slow process – they must also call women’s attention to the actual conditions required to make it Islamically lawful for them to go to the mosque (as per points nos.6 & 7, above). Contrary to some people’s thinking, the shari‘ah allowance isn’t carte blanche. If, in the spirit of sincere sisterhood, Muslim women aren’t the ones to advise or instruct one another what Islamically is godliness and the good in such matters, then men are left to step into this vacuum. For while in a secular worldview it may not be right for a man to advise a woman what she should be wearing (unless, of course, its telling her not to wear a face veil, or increasingly even a headscarf: for secular hypocrisy is accepted where it concerns Islam), in the Islamic worldview men can remind women of dress codes and sartorial obligations that Revelation instates; and visa-versa: The believer, men and women, are allies to each other; they enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil, they establish the prayer and pay the zakat, and obey Allah and His Messenger. On these, Allah will have mercy. Allah is August, Wise. [Q.9:71]
We ask Allah to guide and protect us; and where we’re wrong, to correct us.
1. Al-Bukhari, no.4152; Muslim, no.442.
2. Muslim, no.442.
3. Muslim, no.443.
4. Abu Dawud, Sunan, no.567. The hadith, with its supporting chains, was declared sahih by al-Munawi, Fayd al-Qadir (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 2001), 6:544, no.9869; al-Albani, Irwa’ al-Ghalil (Beirut: al-Maktab al-Islami, 1979), 2:293-94, no.515; al-Nawawi, al-Majmu‘ Sharh al-Muhadhdhab (Jeddah: Maktabah al-Irshad, n.d.), 4:92.
5. Abu Dawud, no.570, from Ibn Mas‘ud; Hakim, Mustadrak, no.852, from Umm Salamah. In Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah (Beirut: al-Maktab al-Islami, 1980), 3:94; no.1688, al-Albani stated that its chain is hasan.
6. Muslim, no.138.
7. Al-Bukhari, no.899.
8. Sahih al-Bukhari, Kitab al-Adhan, chapter no.162.
9. See: al-Zuhayli, Fiqh al-Islami wa Adillatuhu (Damascus: Dar al-Fikr, 1984), 2:153-155.
10. As in al-Bayhaqi, al-Sunan al-Kabir, no.5430; Ibn Abi Shaybah, Musannaf, no.7696; al-Tabarani, Mu‘jam al-Kabir, no.9471.
11. Ibn Majah, no.4001. Although the hadith is weak (da‘if) – as per al-Albani, Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Da‘ifah wa’l-Mawdu‘ah (Riyadh: Maktabah al-Ma‘arif, 2002), no.4821 – it (and the report above) may be used as supporting evidence for the general principle about the fitnah of temptation.
12. Consult: Ibn al-Humam, Fath al-Qadir (Cairo, Sharikat wa-Matba’at Mustafa al-Babi al-Halabi wa-Awladihi bi-Misr, 1970), 1:365-366.
13. Al-Bukhari, no.6228.
14. Al-Tirmidhi, no.885, who said it is a hasan sahih hadith.
15. Al-Tirmidhi, no.1173, where he said: ‘The hadith is hasan sahih gharib.’
16. Ibn Khuzaymah, no.1685. Al-Albani graded its chain as sahih in his critical edition of Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah, 3:93. In his Irwa’ al-Ghalil, no.273, al-Albani holds that the hadith, with its supporting chains, yields a final grading of sahih. Also see his: Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Sahihah (Riyadh: Maktabah al-Ma‘arif, 1996), no.2688.
17. Al-Bukhari, no.4808; Muslim, no.2740.
18. Muslim, no.2159.
19. Al-Bukhari, no.869; Muslim, no.445, and the wording is his.
20. ‘Umdat al-Qari Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 2001), 6:227.
21. See: al-Zuhayli, Fiqh al-Islami wa Adillatuhu, 2:154.
22. Fath al-Bari bi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari (Egypt: Dar al-‘Alamiyyah, 2013), 3:110.
23. Al-Mughni (Riyadh: Dar ‘Alam al-Kutub, 2007), 3:265.
24. In Islamic legal theory (usul al-fiqh), the principle of taghayyur al-zaman can have two areas of application. Firstly, in terms of those rulings related to custom or convention (‘urf, ‘adah); when they change, the ruling can change; as per: ‘Rulings change with the change of times’. I’ve discussed this issue here on the blog, in parts V & VI. Secondly, which is the one that applies here, is when times worsen or decline. In some cases, rulings may alter to reflect such worsening of times.
25. Ahmad, Musnad, no.27090; Ibn Hibban, Sahih, no.2217. Ibn Hajr al-‘Asqalani stated: ‘The chain of Ahmad is hasan.’ See: Fath al-Bari, 3:110, under hadith no.869. Shu‘ayb al-Arna’ut concurred with this grading of hasan in his critical edition of the Musnad (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-Risalah 1416H), no.27090.
26. Jasser Auda, Reclaiming the Mosque: The Role of Women in Islam’s House of Worship (United Kingdom & United States: Claritas Books, 2017), 48.
27. Ibn Abi Shaybah, Musannaf, no.7702. Its chain contains Ibn Lahiy’ah, whose reliability as a reporter is questioned.
28. Al-Bayhaqi, al-Sunan al-Kubra, no.5437. It contains ‘Abd al-Mu’min b. ‘Abd Allah al-Kinani, whose status as a narrator is unknown (majhul).
29. Al-Hakim, no.852. The hadith is sahih, as per footnote no.5.
30. Abu Dawud, no.570. The hadith is hasan, as per ft.4.
31. Ibn Khuzaymah, Sahih, no.1683; al-Hakim, Mustadrak, no.857. Some scholars consider the hadith weak, due to Darraj, one of the narrators, who is held to be weak. However, the verifying scholars (muhaqqiqun) only consider him to be problematic when he specifically relates from Abu’l-Haytham; by way of Abu Sa‘id – which isn’t the cases here at all. Hence the chain is hasan, as per Shu‘ayb al-Arna’ut in his critical edition of Sunan Abu Dawud (Beirut: Risalah al-‘Alamiyyah, 2009), no.567.
32. Al-Bayhaqi, al-Sunan al-Kubra, no.5430; and its like is also related in Ibn Abi Shaybah, al-Musannaf, no.7696.
With everyone offering their opinion about what Islam is really about, with even far-right voices cashing in on the furore, Muslims are in danger of allowing the essential message of their religion to be drowned out in all the hullabaloo. And while it’s not always easy to essentialize the faith, to sort out Islamic principles from Muslim practices, this much has to be clear:
A Muslim, by definition, is anyone who has sincerely uttered the Declaration of Faith; the shahadah: bearing witness to the fact that God is One, unique, perfect, having no partner or associate, with none deserving to be worshiped except Him; bearing witness also that Muhammad is His final Messenger sent to all humanity. Since we cannot rip open hearts to read their secrets (unless they are explicitly or unequivocally revealed through word or deed), judgement about sincerity is left with God. These words of the Prophet ﷺ speak to the reality that la ilaha illa’Llah isn’t something to merely be uttered by the tongue, with no understanding of its meaning or sincerity to its demands: ‘The person most delighted by my intercession on the Day of Resurrection will be the one who says, la ilaha illa’Llah sincerely from his heart.’1 And this: ‘Whoever bears witness to la ilaha ila’Llah, sincerely from his heart, will enter Paradise.’2 Also these words: ‘Whoever dies knowing that there is no god [deserving of worship] except Allah, will enter Paradise.’3
Of course – and rightly so, few would consider this is sufficient in practice, unless such a Declaration is taken to include affirming the necessary consequences which flow from it. One of Islam’s early pietists, Wahb b. Munabbih, was once asked: ‘Isn’t la ilah illa’Llah the key to Paradise?’ To which he explained: ‘Indeed! But there isn’t a key, except that it has incisions (asnan, lit. “teeth”). If you bring a key that has [the right] incisions, the door will open; if not, it won’t!’4 What is meant by these “incisions” are the duties and obligations instated by the faith. In other words, while the Muslim believes in the One true God, in the angels, in all the messengers sent to mankind for their guidance from the beginning of the human saga, and in the divinely-revealed books – the Qur’an being the final Word of God, unaltered and unalterable; Muslims also believe in the obligation to uphold the religious obligations, at the head of which are the “Five Pillars” of Islam which are: the Declaration of Faith, the five daily prayers, the payment of zakat, the fast of Ramadan, and Pilgrimage to Makkah by those physically and financially able to do so. A Muslim may, to their own harm or ruin, neglect to practice one or more of the pillars (except the first one), or fail to fulfil one or more of the religious obligations, and still be counted as a Muslim; albeit a sinful one. But if he denies their necessity; their obligatory nature, he has placed himself beyond the community of believers and outside the fold of Islam.
The world would indeed be a fine place if people only judged Islam by its clear, normative teachings, instead of how Muslims may or may not have practiced it throughout the ages. Nor does a writer have any duty to defend or justify the way in which Islam is practiced in any historical period by those of its followers whose blips show up on the radar of history. For when it comes to human beings, good men and women are by no means thick on the ground. And vice learnt a long time ago that it could pay its tribute to virtue by dressing in the garb of religion. Which brings me to my main point:
It wasn’t so long ago when Muslims would still identify a person by the religion they were born into, rather than their nationality or ethnicity. In such a weltanschauung, Europeans were habitually described as Christians, even if large swathes had forsaken their ancestral religion for no religion or for atheism. For their part, the ‘Christian’ West usually regarded anyone from a Muslim majority country to not just be Muslim, but to somehow represent the ‘Muslimness’ that Islam as a religious way of life extols – whether that person was an ordinary citizen, filthy rich playboy or tycoon, or shabby tyrannical head of state! During the latter part of the 20th century, the image of Islam was veiled behind the daily tabloid escapades of Arab tycoons, playboys, dictators or despots. But the faith has seldom been discoverable in the lives of such tycoons, leaders and official spokesmen – but those who seek it, will surely find it.
Of course, 9-11 changed that; not just in the West, but globally. Islam’s image would now be associated primarily with acts of terror and violence of the al-Qaeda or ISIS type. Some will say that this is the default perception of Islam’s image in the West. For if it isn’t the Muslim terrorist blowing up people, it’s Muslim fundamentalists on the rampage, burning some innocent book or publication. And if not that, it’s ruthless dictators; or even earlier still, the image of the Muslim Saracen with his menacing face, wielding his sword against the innocent ‘infidel’! The West, it seems, can’t stop caricaturing the entire global Muslim population in one negative way or another. Beneath the surface, however, and invisible to the media or to the wider public, are the countless ordinary men and women – exemplary Muslims, faithful and compassionate – whose lives could help redeem much of this false image, if godliness and humility were commodities that sold newspapers, made headlines or attracted social media clicks and likes!
Some Muslims will insist that image doesn’t matter; it shouldn’t bother us what the non-Muslims think of us. And that’s true: but only partially. It’s true in terms of the message and its content. We cannot change Islam or water down its teachings merely to please peoples’ whims or sentiments, or to better our liberal credentials. Islam is what it is, and that’s that! To this, the Qur’an states: Perhaps you might feel the inclination to omit part of what is revealed to you, and be distressed because they say: ‘Why has no treasure been sent down to him, or why has no company of angels been sent with him?’ You are only a warner, and God is a Guardian over all things. [Q.11:12] In other words, wisely and faithfully deliver the message as it is, then leave the rest to Allah. Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad strikes the right chord when he explains: ‘[I]t’s human nature, given that we’re weak, to crave praise, and to have arguments that are publicly respected. And when we’re not praised, but despised – or the victims of Islamophobia, or whatever you choose to call it – where our arguments are not respected, the ego is dented. And that can be dangerous and that can lead to aberrant behaviour in our communities, or depression, or lead to a determination to change the religion in order to please the people who are regarded as having opinions which matter. And all of this is subversive. But the real Muslim really doesn’t care what people think; he only cares about what Allah, subhanahu wa ta‘ala, thinks.’5
As for how the message and its content are to be delivered, then image – or perhaps we can say: presentation – does indeed matter. Here, one does have concern for form, not just content. The Holy Qur’an stresses: Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful exhortation, and reason with them in the most courteous manner. [Q.16:125] A healthy share of Islamic knowledge, wisdom, gentleness, the art of persuasion, prioritising the contents of the message, and a familiarity with audience type are core qualities necessary to make the call conform to the above Quranic description.
We ask Allah, the Gracious Lord, for His kindness.
1 Al-Bukhari, no.99.
2. Ibn Hibban, Sahih, no.7, and its chain is sahih. Consult: al-Albani, Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Sahihah (Riyadh: Maktabah al-Ma‘arif, 1991), no.2355.
3. Muslim, no.26.
4. Al-Bukhari, in ta‘liq form, preceeding hadith no.1237; commencing the Book of Funeral Prayers. The complete chain is given in his al-Tarikh al-Kabir, no.261.
5. The citation is from a 2013 lecture entitled: Master Classes on Imam Al-Ghazali – 3. The clip starts at 34:55.