All praise be to Allah, and may His peace and blessings be on the last messenger, Muhammad,

I attempt here to explain a position I shared in a Facebook post a few days ago that caused some controversy. Not the most suitable undertaking in the beginning of Ramadan, but to be timely and to address the concerns of my fellow Muslims and students of knowledge.

The context:

As you all know, people have been distressed about the fact that Ramadan is starting while the World is under quarantine, the masajid are closed, and there are no communal services. The taraweeḥ prayers are not obligatory, but Muslims seem to have a special affection for them, which is something we do not need to deconstruct. A few days ago, I shared a post about different plans for those who may feel deprived during these hard times of one of Ramadan’s functions they grew up cherishing. Many of the suggestions should be completely innocuous, but I understood some may be controversial. I still shared them because it is not noble to hold back some suggestions in which people may find relief during these exceptional times. To my surprise, the issue of the women’s imamate of their households in taraweeḥ was the one that received the greatest attention. Here is what I said:

“You may have different members of the family rotate in leading the prayer and each one of them would review their part during the day.

This rotation of imams may include women and girls. They may lead from the back, only in taraweeḥ, and only their mahram men, according to the position of the majority of earlier Ḥanbalis (with some of them adding: if the men are not good reciters). Note: this is not the authorized position among the latter Ḥanbalis.”

The reason behind my surprise is that I did not think I was sharing new information. We had some fitnah a few years ago about women leading foreign men in the jumua’h and other congregational prayers. Many scholars addressed this issue and explained that there is a practical consensus that lasted for fourteen centuries against this position. As for scholarly opinions, it was made clear that no one ever held that odd (shazz) position and allowed women to lead foreign men in farḍ prayers except Abu Thawr, al-Muzani, al-Tabari [al-Masoo’ah al-Fiqhiyah 2:267], and Ibn ‘Arabi [69^th chapter of al-Futooḥât]. However, between the fourth century and Ibn ‘Arabi’s time, there was not a single scholar who allowed this. In addition to it being the practical consensus of the ummah, we have plenty of evidence on the prohibition of her leading foreign men in farḍ prayers and in nafl as well. The best women of history were most deserving of this “right” and we have never received a single report that they led men in the masajid. In fact, not even Shajarat al-Durr when she was the queen of Egypt. After all, the Prophet made a special door for women in his masjid, had them pray behind the men, and dispraised the last men’s row and first women’s row because of their proximity to one another, and he did not allow the woman to correct the imam in the prayer except by clapping, and they were not allowed to make adhân.

Having said that, at that time, many scholars have shared with the Muslim public a fair position that seems to be consistent with the evidence and respectful of the intent and wisdom of legislation, which is that women may lead their households in prayer, including their maḥram men. After all, they are barred from imamate because of the etiquettes of Islamic modesty and rules of gender interaction, not because of spiritual incompetence. (Note: this would not mean that the position of the vast majority that bars women from even that attributes deficiency to them. While I believe in the position I support here, it is very possible that it is wrong. In this case, it is Allah’s unquestionable wisdom that He barred them from leading any men: maḥram or non-maḥram. We listen and we obey.)

Here is an exposition of the position allowing women to lead their maḥram men in prayer by Sh. Yusuf al-Qaradawi (Allah preserve him):

In Arabic: https://www.al-qaradawi.net/node/4192

In English: https://archive.islamonline.net/1230

This statement I made about women getting into the rotation of imams in family taraweeḥ came in the middle of a long discussion about options for families to enjoy their taraweeḥ and make the most of them. It was not meant to be about this, and I did not feel the need to be more detailed. Aside from the shock at its newness, which is shocking to me, there was also criticism of this knowledge being unsuitable to be shared because it is not an authorized position in any madhhab or because the statement itself was inaccurate. I will answer the second one first.

Is the statement inaccurate?

If you scroll back to the top of this article, you will find that I ended the statement by saying that this is not the authorized position among the latter Hanbalis, something rarely done by someone who wants to support their position at the expense of the truth. I said that allowing women to lead men in taraweeḥ was the position of the majority of earlier Hanbalis, and I qualified this by they being maḥrams, and I added that some added to that another condition, which is that “the men are not good reciters.” 

I will now share al-Mardawy’s complete statement from al-Insaf and make a few comments and let you judge for yourselves. He (Allah bestow mercy on him) said,

“قوله (ولا تصح إمامة المرأة للرجل).

هذا المذهب مطلقا. قال في المستوعب: هذا الصحيح من المذهب، ونصره المصنف، واختاره أبو الخطاب وابن عبدوس في تذكرته، وجزم به في الكافي والمحرر والوجيز والمنور والمنتخب وتجريد العناية والإفادات، وقدمه في الفروع والرعايتين والحاويين والنظم ومجمع البحرين والشرح والفائق وإدراك الغاية وغيرهم، وهو ظاهر كلام الخرقي.

His saying (the woman’s imamate of a man is invalid): this is absolutely the madhhab. He said in al-Mustaw‘ib: this is the correct position in the madhhab, and the author supported it, and Abu al-Khaṭṭâb chose it and Ibn ‘Abdoos in his Tadhkirah, and it was affirmed in al-Kâfi, al-Muḥarrar, al-Wajeez, al-Munawwar, al-Muntakhab, Tajreed al-‘Inâyah and al-Ifâdât, and it was favored in al-Furoo‘, al-Ri‘âyatayn, al-Ḥâwiyayn, al-Nazm, Majma‘ al-Baḥrayn, al-Sharḥ, al-Fâiq, Idrâk al-Ghâyah and others. It is the apparent meaning of al-Khiraqi’s statement.

وعنه تصح في النفل وأطلقهما بن تميم.

And [it was reported] from him (Imam Ahmad) that it is valid in nafl. Ibn Tameem mentioned both reports without favoring.

وعنه تصح في التراويح نص عليه وهو الأشهر عند المتقدمين. قال أبو الخطاب وقال أصحابنا تصح في التراويح قال في مجمع البحرين اختاره أكثر الأصحاب. قال الزركشي منصوص أحمد واختيار عامة الأصحاب يجوز أن تؤمهم في صلاة التراويح انتهى. وهو الذي ذكره بن هبيرة عن أحمد وجزم به في الفصول والمذهب والبلغة وقدمه في التلخيص وغيره. وهو من المفردات. ويأتي كلامه في الفروع. 

قال القاضي في المجرد: ولا يجوز في غير التراويح.

And [it was reported] from him (Imam Ahmad) that it is valid in tarâweeḥ; he explicitly stated that, and it is the more popular position among the earlier [Hanbalis]. Abu al-Khattab said, our Hanbali companions said it is valid in tarâweeḥ. In Majma‘ al-Baḥrayn: it was chosen by the majority of our Hanbali companions. Al-Zarkashi said, ‘it is the explicit statement of Ahmad and the choice of the vast majority of the Hanbali companions that she may lead in tarâweeḥ.’ End quote. It is what Ibn Hubayrah reported from Ahmad and was affirmed in al-Fuṣool, al-Madhhab, al-Bulghah, and what was favored in al-Talkheeṣ and others. It is of the peculiar positions of the madhhab [i.e. not shared by any other of the four madhâhib]. We will come to his statements in al-Furoo‘. Al-Qadi said in al-Mujarrad: it is not permissible in other than tarâweeḥ.

فعلى هذه الرواية:

1. قيل يصح إن كانت قارئة وهم أميون جزم به في المذهب والفائق وابن تميم والحاويين. قال الزركشي وقدمه ناظم المفردات والرعاية الكبرى.
2. وقيل إن كانت أقرأ من الرجال.
3. وقيل إن كانت أقرأ وذا رحم وجزم به في المستوعب.
4. وقيل إن كانت ذا رحم
5. أو عجوز. واختار القاضي يصح إن كانت عجوزا.

In accordance with this riwâyah, it was said that it is valid if she was:

1. a reciter and they were illiterate. [not limited to maḥrams here] This was affirmed in al-Madhhab, al-Fâiq, Ibn Tameem, and al-Ḥâwiyayn. Al-Zarkashi said that it was favored by the Nâzim (composer) of al-Mufradât (peculiar positions of the madhhab) and al-Ri‘âyah al-Kubra.
2. Or if she is a better reciter than men (though the men are NOT illiterate). [not limited to maḥrams here]
3. Or if she is a better reciter and maḥram. This was affirmed by al-Mustaw‘
4. Or if she was mahram.
5. Or if she was old. Al-Qadi chose that it would be valid if she is old.

قال في الفروع واختار الأكثر صحة إمامتها في الجملة لخبر أم ورقة العام والخاص. والجواب عن الخاص رواه المروذي بإسناد يمنع الصحة، وإن صح فيتوجه حمله على النفل جمعا بينه وبين النهي ويتوجه احتمال في الفرض والنهي تصح مع الكراهة انتهى. [هنا سقط والذي في الفروع هو: “والنهي لا يصح مع أنه للكراهة.”]

It was said in al-Furoo‘: most chose the validity of her imamate in general due to the reports of Umm Waraqah: the general [allowing her to lead her household, as clarified in al-Mubdi‘ and other books] and the specific [allowing her to lead women of her household, as clarified in al-Mubdi‘ and other books].

The answer to the specific is that al-Marroudhi reported it with a chain that disqualifies it. If it is authentic, it should be interpreted to mean permission in nafl [only] to reconcile between it and the prohibition [the hadith prohibiting her imamate]. It is also plausible to be permissible in farḍ for the [hadith of] prohibition is not authentic, and if it is, it is for karâhah [because it also prohibits the Bedouin’s imamate of a muhajir, which is valid].

فائدة: حيث قلنا تصح إمامتها بهم، فإنها تقف خلفهم، لأنه أستر، ويقتدون بها. هذا الصحيح؛ قدمه في الفروع والفائق ومجمع البحرين والزركشي والرعاية الكبرى وجزم به في المذهب والمستوعب. قلت فيعايى بها.

Benefit: when we say her imamate of them is valid, she stands behind them, for that is more modest for her, and they follow her. This is the correct position; it was favored in al-Furoo‘, al-Fâiq, Majma‘ al-Baḥrayn, al-Zarkashi, al-Ri‘âyah al-Kubra, and it was affirmed in al-Madhhab and al-Mustaw‘ib. I say: it is used in Fiqhi riddles [like asking: when does the imam stand behind the ma’moom?]

وعنه تقتدي هي بهم في غير القراءة فينوي الإمامة أحدهم اختاره القاضي.

And [it was reported] from him (Imam Ahmad) that she follows them in other than the recitation, so one of them [the men] intends to be the imam.” End of al-Mardawy’s quote.

Now, the thing that is most obvious in al-Mardawy’s statement is that the permissibility of women leading men in the taraweeḥ is the explicit statement of Imam Ahmad (rA) and the choice of the vast majority of the earlier Hanbalis. Now, when they tried to qualify it to make it consistent with the general principles and possibly also closer to the position of the three other madhhaib, something they have done in all madhhaib, they had 5 positions and some like the author of al-Mubdi’ made them three, which is that the woman either (1- maḥram, 2- old, 3- a better reciter), but out of the five positions, there is only one that has double qualifiers, which is the third: “a better reciter and maḥram.” The four others would be: mahram, old, reciter while the men are not, a better reciter.

I chose being a maḥram as the most reasonable qualifier, but I also added in my original statement that some had a double qualifier. The choice is clear to me. She is not leading men in prayer because of Islamic rules of modesty. If she leads her mahram men (from the back) as I also said in my original post, there is no violation of modesty. This is also more consistent with the hadith of Umm Waraqah the madhhab based this peculiar position on. It is reported by Imam Ahmad, Abu Dawud, and others on the authority of Umm Waraqah: she said that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) appointed a [male] muezzin for her, and ordered her to lead the members of her household in Prayer. (They included men and women.) al-Daraqutni’s report that said, “women of her house (nisa’ dariha)” is questionable and does not specify the generality of the stronger report by Ahmad and Abu Dawood. One may also read what the scholars of hadith said about the additions of al-Dâraqutni (d. 385) that are not found in the six compilations of Sunnah.

Now, is this position too weak to be cited?

The answer to this depends on a different discussion that can never be given justice in a few paragraphs. Some criticized the statement because, in their principles, basing a fatwa on other than the authorized position in one’s madhhab is forbidden; I can respect their position while I disagree with it. I explain my position on this and the agreement of the four imams and what conditions need to be developed to regulate the use of unauthorized positions among other issues here: https://yaqeeninstitute.org/hatem-elhaj/shariah-in-todays-world-renewing-islamic-discourse/ In short, the vast majority of the fatwa bodies and my mashayekh and peers who deal with people as care takers, not only teachers, and who are involved in iftâ’ and da‘wah, understand the need for flexibility. The Shar‘i laws of different Muslim countries determined by their fatwa bodies have adopted not only unauthorized positions from the madhâhib, but positions outside the four madhâhib: something they do in Egypt, Syria, Jordan, KSA, etc., for instance with the fatawa of divorce; something all fiqh bodies do all the time in the fatawa of financial transactions and many others. You may agree or disagree with some of Sh. Ben Bayyeh’s positions, but the one thing we cannot deny is his vast knowledge and grounded-ness in the sciences of Sharia. If someone has time to read this Arabic booklet, you may find it beneficial: http://www.xn--abdelmajidtlemeni-nsb.com/%D8%B5%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%81%D8%AA%D9%88%D9%89-%D9%88%D9%81%D9%82%D9%87-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D9%82%D9%84%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AA/.

The majority of the mashayekh also understand that the ijtihad of our great ancestors during a certain period of time to limit the fatwa to the authorized views of the four madhâhib, while we may respect it and see its rationale, does not override the ijtihad of all of their predecessors. Not only that we cannot find definitive evidence on this position of limiting fatwa to certain individuals in the Quran and Sunnah, but we cannot find it in the edicts and practice of the righteous predecessors, as you may find in the article linked above. [You may also read here what Dâr al-Iftâ’ al-Miṣriyah says about this position: https://www.dar-alifta.org/AR/ViewFatawaConcept.aspx?ID=%20187] They clearly say that limiting the fatwa to the four madhâhib was a procedural ijtihad to procure certain maṣâlih during certain times, but it is not binding on all generations, and there is no definitive evidence on it.

In the Hanbali madhhab, in particular, Imam Ahmad was most flexible in this regard and Al-Qâḍi Abu Yaʽlâ (rA) cites in al-‘Uddah several reports from Aḥmad allowing his disciples and other people who asked him to find a concession in fatwas by other scholars, referring them at times to Abdul Wahhâb al-Warrâq, Isḥâq, or Abu Thawr, and even to locations where scholars gathered to ask any of them. The latter Hanbalis affirmed that it is permissible to use the different wujooh (variant views) in the madhhab for fatwa, not only ‘amal (one’s own practice), and they said in one’s own ‘amal, each Hanbali companion is an imam that may be followed (while this position is not only Hanbali, limiting the use of any positions to the Mufti’s own practice, and not extending the same flexibility to fatwa, was certainly well-intended by our ancestors, but it is unsustainable, and I am afraid it is not anymore defensible, so in our times conditions have to be developed to regulate their use.)

Al-Mardawy said in al-Inṣâf:

“واعلم رحمك الله أن الترجيح إذا اختلف بين الأصحاب إنما يكون ذلك لقوة الدليل من الجانبين وكل واحد ممن قال بتلك المقالة إمام يقتدى به فيجوز تقليده والعمل بقوله، ويكون ذلك في الغالب مذهبا لإمامه لأن الخلاف إن كان للإمام أحمد فواضح وإن كان بين الأصحاب فهو مقيس على قواعده وأصوله ونصوصه وقد تقدم أن الوجه مجزوم بجواز الفتيا به والله سبحانه وتعالى أعلم.”

“Know – may Allah have mercy on you – that when the Hanbali companions disagree on favoring positions, it is because of the strength of evidence on both sides, and each one of them is an imam that may be followed, so it is permissible to follow him and act on his statement, and that would usually be a [recognized] madhhab for his imam, because when the disagreement involves Imam Ahmad, then it is clear, but if it is between the Hanbali companions, it is based on his maxims, principles, and statements, and it has preceded that is certainly permissible to base fatwa on wajh (view), and Allah, Glorified and Exalted, knows more.”

Finally, I love my fellow Muslims, and I love their concern for the deen. I realize that I may be wrong about any speculative matter of the deen where certainty is unattainable, so I welcome their advice and feedback. Some may share their convictions with rifq (gentleness), hikmah (wisdom), and anâh (deliberation), and I ask Allah to reward them. Some may be a little hasty or a little rough or even ill-motivated, and I ask Allah to forgive my sins and theirs and cure our hearts.

وصلى الله على محمد والحمد لله رب العالمين