As many of us know by now, ISNA elected Dr Ingrid Mattson as President of that organization. Dr Louay Safi responded to critics of her election who protested electing a woman to such a position. Let's ignore for the time being that some Muslims felt they had the moral obligation to attempt to overturn a democratic election of ISNA's members. Let's also ignore the possible political and public relations motives for advancing a female candidate. I want to engage Dr Safi's arguments and show why he almost made it work and what step he should take to bring his arguments to their logical conclusion. However, I also want to show that such a step would be a bold one that would move the issue away from the Islamist framework.
I first read the article at altmuslim.com where Shahed apparently republished it from Dr Safi's own blog. Its a valiant attempt to reinterpret the sources to justify the election results, an attempt that should not have to be made in the first place.
Safi's argument is basically a refutation what he calls the Classical position of denying women the right to lead organizations, institutions, and states. It is clear that he distinguishes between transactions (mu`amalat) and acts of worship (`ibadat). In fact, he must do this because Safi has previously argued against female-led prayer, which is female leadership in an act of worship while leading ISNA is female leadership in transactions. His argument has both a positive argument which uses a Quranic verse to affirm poltical rights for women and a negating component which attempts to refute the famous hadith which tells us affairs will be ruined in the hands of women.
Safi's positive component derives the political rights of women from this verse of the Quran, “The believers, men and women, are protectors one of another; they enjoin the right and forbid the intolerable; they observe regular prayers, practice regular charity, and obey God and His Messenger†(9:71). This is the famous injunction known as "amr bi l-ma`ruf wa an-nahy `an il-munkar" which has been abused by authortarian personalities from among us Muslims for centuries as a license for power over others. But, Safi deftly attempts to derive equal political rights for women from this same verse, including an implicit right to lead organizations.
He states that this verse affirms the "moral and political equality of the sexes, a principle established by numerous Qur’anic verses". I say this verse he interprets does establish moral equality without a doubt, but I must wonder from where does he derive political equality? It is a stretch to say that women gain political authority simply from encouraging good deeds over bad ones. This is, afterall something women and men do all the time in daily life to thier children, to thier peers, freinds and even each other. Only in an overtly political and Islamist reading of this verse can one see this as a political activity akin to the law enforcement fucntions of the state. Without that Islamist framework, Safi's use of this verse cannot make the cut into an argument for female transactional leadership.
I think that appealing to this verse reveals the bankruptcy of resorting to making the texts say what we want them to say. This trend is important to those who desire to base all political actions from Quranic justifications or from the Hadith. I say, why bother? If the texts do not explicitly forbid female leadership in transactive capacities, why should we justify them through the texts. Well, you see there is this little problem of just such a hadith.
The hadith of putting the affairs in the hands of women was dealt with gingerly; Safi can't take the logical step of saying that it is probably false. His strongest argument seems to be that the hadith is an observation of the Prophet's but not an order. Perhaps this is true, but the text strongly connects the cause of putting one's affairs into the hands of women with the effect of being ruined.
Thus, Safi's discounture of this hadith is the right thing to do, but since he won't explicitly declare it a false hadith we are left with beleiving only that the Prophet's saying here is confined to a specific incident, that of the ascension of Anushirwan's daughter Buran as Shah of Persia. In this line of thinking, Safi gives only the statement that the hadith must be interpreted, "in the context of a political culture that places the hereditary rule over the principle of merit in deciding political succession." Does he mean the Prophet said she (Buran) would fail because she simply inherited the office and the most meritorious person was not chosen? Does this mean that the hadith's intent is to oppose hereditary leadership for all time and palces? If so, this would uphold the principle of hadith being applicable to all times and places. Why did the Prophet not just say that, then? Why did we have to wait for Dr Safi to figure this out in 2006?
Or, does Safi mean to say this this comment of the Prophet is confined to a specific incident and not for all time and places? I think he would be violating the political Islamist creed if he tries to say that what the Prophet said is not always relevant to all times and places (that's a progressive-only perogative, apparently)!
However, Safi all but declares it as irrelevant when he should have just said it was probably false. He says, "Finally, the hadith, being a singular narration (khabar ahad), is of a lesser degree of certainty than the Qur’anic narration (khabar mutawatar), and hence cannot overrule principles established in the Qur’an." So, why not take the extra step and declare it false? If one discounts the meaning, why not discount the text completely and irrevocably?
Thus, Dr Safi comes close to making a strong case for discounting the protests against female transactional leadership only when he argues against considering the above mentioned hadith. Nevertheless, he fell short in wholly discounting it by merely saying that the Quran takes precendence rather than dismissing the hadith out of hand. He could have done so by quoting the background, which is purported to be that twenty years after the Prophet supposedly said this, Abi Bakra mentioned this hadith as a barb against Aisha's leading an army and he is the only one to have ever narrated it. His positive argument that derives political meanings such as female political equality from the verse is not as strong. A better approach is to use practical arguments such as Dr Mattson's eminent qualifications for the job, the absence of Quranic evidence against it, and declaring the above hadith as false. Dr Safi comes close, but unfortunately get's no cigar on this one.
Omar, Q 9:71 is politically freighted; therefore, it actually is a good argument to support women's leadership. The phrase, "they are protectors (awliya') of one another" has an obvious political connotation, when one takes into account the social and political context of their revelation.
In seventh century Medina, as in late antiquity generally, the social and political framework was built upon relationships of patronage, clientage and alliance. Someone who is your "wali" (the singular of "awliya'") is someone who has a degree of power/influence or ability to offer protection. It is unfortunate that modern Quran translations sometimes provide depoliticized equivalents of "wali"/"awliya'" such as "friend(s)," which is misleading.
And "enjoining the good and forbidding evil" in the Quran does not simply mean giving private, day-to-day advice to children or others either. Remember, Medina was an embattled city-state with a significant proportion of the population either ambivalent about or even actively hostile to the Prophet's leadership. Q 9:71 is describing both women and men as active, political participants in building and maintaining the state.
(BTW, I do NOT in any way support Islamist readings of the Quran or their political programmes. These comments are from a historical perspective only.)
I'm amazed that people would even object to female leadership in this day in age.
But then again, most "Muslim" gender norms are bizarre to me. I respect their right to act the way they want, but still, protesting a female leader because of her sex.
MH, Maybe Safi whould include your reasoning, because you got me 90% convinced that this verse could actually be used that way. The remaining 10% of doubt comes from whether one can read it as politically relevant to *today*. I, too support female leadership, but nevertheless, I think its rather unfortunate we are using verses that do not seem to have resulted in female leadership in Madina or at any previous times in our history. But, if your interpretation became the 21st century standard, I could live with that.
- A Salafi in worship, a Sufi in society, a Secularist in government.
"It is unfortunate that modern Quran translations sometimes provide depoliticized equivalents of "wali"/"awliya'" such as "friend(s)," which is misleading." Muslim Hedonist
MH: this is one aspect of the unfortunate influence of Sufism on Islam. I have always understood 'wali/awliya' as you just explained it to be. Think about it: in Egypt, when a husband/a (familial) authority talks to a woman, he lovingly calls her : ya waliyya. it is a mixture of endearment and authority, ie, patronage.
sorry..forgot to fill out the name blank. I wrote the above post.
Dear Omar,
I don't think we are far apart in terms of our positions with regard to women's leadership. We both believe the women have a God-given right to contribute to public life and assume leadership role.
Your argument is that the principle of enjoining the right and opposing corruption does not establish political rights, and the hadith I discussed must be dismissed off hand without any further discussion.
I should congratulate you for having good “common sense†that helps you to see the fact the men and women share equal political right. Need I remind you that your common sense is derived from the fact that you grew up in society that has already accepted this equality. But for those who either grew up in different surrounding, or came to accept this inequality is ordained by God, your good common sense would not be persuasive enough. In addition, “common sense†is not universal, and often is influenced by prevailing cultures. One must, therefore, find a deeper subtenant to set his/her foundation on. Consequently, I chose to anchor my arguments in Islamic normative sources, and develop and argument on the basis of Islamic jurisprudence. I am sure that as a progressive you will take an issue with this very notion.
Future, I cannot dismiss the hadith off hand, just because it did not agree with my “common sense.†In Islamic jurisprudence, the validity and authenticity of hadith are not the same. From this reference point a hadith cannot simply be dismiss if it is considered authentic. One can, however, show that, although authentic, the hadith is invalid, and hence is not relevant to the debate at hand. This can be demonstrated with by showing that is to look at the historical context in which it was uttered and examine with it has a particular relation to that context, or to show that the Prophet’s statement was not intended as a directive.
Does this provide a satisfactory explanation to what seems from your vantage point as a superfluous exercise? I doubt it, but at least I hope you do understand where I come from. I also hope that you will also acknowledge that not all people share good common sense, and a more elaborate explanation is worth the effort.
Finally, do I want to be called Islamist? I don’t like labels and believe that using them in reference to most living human being is static and unhelpful. This is particularly so in relation to overcharge label like “Islamist.†The reality, though, is that all type of labels have been thrown at me, included: Islamist, fundamentalist, moderate, modernist, liberal, and, yes you guessed it, progressive!
Salaams,
Louay
Omar, consider this please. You and others must really dispense with this argument between moral equality versus political equality. Once something becomes poltiical, equality is never given and always fought for. Political action always involves the rise of privilege and the rise of defending it, whether this involves gender, race, social standing, or whatever. In democracies, there's no automatic political equality. It is something that has always involved struggle. So Muslim leadership and gender is a topic that has only a partial relationship to "women in Islam" dribble. It is more about political authority, which no one (NO ONE) gives up without a fight.
Salaams Dr Safi,
Good to go; I edited it out. Thanks for commenting; its always nice to see the bigwigs actually care enough to respond. I hope you consider using and crediting "Muslim Hedoninst"'s explanation using wali; it made alot of sense to me, and as I mentioned above, has me beleiving it 90% of the way. Will write more, but must take off now...
- A Salafi in worship, a Sufi in society, a Secularist in government.
Real quick, I am really late...
OK, dr Saif, you're using normative Islamic sources to argue for the benefit of people who grew up in different cultures. Fair enough (I'm progressive on the community reform side, but not much else it seems, and I my issue is with using the texts to derive socio-political norms rather than the much more important spiritual lessons). But, how will you respond if they say you are bringing a novel (as in innovative, which is a bad word in some circles) intepretations? How can it be defended when that verse has never, to my knowledge, resulted in female leadership especially in the Madinan period? And, if this verse is so well known for that, how could Abi Bakra attack Aisha's military leadership (such as it was, given that she lost) unless we are prepared to call him a bad Muslim? ("Insult a Sahabi? My God, never!") Either way, its a big step but only if we are ready to admit that verses in the Quran can be interpreted differently in different times and places, i.e. the relative meaning concept. Also, can we be honest and say that the idea of female presidency is a Western idea and we are simply bending towards that cultural norm? I don't at all think it is a bad thing, but shall we be intellectually dishonest about why we seek to declare female leadership a good thing? As you say and as I wil readily admit, I do so because its a cultural value of mine, not because I think God is ordering it. Nevertheless, I do see the utility of your approach, but wish it dod not have to be used in my own country.
- A Salafi in worship, a Sufi in society, a Secularist in government.
OK, I don't really care if I'm late because this is the kind of stuff that is motivating:
"One can, however, show that, although authentic, the hadith is invalid"
Invalid, authentic...I'm confused. Do you mean the isnad is authentic, but by meaning it is invalid? If so, does this not cast a very large shadow of doubt on the effectiveness of sanad analysis? Otherwise, we could go the Classical route and say that ahad hadith should not be used in fiqh; didn't someone say that then? I can't remember and don't have the time to research it.
"This can be demonstrated with by showing that is to look at the historical context in which it was uttered and examine with it has a particular relation to that context, or to show that the Prophet’s statement was not intended as a directive."
Well, this is where your agrument needs to be strengthened. I don't think the text lends itself to any other interpretation because vital pieces are missing such as him giving the reasoning behind his own statement as i mentioned in the article. It strongly implies a causality, i.e. a cosmic order of things in which female leadership results in ruination. I just don't see how it can be made irrelevant. Heck, I'm on your side, but if it doesn't convince me, how effective will it be towards those you direct it to?
- A Salafi in worship, a Sufi in society, a Secularist in government.
Oddly enough, wikipedia says she brought stability to the Sassanid empire, but was ultimately unsuccessful in stemming the tide of decentralized authority in the empire, something that started long before she became Shah. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purandokht) Oh, we also see her name starts with a 'p' and not with the Arabicized 'b'. Interesting.
- A Salafi in worship, a Sufi in society, a Secularist in government.
Are the crusades a myth invented by Islam?
My Qu'anic argument against the hadith banning women from leadership is simple; in the Qu'ran, The Queen Of Sheba joins Solomon in surrender to allah. This does not cost her the control of her kingdom, and allah demands no such thing of her.
Additionally, the chain of transmission of the hadith in question, in Bukhari, includes at least one man flogged for giving false evidence! Under Islamic law, such testimony is worthless.
There is no serious Islamic reason to forbid women from leadership if they are qualified. It is unfortunate that we even have to debate this.
Thanks, DA. I wouldn't have thought of that one, but it makes a strong point.
On another point, I think its interesting that of all the responses to both the original and my criticism have, except for MH and DA, focused mostly on the Hadith part of the arguemnt. Not many people have touched on the authority of the Quran in this matter aside from the article and my response to it, MH, and now DA. I suppose we're funny like that.
- A Salafi in worship, a Sufi in society, a Secularist in government.
Below is a reply from my professor which I think adds a good deal to the discussion: note the important point to me is that Bukhari simply included it in his book but *did not derive* a legal ruling from it (probably because he was dedicated to including anything that could be valid according to isnad analysis). THe distinction is subtle, but could be important given the current climate.
- A Salafi in worship, a Sufi in society, a Secularist in government.
"Consequently, I chose to anchor my arguments in Islamic normative sources, and develop and argument on the basis of Islamic jurisprudence. I am sure that as a progressive you will take an issue with this very notion. "
I didn't like this. As a person with a progressive outlook myself, I do not want to throw away normative sources and jurisprudence. I don't think that is what Omar G said either. My impression is that progressive oriented people just want to rethink and rehash certain conclusions (like anti-woman ones), which is really more true to the larger Islamic tradition anyway.
How irritating.