Women as Political Leaders in Islam

[Sureshlasi]

If we look back in history, we come to know about Razia Sultana and other women rulers. But it couldn`t be neglected that Razia Sultana had to face great problem for accession of sovereignity. Many masses came against her coz they couldn`t bear women ruler.

I want to view this conflict under Islamic law. Does Islam allows woman to rule over masses ?

Female leadership is a question not unknown to the Muslim world. Although Muslim scholars have in the past discussed this topic, it first gained prominence in the twentieth century with the wake of the women's liberty movement. In recent years the question was further highlighted with the success of Benazir Bhutto in the 1989 elections in Pakistan and Khalida Zia in the 1991 election in Bangladesh.

Recently some women in South Africa also embarked on a similar campaign claiming the right of leadership even in Salâh.


Can a Lady Rule a Country? (In the light of an Islamic Article)

Prior to Islam, women were among the most oppressed creatures in the world. Neither did they have any rights nor were they regarded as human-beings in many communities.

Islam on the contrary, raised the social status of a woman and granted her many rights ranging from inheritance to the basic necessities of everyday-life. Regarding these rights Allâh Ta'âla says in the Qurân: "And women have rights similar to the rights against them (i.e. the right of men) according to what is equitable and men have a degree over them."[BAQARAH: 228]

Mufti Muhammad Shafi Saheb (RA) explains this verse: "The rights of women that men are responsible for are compulsory just as the rights of men that women are responsible for are compulsory. The right of both (men and women) have been given the same ruling ...... it is not necessary that the rights of both take the same form. Instead, if women are responsible for a specific duty then so are men. Household matters, training and looking after the children are the responsibility of the women whereas men are responsible for earning a living so that they may fulfil the needs of women (their wives). It is a lady's duty to serve and obey her husband and the mehr (dowry) and expenditure of the women is the husband's duty. (In short, even though each have different rights over the other, the rights of both are incumbent.....) There is however one quality on accord of which man have superiority over women. This is why Allâh Ta'âla, at the end of this verse says: "and men have a degree over them."

Mufti Shafi (RA) thereafter explains that this degree of superiority that men have over women is explained in the verse: "Men are overseers of women because Allâh Ta'âla granted virtue to some of them (i.e. men) over others (i.e. women) and because of their spending from their wealth". [NISâ 34]

Shaikh Muhammad Rashid Rida offers a similar explanation: "...... the lady equals the man in all rights (i.e. in the ruling of all rights) except one which Allâh refers to in the sentence "and men have a degree over them.' This degree is explained in the verse "men are overseers .....". (Huqooq-un-Nisâ fil Islâm)

It is therefore necessary that we now focus our attention on this verse of the Qurân in the light of some acclaimed commentators of the Qurân.


"Men are Overseers of Women"

Allamah Ibn-ul-Arabi (RA) comments on this verse:

The meaning of this verse is: I have made men overseers of women because I have granted the former superiority over the latter. This is due to three reasons viz.

a. perfect understanding

b. perfection of deen and obedience in jihad and commanding the good and forbidding the evil etc. This has been explained by Nabi sallallahu alaihi wasallam in an authentic Hadith.

"I have not seen any one of deficient intellect and deen who is more destructive to the intelligence of a cautious man than you women."

The women asked: "Why is that, O messenger of Allâh?" He replied: "Do you not spend a few nights without performing salâh and without keeping fast? This is the deficiency of her deen and the testimony of one of you equals half the testimony of a single man - this is the deficiency of her intellect. "... so that if one of the two women errs, the second would remind her". (Al Baqarah, verse 281)

c. His spending on her in the form of dowry and other expenditure. (Ahkâmul Qurân, verse 1, pg.416)





Allamah âlusi (RA) writes in the commentary of this verse that it is the quality of men to oversee the affairs of women just as the rulers oversee their subjects by commanding them to do good etc. This ruling is attributed to two reasons: one being wahbi (this is granted solely by Allâh) and the other Kasbi (i.e. achieved on account of his action).

a. because Allâh has granted him superiority as has been narrated (in the Hadith) that women are deficient in intellect and deen and men are the opposite, that is why risalat (prophethood), imamat-e-kubra and sughra (major and minor leadership), Adhân, Iqâmat, khuthba etc. are confined to men. (meaning that only men were Rasuls and Nabis and only man can rule, lead the salâh etc.)

b. because men bear the expenditure of women. (Ruhul Ma'âni, vl.5, pg.23)


Before considering Maulana Shabbir Ahmed Uthmani's (RA) commentary, it is necessary that we first refer to the verse:

"And do not covet that which Allâh favours some of you with over others - men will receive the reward of what they earn and women will receive the reward of what they earn. And ask Allâh of his bounty. Verily Allâh has full knowledge of all things". [An Nisâ - 32]

Hafiz Ibn Katheer (RA) narrates on the authority of Imam Ahmad and Imam Tirmidhi that Umme Salmah (RA) said: "O Messenger of Allâh! The men wage Jihad whereas we (women) do not and we receive half the inheritance." (i.e. blood-brothers receive double the share of blood sisters). Thereafter the verse "And do not covet......" was revealed. (Ibn Katheer vl.1, pg.498)

This verse would therefore mean that when Allâh has granted some of mankind (i.e. men) virtue over others (i.e. women) by means of certain actions, then it is incorrect to covet the favour of Allâh on them because each of them will be rewarded according to his actions. Envy and complaining is of no avail. On the contrary, it would be most beneficial to ask Allâh for more reward for one's actions. Complaining and envy yield no reward. However all good actions yield reward. Verily Allâh has knowledge of everything and knows fully well the wisdom in specifying certain actions for man only. He knows best which actions are appropriate for men and which are appropriate for women.

Commenting on the verse "men are overseers....." Maulana Shabeer Saheb Uthmani (RA) writes: "It was mentioned in the previous verse that the rights of men and women have been given full consideration. Had their rights been given a different consideration (women's right were not considered fully as men's rights) women would be justified in complaining. This verse now explains that men have a status higher than women, women cannot complain because the difference of rules (regarding men and women) that result on accord of this additional degree of men is in total agreement with divine wisdom.....". (Tafsir-e-Uthmâni Pg.128)


There are many more contemporary examples of women leading Muslim-majority countries. Remarkably, a majority of all Muslims in the world live in countries that have, at some time, elected women as their leaders. Indeed, four of the five most populous Muslim-majority countries have had women as leaders:

1. Indonesia, the most populous Muslim-majority country, elected Megawati Sukarnoputri as president

2. Pakistan, the second most populous Muslim-majority country, twice (non-consecutively) elected Benazir Bhutto as prime minister

3. Bangladesh, the third most populous Muslim-majority country, elected Khaleda Zia[9] and Sheikh Hasina as prime ministers


4. Turkey, the fifth most populous Muslim-majority country, elected Tansu Çiller as prime minister


Women as leaders, what are the sacrifices they make in their lives, their marriages, their children and their families? What role do women play in nurturing equilibrium within society as a whole?

Your kind opinions is required in this regard that women should be allowed to rule over a country ?

Thank you very much





.

[sam_diya]

today women r competing men in every field and politics is one of them where they hav shown their talent and many women r successful in running political affairs with the assistance of men.so i think women can take part in politis and can b ministers but personally i think it is some what insulting for a man to b ruled out by weak creatures,though gender biased but a country sd b ruled by a man.well in present scenario all men r nt that talented as a women miss BENAZIR BHOTTO is so she can rule......

[Muhammad T S Awan]

AOA

suresh good post, but i disagree to your notion with regard to razia sultana. Yes her brief rule remained in agitation and turmoil but we cant simply put it on principles of Islam. The society in which Razia Sultana was made ruler was never an Islamic society. It was a blended one where islam had yet to take roots. The Sultanate Era started in India just a couple of decades earlier from Razia.

The Razia Sultana was nominated by Sultan Altutmish himself to be ruler of Delhi(Altamish/Iltitmush - 1211 to 1236 A.D.) becuase his living sons were not capable enough to sit on throne.

There is no doubt on religious concepts of Altutmish becuase its said that when a famous Saint of Delhi expired (perhaps he was Hazrat Qutubuddin Bakhtiar r.a.) he willed that his funeral should be lead by a person who cares for punctuality of five times daily prayers and even nver missed his tujhad prayer... when his will was narrated, there prevailed silence in the crowd thn after some time a person came forward and said that he went but unveiled the secrets of others (means to say he opened up secret amongst people) and that person was the Sultan Altutmish himself....

Some of the nobles, certainly, used the coin of Islam to fight against her, in fact they did'nt have any Islamic idea in their mind to conflict with Razia but they were against rule of any woman on them.....

[Predator]

WOMEN AND POLITICAL LEADERSHIP IN MUSLIM THOUGHT

This article is a comment on Abubakar Ahmad Gada's interesting write-up on the ''Political Irrelevance of Women in Islam''( Weekly Trust, October 5, 2001) which in turn was a contribution to an on-going discussion of the subject sparked off by Hajiya Bilkisu's earlier article in the Paper. Mallam Abubakar, the Imam of NNDC mosque, Kaduna presented arguments in his write-up which, to be fair, correctly reflect mainstream thinking in traditional scholarship. One only wished the respected Imam had shown more circumspection and less exuberance in brandishing untenable empirical examples, particularly in view compelling evidence of outstanding women leaders even in contemporary history. Take, for instance, Indira Ghandi in India and how she routed Pakistan; Or Golda Maier in Israel and how she defeated the combined forces of Egypt, Syria and Jordan; Or Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher and how she defeated the Argentines in the Falklands in addition to breaking the back of the almighty Labour Unions at home. Of course there will always be examples of female leaders who have failed but then there are many more woeful examples of failure among their male opposite numbers. Evidently, examples such as those proffered by Gada, even if we accepted their questionable soundness, can never be a logical basis for establishing a causal link between gender and performance in political office.

The central message of the Imam's write-up, which this paper addresses, is that the leadership of women is prohibited by Islam. The basis for this assertion is that '' the Holy Prophet has in a hadith emphatically stated that any society which has its leadership under a woman will never progress.'' In this paper I intend first to discuss the various positions taken by scholars on this hadith and, secondly, to subject traditional thought to critique. The term 'critique' in social theory, to pre-empt misunderstanding, is not exactly synonymous with 'criticism' as employed in everyday English. Critical social theory does not so much seek to repudiate an existing theory as to set out clearly the limits of its validity. Mainly associated with Marx, who himself learnt from Kant and Hegel and bequeathed his method to latter day theorists particularly of the 'Frankfurt School' (including names like Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse and, with certain qualifications, Habermas) the critique is neither pure philosophy nor pure science but something in-between. An argument's popularity among the faithful is not necessarily based at all times on superior validity of its truth-claims. In reality, an argument may find acceptance because of its instrumentality in validating our pre-conceptions on the subject and its compatibility with the concrete reality which we inhabit or seek to bring about. As argued by Jurgen Habermas in his Knowledge and Human Interests, the conceptual structures of human knowledge are determined by interests that are deeply anchored in the solid existence of human beings as such. Only through a reflective examination of the process of knowing may we grasp these cognitive interests as what he calls "quasi-transcendental" conditions for the possibility of knowledge. An authentic saying, or hadith of the prophet retains, for all Muslims the transcendental quality and aprioristic claim of all revelation. Yet its interpretation necessarily, even if unknowingly, reflects a social reality that may in fact be distorted, an alienated and impoverished version of what it could become. All too often in intra-Islamic discourses, the contingent element of human consciousness is pretended away and the argument is presented as a timeless, eternal and Divine injunction. A critique of such an argument exposes its pseudo-objectivity and critically illuminates the underlying reality of alienation that provides the thinker's consciousness with its conceptual categories. This emphasis on the need to transcend the superficial and examine, from an epistemological perspective, the inextricable linkage between the law and the social, was the axis around which I constructed my arguments in an earlier intervention on this subject entitled ''SHARIAH AND THE WOMAN QUESTION" In this paper I return to the same theme.

Let me first state the hadith. Imam Bukhari reports from Abu Bakrah the following: "Allah provided me with considerable benefit during the battle of the camel with one word (or one statement). When news reached the prophet (S.A.W.) that the Persians had appointed Chosroe's daughter as their ruler, he said: ''A nation which placed its affairs in the hands of a woman shall never prosper!'' Those who claim that the leadership of women is ''unIslamic'' rely on this hadith. In reality, all that can be correctly affirmed is that some scholars relied on this hadith to disenfranchise women from leadership. There has never been unanimity on this matter among scholars, past and present, and the very inference of disenfranchisement is suspect. Let me explain.

From the earliest days of Muslim scholarship, even those jurists who implicitly accept the hadith above as containing some injunction have differed on the meaning of ''placing affairs in the hands of a woman''. Some scholars prohibit women from all public duties. Abu Hanifa permits a woman to hold public office, even to be a judge in matters in which her testimony is admissible- that is all cases other than those involving fixed penalties (hudud) and retaliation (qisas). Ibn Hazm in his Muhalla, allows a woman to hold every office apart from that of the Head of State based on this hadith. At the "liberal" extreme, Hafiz Ibn Hajr indicates in Fathul Bari that Imam Ibn Jarir Al-Tabari not only supports the unrestricted appointment of woman to judgeship, he permitted also her appointment as Head of State. A similar view is reported from Imam Malik Ibn Anas and adopted by some Maliki jurists (although the popular view in the mazhab is contrary to this).

The first point is therefore to note that there was no unanimity even among the earliest scholars on this matter, although the vast majority (for reasons we will presently discuss) barred women from the office of the Head of State. It is also not true that the leadership of Muslims by women is a modern phenomenon caused by "westernisation." Various Muslim communities at various times have been de-facto or de-jure ruled by women. A group of Kharijites, the Shuhaybiyyah, held that women are eligible for the office of Head of State as recorded by Ibn Hazm in Kitabul Fisal. According to historical texts, not only did they appoint their Imam's daughter as his successor, the lady delivered sermons from the pulpit and led them in prayer and on the battle- field. The famous thirteenth century Mamluk queens Radhia Sultana of Delhi and Shajaratul-Durr of Egypt were not the only women sovereigns over Muslim communities. A whole book has been written by Fatima Mernissi, entitled The Forgotten Queens of Islam, in which she covers from historical texts the lives of so many such queens in Muslim history. Ibn Battuta tells us how for forty years (from 1347 to 1388), Muslims in the Maldives were ruled by queens. The first was Sultana Khadija the daughter of Sultan Salah al-Din Albendjaly who ruled for 33 years. Her two sisters, Sultana Myriam and Sultana Fatima, followed in succession. Djajadimingrat lists 34 sovereigns who ruled over the Muslim kingdom of Atjeh in Indonesia between the 16th and 20th centuries. Four princesses succeeded each other as queens between 1641 and 1699. First was Sultana Tadj al-'Alam Saffiyat al Din Shah (the 14th sovereign of the dynasty) who was succeeded, in order, by Sultana Nur al-'Alam Nakiyyat al-Din Shah, 'Inayat Shah Zakiyyat al-Din Shah and Kamalat Shah.

The Shiite dynasty of Yemen also produced two queens, Asma Bint Shihab al Sulayhiyyah (d.1087) and 'Arwa Bint Ahmad al-Sulayhiyya(d.1138). Each of them took the title al- Sayyida al-hurra and had the khutbah (sermon) said in her name. There were also the Mongol Khatuns like Kutlugh Katun and Safwat al-Din Khatun. These are just examples but they suffice to refute the claims of those who believe the likes of Benazir Bhutto were the first women to rule Muslim lands. Women have ruled Muslim communities and their leadership was accepted and respected by the scholars of those communities.

Where does all this leave Abu Bakrah's hadith? Contemporary scholarship articulates its rejection of the hadith as evidence barring women from leadership from different perspectives. The first, which for want of a better term I will call 'feminist', rejects the authenticity of the hadith in its entirety. This view is represented by Fatima Mernissi in her ground breaking book, The Veil and the Male Elite: A Feminist Interpretation of Women Rights in Islam. Mernissi in this book does the unspeakable by questioning directly the reliability of a companion of the Prophet as a narrator of hadith. She suggests that Abu Bakrah, a former slave, joined Islam because of the promise of manumission. She argues that he prevaricated between joining Ali and joining Aisha in the civil war, and then after Aisha lost the battle he opportunistically 'remembered' a hadith spoken 25 years earlier to curry favour with the winning side. Finally she stresses that the second Caliph Umar had ordered Abu Bakrah flogged for false testimony. She therefore rejects the authority of Abu Bakrah and with it the evidence of the hadith since to her it is a fabrication. I have not independently checked the accuracy of Mernissi's biographical renditions although she has duly annotated her sources. Her conclusion on Abu Bakra is, however, unlikely to hold water with scholars of hadith who start from the premise that "all the Companions are just."

The second group adopts a different line of argument. Exemplified here by Justice Aftab Hussain in his book "Status of Women in Islam", the central argument of this group is that it is clear that Abu Bakrah did not understand from the words he narrated an injunction against the leadership of women. He was a companion of Aisha and followed her and fought among her troops and returned with her to Madina after her defeat. He remembered this hadith as he stated during the Battle of the Camel and yet neither left her side nor advised anyone else to. This group says that to insist that the hadith is an injunction against female leadership places this companion of the Prophet in very unbecoming light. Is it possible that a true companion would remember an injunction of the holy Prophet and proceed in disobeying it as if he had never remembered? Would he be so impudent as to subsequently announce this recollection without any explanation for his non-compliance?

The third group takes a different course. This group accepts the hadith as authentic but insists that it was a prophecy relating to the Kingdom of Persia and had no legal implications beyond that. The argument of this group is, in my view, best presented by Hiba Ra'uf 'Izzat in her book Al-Mar-ah wa 'l-'Amal as-Siyasi. This group argues that the hadith must be read along with related ones since, according to Hafiz Ibn Hajr, it merely completes the story of the Chosroe who tore the Prophet's letter.

Al-Bukhari reported three traditions connected with this episode, two of which were in the chapter on "Letter of the Prophet to Chosroe and Caesar". Abu Bakra's hadith is No 4425. The preceding hadith, No 4424, was reported from Ibn Abbas who said that "the Prophet of Allah sent Abdullah Ibn Huzafa with his letter to Chosroe and commanded him to hand it to the leader of Bahrain for delivery to Chosroe. When Chosroe read it he tore it. I believe Said Ibn Musayyab said: 'Then the Prophet prayed to Allah that he tear them up completely'." The third hadith is No 6639 reported by Bukhari in the chapter on "how the oath of the Prophet was" and it goes:"When Caesar dies there will be no Caesar after him. When Chosroe dies there will be no Chosroe after him. I swear by He in whose hand is my life, you will spend their treasures in the path of Allah!"

These are the three hadiths reported by Bukhari on Chosroe and the Persians and their consistency is self -evident. In one he prays to Allah to destroy the Chosroe's dynasty the way he tore the letter. The second predicts that there will be no Chosroe after him and the Ummah will inherit the Kingdom's treasures. The third, Abu Bakra's, predicts that the Persians (who were still being ruled by Chosroe's dynasty) would not prosper. To extend this last hadith's scope to all societies ruled by women is refuted by the context. In addition it is refuted by Qur'anic evidence on the queen of Sheba (Al Naml: 28-44). Any one who reads those verses can see that they refer to a people who prospered under a wise and powerful female sovereign. It is also refuted by the compelling evidence of history. England prospered under Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth I. So did Russia under Catherine the Great, Spain under Isabella and Zazzau under Queen Amina. We may now conclude.

It is evident that different scholars have interpreted this hadith in different ways. It is also evident, that strictly on the basis of truth-claims, the assertion that a particular position on this matter is the "Islamic" position, is presumptuous and suspect. As mentioned earlier, however, there are other dimensions for evaluating cognitive propositions. A Muslim who accepts the essentially inferior status of woman by Divine decree, or at least sees nothing wrong with according her a public status below that of man is not loathe to accept the interpretation which precludes her from political leadership. Yet this choice is to him "Islamic" only because it conforms to his preconception and presupposition of the Islamic position on gender relations. Another Muslim who sees Islam as an essentially emancipating and egalitarian faith accepts an interpretation which validates and concurs with his own subjective predisposition. He rejects the traditional interpretation only because he considers the subjection of women a historical aberration, an evanescent feature of a society striving to attain, but still short of realizing, its true potential.

In the final analysis, the real battle is not one of theological niceties and the regurgitation of metaphysical postulates. It is one of the 'desublimation of reason', its extraction from obstruse and abstruse mythology and its concrete embodiment in the fabric of social relations. The task of critique is to expose the fallacy of claims to superior objectivity, and reveal the intricate connections between religious teaching, as distinct from religion, and the ubiquitous consciousness emanating from social conditions. And this, difficult as it is, must be the lodestar of the progressive Muslim intellectual.

[Muhammad T S Awan]

Oh bhai kuch Allah pak ka khauf khao...

Originally Posted by sam_diya

it is some what insulting for a man to b ruled out by weak creatures..

dear fellow, all creatures are made by ALLAH pak and no creature is weak or strong as rightly quoted by Suresh:

"And women have rights similar to the rights against them (i.e. the right of men) according to what is equitable and men have a degree over them."[BAQARAH: 228]

The Quranic ayat does not state that women are weak creatures, however, states that men are a degree over to women. Certainly men have been endowed many qualities as compared to women but similarly women are also given certain other qualities...

Originally Posted by sam_diya

well in present scenario all men r nt that talented as a women miss BENAZIR BHOTTO is so she can rule......

brother off course Ms. Benazir Bhutto is talented and intelligent but basis of her career was provided by her father and parent party PPP. Thats why She didnt have any problem in taking off her career and pursuing further...

[Jani Abro]

The saying of our holy prophet ( Peace be upon him ) is categorical with regard to the matter of right of rulership. He is quoted to have said that a nation can not prosper if a woman is a ruler over it. With this only exception, a woman can assume any other post in the adminstration of public matters unless the working conditions are such that there is no free interaction between both sexes.