I have received
several inquiries on why I have not made any statement regarding the
issue of whether a woman can lead both men and women in obligatory
prayers and Friday prayers. Here is my brief and general response to
them.
1. By habit and purpose I leave matters of Ibadah alone. My Ijtihad
is focused on issues of muamalath, particularly in the realm
of politics, and public policy. I am not interested in devoting hours
to do research in that area, I would rather spend it in prayer.
In my Ijtihad on muamalath, I interpret primary
Islamic sources not through the lens of tradition and past opinions
but on the basis of reason and public welfare deliberately privileging
justice and compassion. This formula of mine which guides me to demand
gender equality does not work in the realm of Ibadah. What have reason
or justice [as humans understand] got to do with salah, its
process, its content and its nature? Hence I abstain from Ijtihad
in the realm of Ibadah.
2. I am not chickening out as some of you are suggesting. In my book, American
Muslims: Bridging Faith and Freedom (pp. 93-94), and in an
article titled "The
Epistemological Hijab", I have argued that the problem of
Muslim women's status cannot be resolved until they gain moral
equality with Muslim men and they can do this only by reclaiming equal
right to interpret and practice Islam. I have no problem if women
develop their own madhab (school of thought) and live by it.
3. I maintain that every human being, man and woman, Muslim and
non-Muslim has the right to interpret God's message, because the
message is addressed to all of humanity. They must interpret and act
accordingly, that is the essence of our humanity. I will not deny
anyone, including Amina Wadud and her followers the right to interpret
Islam and live by it.
Note To
Khaled Abou El Fadl: Everyone has a right to an opinion and the
freedom to act on it, but that does not mean that all opinions are
right or qualitatively equal. I never claim that everyone's Ijtihad
is valid or correct or good. I only insist that every human being (the
vicegerent of God on Earth, Quran 2:30) has the right to interpret his
Boss. For example on issues of Islam and democracy, I think my
opinions are profounder than yours and on issues such as whether gummy
bears are halal, or if Muslims can have dogs as pets, perhaps
your opinions are better researched than mine [ specially since you
have so many books in your house as you keep telling us all].
4. Finally it is time Muslims remember that there are many ways to
understand Islamic injunctions. While Hanafi's encourage Muslims to
migrate to non-Muslim lands, Maliki's forbid. While some allow women
to lead Tarawih prayers others do not. In Saudi Arabia women
can go to mosques, in India they usually cannot. Bangladesh has a
woman head of state, and Iran a VP, but in Saudi Arabia they cannot
drive or vote. There are several interpretations of Islam. The
Progressive Muslims of North America are now advancing their
understanding of Islam and practicing it. Wallahu Alam. Let us
pray that they continue to practice.
5. The last word. I have been following the debate very closely and I
find the arguments fascinating. It is intriguing to see who knows what
and who quotes whom. I noticed that the traditionalists are long on
research but short on analysis, while the progressives are all
analysis except for one hadith and the reference to Tabari.
I will however write
an analysis on the debate once it rests.
