The Issue of

Female Rulership
Verdict of the Senior Scholars

Muftī Muḥammad Rafī‘ ‘Uthmānī

In the name of Allāh, the Most Merciful, the Beneficent
All praise belongs to Allāh and He suffices. Peace be upon His chosen slaves.
Based on the clear statements of the Qur’ān and Sunnah, it has been accepted and undisputed for
fourteen centuries amongst the Fuqahā’ of the Ummah that the obligations of the post of rulership
in an Islāmic government cannot be entrusted to a woman. ‘Allāmah Ibn Ḥazm [Allāh have
mercy on him] has written a book called Marātib al-Ijmā‘ in which he compiled the issues in
which the Ummah have reached consensus and unanimity. He wrote in this book:

)١٢٦ ‫ ص‬،‫(مراتب اإلمجاع البن حزم‬ ‫واتفقوا أن اإلمامة ال جتوز المرأة‬

“[All ‘Ulamā’] are in agreement that [the post of] rulership is not permissible for a
woman.”
This consensus is based on many evidences of the Qur’ān and Sunnah, which I will present below
in order of clarity:
1. In Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and other books, the following statement has been narrated from the
Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬via several authentic chains:

،‫ ابب كتاب النيب صلى هللا عليه وسلم إىل كسرى وقيصر‬،‫ كتاب املغازي‬،‫(صحيح البخاري‬ ‫لن يفلح قوم ولوا أمرهم امرأة‬
)٧٠٩٩ ‫ حديث منرب‬،‫ ابب الفتنة اليت متوج كموج البحر‬،‫ وكتاب الفنت‬،٤٤٢٥ ‫حديث منرب‬

“People who entrust their affairs to a woman will never be successful.”

It is also mentioned in this ḥadīth that the Prophet  made this statement when the
people of Iran appointed a woman as ruler. This is thus clear evidence for the
impermissibility of making a woman the sovereign ruler.

2. It is narrated from Haḍrat Abū Hurayrah [Allāh be pleased with him] that the Prophet ‫ﷺ‬
said:

،‫إذا كانت أمراؤكم خياركم وأغنياؤكم مسحاءكم وأموركم شورى بينكم فظهر األرض خري لكم من بطنها‬
‫وإذا كانت أمراؤكم شراركم وأغنياؤكم خبالءكم وأموركم إىل نساءكم فبطن األرض خري لكم من ظهرها‬
)٢‫ ج‬٥٢‫ ص‬،‫ أبواب الفنت‬،‫(جامع الرتمذي‬

“When the best of you are your rulers and your rich are your generous folk, and
your affairs are decided based on consultation amongst yourselves, then the surface
of the earth is better for you than its inside. And when your rulers are the wicked
amongst you and your rich are your stingy folk, and your matters are entrusted to
women, then the inside of the earth is better for you than its surface.”

This ḥadīth too is clear enough that no explanation is required.

3. Haḍrat Abū Bakrah [Allāh be pleased with him] narrates that the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬sent an army
somewhere. Someone brought good news of victory from there. Hearing news of victory,
 he ‫ ﷺ‬fell into prostration. Following the prostration, he took details from the messenger.
He explained the details:

‫ هلكت الرجال حني‬:‫ فقال النيب صلى هللا عليه وسلم‬،‫ كانت تليهم امرأة‬:‫فكان فيما حدثه من أمر العدو‬
)‫ ابب سجدة الشكر‬،‫؛ كتاب األدب‬٢٩١‫ ص‬٤‫ ج‬،‫(مستدرك احلاكم‬ ‫أطاعت النساء‬

“From what he told him about the affair of the enemy is: ‘A woman was in charge of
them.’ The Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬said: ‘Men are destroyed when they follow women.’”

Imām al-Ḥākim [Allāh have mercy on him] described it as “ṣaḥīḥ al-isnād”, and Ḥāfiẓ al-
Dhahabī also considered it ṣaḥīḥ.

4. The Noble Qur’ān states:

‫الرجال قوامون على النساء مبا فضل هللا بعضهم على بعض‬

“Men are ‘Qawwām’ (overseers, authorities) over women on account of the

distinction Allāh has given one over the other.”

Allāh [exalted is He] has clearly given the position of “Qawwām” in this verse to men.
Although it appears the verse is essentially about domestic affairs, there is, firstly, no
word in the verse that specifies it to domestic affairs and, secondly, it is obvious that since
Allāh [exalted is He] did not grant this group authority over a small house, how then
would He grant it authority to have sovereignty over all homes and the entire country?!
Hence, if not by the direct meaning of the verse (‘ibārat al-naṣṣ), then certainly by
indirect indication (dalālat al-naṣṣ), it proves that a woman cannot be made ruler over
any Islamic country.

5. In Sūrah Aḥzāb, Allāh [exalted is He] has clearly explained a woman’s sphere of activity.
He said:

‫وقرن يف بيوتكن وال تربجن تربج اجلاهلية األوىل‬

“Remain firmly in your homes and do not come out brazenly like the earlier
Jāhiliyyah.”

It has clearly been stated in this verse that the primary obligation of a woman is her
domestic duties. Making herself free of the chores and duties outside the home, she
should fulfil the obligation of bettering her home and nurturing the family, which in
reality is the foundation of an entire nation and civilisation. Hence, in terms of the default,
and barring exceptional cases, no responsibility outside the home can be handed over to a
woman.

Some people say that the address is specifically directed at the Pure Wives of the Prophet
‫ﷺ‬, not that all women are being addressed. But this is so obviously incorrect that no
lengthy discussion is required to refute it.
 Firstly, while addressing the Pure Wives at this juncture of the Noble Qur’ān, a directive
is made towards many issues like adopting Taqwā, obeying Allāh and His Messenger,
avoiding lewd activities, etc. Not a single one of these matters is such that any sensible
person can say the directive is exclusive to the Pure Wives and is not for any other
women. Since all these directives are for all women, why is the command to remain at
home alone made exclusive to the Pure Wives?

Secondly, which Muslim can doubt that the Pure Wives of the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬were the best
women of the Ummah in terms of scholarly and devotional capabilities, and were mothers
of the entire Ummah? If in Islām the responsibility of governance and administration,
livelihood and economy, could be handed over to a woman, there cannot be any woman
more suited to this role than these holy women. Since the Noble Qur’ān has forbidden
them from taking these roles and has instructed them to remain within the confines of
their homes, which woman can there be of whom it is said, “The reason the Pure Wives
were told to stay at home is not found in her”?!

6. The sphere of activity of a woman that is identified in Sūrah Aḥzāb of the Qur’ān is
explained by the leader of the two worlds ‫ ﷺ‬in this manner:

‫ حديث‬،١ ‫ ابب‬،‫ كتاب األحكام‬،‫(صحيح البخاري‬ ‫ وهي مسئولة عنهم‬،‫واملرأة راعية على أهل بيت زوجها وولده‬
،٢٧٥١ ،٢٥٥٨ ،٢٤٥٤ ،٢٤٠٩ ‫ والحظوا منرب‬،٨٩٣ ‫ حديث منرب‬،‫ ابب اجلمعة يف القرى واملدن‬،‫ وكتاب اجلمعة‬،٧١٣٨ ‫منرب‬
)٥٢٠٠ ،٥١٨٨

“The woman is overseer of the household and children of her husband and is
responsible for them.”

It has clearly been stated in this ḥadīth that the woman’s responsibility is to oversee the
management of the house, nurturing the children and arranging domestic matters. No duty
outside the house has been handed to her.

7. In Islām, “heading a government” and “being imām of Ṣalāh” are both so closely tied to
each other that heading a government, in the terminology of Sharī‘ah, is also called
“imāmah”. Just as the word “imām” is used for the one leading Ṣalāh, the head of
government is likewise called “imām”. At many places of the Qur’ān and Ḥadīth, the
head of government has been referred to by this term. The noble Fuqahā’ [Allāh have
mercy on them] differentiate the two senses of “imāmah” by referring to leading Ṣalāh as
“minor imāmah” (imāmah ṣughrā) and leading government as “major imāmah” (imāmah
kubrā).

It is established, and no one can deny, that a woman cannot lead men in Ṣalāh. Since
Allāh [exalted is He] has not handed over the rank of lesser imāmah to her, how can the
rank of greater imāmah be handed over to her?

In Islām, how strong is the link between Ṣalāh and heading a government? This can be
appreciated from the following few issues:
 a. After acquiring power over any part of the earth, the very first obligation of the
Muslim authorities has been determined as “establishing Ṣalāh”. The Qur’ān states:

‫الذين إن مكنهم يف األرض أقاموا الصالة وآتوا الزكاة وأمروا ابملعروف وهنوا عن املنكر‬

“Those who if We establish them on the earth, they establish Ṣalāh and give
Zakāt and command virtue and forbid vice.”

b. From the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬to the Khulafā’ Rāshidūn [Allāh be pleased with them], in fact
for centuries after them, a continuous practice has been in force: the congregation in
which the head of government was present, it is he that will would carry out the
imāmah of Ṣalāh. Thus, the Fuqahā’ of all schools agree that the one who has the first
right of imāmah of Ṣalāh is the Muslim head of government. When, on account of his
final sickness, the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬was unable to come to the Masjid, he appointed Ḥaḍrat
Ṣiddīq Akbar [Allāh be pleased with him] to replace him in leading the Ṣalāh. The
Noble Ṣaḥābah inferred from this that by handing over the “minor imāmah” to him
there is an indication that the most deserving of the “major imāmah”, meaning the
headship of government, after him ‫ﷺ‬, is Ḥaḍrat Ṣiddīq Akbar [Allāh be pleased with
him]. Ḥaḍrat ‘Alī [Allāh be pleased with him] said:

‫ وإان نرى أاب بكر أحق الناس هبا بعد رسول هللا صلى هللا‬،‫ما غضبنا إال ألان قد أخران عن املشاورة‬
‫ ولقد أمره رسول هللا صلى هللا‬،‫ وإان نعلم بشرفه وكربه‬،‫ واثين اثنني‬،‫ وإنه لصاحب الغار‬،‫عليه وسلم‬
‫ وأقره‬،‫ صحيح على شرط الشيخني‬:‫ وقال‬،٦٦‫ ص‬٣‫ ج‬،‫(مستدرك احلاكم‬ ‫عليه وسلم ابلصالة ابلناس وهو حي‬
)‫الذهيب‬

“We were upset only for not being included in the consultation. Otherwise, we
believe Abū Bakr [Allāh be pleased with him] to be the most deserving of leadership
after the Messenger of Allāh ‫ﷺ‬. He is his companion in the cave, and the second of
the two. We recognise his nobility and greatness. In his lifetime, the Messenger of
Allāh ‫ ﷺ‬instructed him to lead people in Ṣalāh.”

c. The head of government having the right to lead Ṣalāh has so much importance in
Sharī‘ah that the head of government has more priority to lead Janāzah Ṣalāh than the
heirs of the deceased. It is established that if the head of government is present in the
Janāzah Ṣalāh, he has the first right to lead the Ṣalāh, and thereafter the heirs.
From all these rules, it is clear that, in Islām, heading the government has such a strong
connection with Ṣalāh that it is inconceivable in Islām for a ruler to be unqualified to lead
Ṣalāh. Regardless of the high level of Taqwā and chastity a woman has achieved, since
she cannot lead men in Ṣalāh, she cannot be handed the function of the greater imāmah
and heading a government.
8. There is a common element clearly evident in all rules of Islām: a woman has been
considered a “hidden commodity” for whom it is not at all desirable to come out before a
public congregation without need. The leader of the two worlds ‫ ﷺ‬said:
 )١١٨٣ ‫ حديث منرب‬،‫ أبواب النكاح‬،‫الشيطان (جامع الرتمذي‬ ‫ فإذا خرجت استشرفها‬،‫املرأة عورة‬

“The woman is to be concealed. Hence, when she emerges (from her home), Shayṭān
directs his gaze at her.”

Hence, the woman has been told to observe “purdah” (staying behind a screen). Common
Muslims have been given this order:

)‫حجاب (سورة األحزاب‬ ‫وإذا سألتموهن متاعا فاسئلوهن من وراء‬

“When you ask them for something, ask from behind a purdah.”

There are many rules and features of Islām observance of which depends on coming
outside. Women have been exempted from them. For example, the Jumu‘ah Ṣalāh is a
thing of such great virtue, and there is much emphasis in Qur’ān and Ḥadīth for men to
join it. But, despite this, the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬said:

،‫(سنن أيب داود‬ ‫ عبد مملوك أو امرأة أو صيب أو مريض‬:‫اجلمعة حق واجب على كل مسلم يف مجاعة إال أربعة‬
)١٠٦٧ ‫ حديث منرب‬،‫ابب اجلمعة للملوك واملرأة‬

“Jumu‘ah is an obligatory duty on every Muslim to be performed in congregation,

besides four: a slave that is under ownership [of another], a woman, child and sick
person.”

In this ḥadīth, a woman has been excluded from such salient a feature of Islām as
Jumu‘ah.

Similarly, in general circumstances, it has been described as a right of every Muslim for
other Muslims, on the occasion of his death, to follow his bier to the graveyard. But
women have been excluded from this rule also. Ḥaḍrat Umm ‘Aṭiyyah [Allāh be pleased
with her] said:

)‫ ابب اتباع النساء اجلنازة‬،١٧٠‫ ص‬١‫ ج‬،‫(صحيح البخاري‬ ‫هنينا عن اتباع اجلنائز‬

“We were forbidden from following the deceased [to the grave].”

Similarly, a woman has been forbidden from travelling alone, and it has been decreed that
they do not travel without a maḥram. The Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬said:

‫ال حيل المرأة تؤمن ابهلل واليوم اآلخر أن تسافر سفرا يكون ثالثة أايم فصاعدا إال ومعها أبوها أو أخوها‬
‫ حديث منرب‬،‫ ابب كراهية أن تسافر املرأة وحدها‬،‫ كتاب النكاح‬،‫(جامع الرتمذي‬ ‫أو زوجها أو ابنها أو ذو رحم منها‬
)١١٧٩
“It is not permitted for a woman that believes in Allāh and the Last Day to travel (a
distance of) three days or more unless her father, brother, husband, son or another
maḥram is with her.”

This is to the extent that even for the performance of Ḥajj – which is a sacred obligation
from the pillars of Islām – it is a condition to have a maḥram accompanying her. It is not
allowed according to anyone for a woman to travel alone for Ḥajj. In such a scenario, Ḥajj
is waived. If a maḥram is not available right until death, Ḥajj may not be done, but a
bequest for Ḥajj Badal (substitute Ḥajj) must be made.

How important a pillar is Jihād in Islām? The Qur’ān and Ḥadīth are replete with its
virtues. But because this is an activity outside the home, the obligation of Jihād too is
waived for women. The following statement of the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬is narrated in some ḥadīths:

‫ والفتح‬،‫ وفيه جماهيل‬،‫ حبوالة الطرباين‬،١٧٠‫ ص‬٢‫ ج‬،‫(جممع الزوائد‬ ‫ليس على النساء غزو وال مجعة وال تشييع جنازة‬
)٦١‫ ص‬٣‫ ج‬،‫الكبري للنبهاين‬

“Neither Jihād, nor Jumu‘ah nor following the bier [to the grave] is necessary on
women.”

This is to the extent that once Ḥaḍrat Umm Salamah [Allāh be pleased with her] out of
zeal for Jihād asked the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬the following question:

‫يغزو الرجال وال تغزو النساء؟‬

“Men do Jihād and women do not do Jihād?”

At this, this verse of the Noble Qur’ān was revealed:

،٥٠١١ ‫ حديث منرب‬،‫ سورة النساء‬،‫ كتاب التفسري‬،‫(جامع الرتمذي‬ ‫وال تتمنوا ما فضل هللا به بعضكم على بعض‬
)٣٢٢‫ ص‬٦‫ ج‬،‫ومسند أمحد‬

“Do not desire those things that Allāh has favoured some with over others.”

Let it be clear that in the time of the Prophet ‫ﷺ‬, some women accompanied the armies to
tend to the wounded etc. But the point is that, firstly, Jihād was not officially obligated on
them. Secondly, they were not officially included within the fighting. Thus, Ḥaḍrat
‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Abbās [Allāh be pleased with him] said:

‫ كتاب‬،‫(صحيح مسلم‬ ‫ وأما بسهم فلم يضرب هلن‬،‫وقد كان يغزو هبن فيداوين اجلرحى وحيذين من الغنيمة‬
)٤٤٤٨ ‫ حديث منرب‬،‫ ابب النساء الغازايت‬،‫اجلهاد‬

“The Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬would take women into battle. They would tend to the wounded.
They would be given something as a gift from the spoils. However, he ‫ ﷺ‬did not fix
an official share from the spoils for them.”
 Although the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬had given permission in his time for women to come to Masjid
Nabawī at night and pray in congregation, along with this permission, he said:

)٥٦٨ ،٥٦٧ ‫ حديث منرب‬،‫ ابب خروج النساء إىل املساجد‬،‫ كتاب الصالة‬،‫(سنن أبو داود‬ ‫وبيوهتن خري هلن‬

“Their homes are better for them.”

The clear meaning of this is that it is more virtuous for women to pray Ṣalāh alone at
home rather than to pray in the masjid, even though without a strong excuse, it is not
permissible for men to miss congregation in the masjid. In fact, regarding women the
following was stated:

‫(سنن أبو‬ ‫صالة املرأة يف بيتها أفضل من صالهتا يف حجرهتا وصالهتا يف خمدعها أفضل من صالهتا يف بيتها‬
)٥٧٠ ‫ حديث منرب‬،‫داود‬

“A woman performing Ṣalāh in her private room is superior to her performing

Ṣalāh in the exterior room, and her performing Ṣalāh in her inner compartment is
superior to her performing Ṣalāh in her outer compartment.”

It is evident from these ḥadīths that:

a. Jumu‘ah is not obligatory on women.

b. It is not allowed for a woman to travel without a maḥram.
c. When alone, it is not obligatory for a woman to perform Ḥajj. If a maḥram is not
available right until the dying breath, she must make a bequest for Ḥajj Badal.
d. Jihād is not obligatory on a woman.
e. It is not necessary for a woman to perform Ṣalāh in congregation.
f. For a woman to pray Ṣalāh alone at home is better than praying Ṣalāh outdoors in
congregation.
It is now a point to consider: The religion that has given such emphasis on preserving the
sanctity and holiness of a woman that at various junctures it has waived important
integrals and salient aspects of religion from her, how can it be conceivable that it will
make her stand before not just the entire country but the entire world in handing over to
her the important administrative duties of country and nation, and it will hand over all
activity at a communal level to her – a responsibility it doesn’t even sanction for her on
an individual basis?!
9. From the blessed time of the Noble Prophet, master of the two worlds ‫ﷺ‬, until the
righteous caliphate, and in fact centuries after the righteous caliphate, electing the caliph
and the head of government was an important political matter for the Ummah. When
electing a new caliph, many proposals were made every time. At the time, there were
countless women who, from the perspective of knowledge and excellence, holiness and
piety, intellect and understanding, held a distinguished position. But, not only was it that a
woman never became the head of government, not even a trivial proposal was made that
so-and-so female should be appointed ruler. This is clear evidence that the laws of Qur’ān
and Sunnah in this respect are clear to the degree that not even the thought came to the
mind of a Muslim to make a woman ruler. And how could the thought come to them
when in Islām no such ruler is conceivable who:
a. Can never be the leader of Ṣalāh.
b. It is undesirable for them to pray Ṣalāh in congregation.
c. If they were to join a congregation they must stand behind all men.
d. Several days of each month pass in which they may not even enter the Masjid.
e. Jumu‘ah is not obligatory upon them.
f. It is not permissible for them to follow the funeral procession.
g. Cannot travel without a maḥram.
h. Cannot do Ḥajj alone.
i. Jihād is not obligatory upon them.
j. Their testimony is considered half a testimony.
k. It is not permissible for them to leave the house without need.
l. Their maintenance and expenses are necessary on the father before marriage and
on the husband after marriage.
This is to the degree that they do not even hold the position of leadership in their own
house. This is evident in light of the Noble Qur’ān. But to our knowledge even amongst
those who proclaim “women’s freedom” in this age, there isn’t a society on the surface of
the earth where the woman is appointed leader of the family when the husband is present.
The Consensus (Ijmā‘) of the Ummah
Based on the aforementioned evidences of the Qur’ān and Sunnah, for fourteen centuries the
Muslim Ummah have maintained a consensus in every age up until today that in Islām the
function of heading a government cannot be handed over to a woman. The consensus of the
Ummah is an independent proof in Sharī‘ah. To prove the consensus, at the start of this write-up,
I have presented a citation from ‘Allāmah Ibn Ḥazm [Allāh have mercy on him]. In a book he
wrote to establish only unanimous verdicts, he said:

‫واتفقوا أن اإلمامة ال جتوز المرأة‬

“[All ‘Ulamā’] are in agreement that [the post] of rulership is not permissible for a
woman.”
Shaykh al-Islām ‘Allāmah Ibn Taymiyyah [Allāh have mercy on him], being the informed
scholar that he is, wrote a critique of the aforementioned book of ‘Allāmah Ibn Ḥazm [Allāh have
mercy on him] with the title Naqd Marātib al-Ijmā‘. He discussed some issues which ‘Allāmah
Ibn Ḥazm [Allāh have mercy on him] determined to be a matter of consensus but according to the
research of ‘Allāmah Ibn Taymiyyah [Allāh have mercy on him] are not matters of consensus,
but in fact there is disagreement in them. In this book too, in the matter of female rulership, he
did not object at all to ‘Allāmah Ibn Ḥazm [Allāh have mercy on him]. (Naqd Marātib al-Ijmā‘ li
Ibn Taymiyyah, p126)
Apart from these personalities, ‘Ulamā’ and Fuqahā’ and experts on Islāmic politics who have
written books on the political system of Islām, every one of them mentioned this point as a matter
of consensus. ‘Allāmah Māwardī’s [Allāh have mercy on him] book is considered a very
important resource on Islāmic politics. In it, let alone the headship of government, he has also
determined handing the responsibility of viziership to women to be impermissible. In fact, he
divided viziership into two categories: one is a “viziership of authorisation” in which determining
policy is one of the roles of the vizier, and the second is “viziership of execution” in which
policies are not determined but already agreed policies are executed. He said that the conditions
for being qualified for “viziership of execution” are less in comparison to “viziership of
authorisation”. Despite this, he does not regard it to be permissible to hand over the function of
“viziership of execution” to a woman. He writes:

‫وال جيوز أن تقوم بذلك امرة وإن كان خربها مقبوال ملا تضمنه‬...‫وأما وزارة التنفيذ فحكمها أضعف وشروطها أقل‬
‫ وألن‬،‫ ما أفلح قوم أسندوا أمرهم إىل امرأة‬:‫معىن الوالايت املصروفة عن النساء لقول النيب صلى هللا عليه وسلم‬
‫(األحكام‬ ‫فيها من طلب الرأي وثبات العزم ما تضعف عنه النساء ومن الظهور يف مباشرة األمور ما هو عليهن حمظور‬
)٣١‫ ص‬،‫؛ واألحكام السلطانية أليب يعلى‬٢٧-٢٥‫ ص‬،‫السلطانية للماوردي‬

“As for the viziership of execution, its rule is weaker and its conditions fewer…It is not
permissible that a woman holds that [position] even though her report is accepted, given it
incorporates the aspect of administrative duties that are removed from women based on the
statement of the Prophet : ‘A people will not succeed who delegate their affair to a
woman,’ and because it entails reaching decisions and having firm resolve, which women
fall short in, and [entails] being exposed when executing affairs which women are forbidden
from.”
A second important resource for the political system of Islām is Imām Abū Ya‘lā Ḥanbalī’s
[Allāh have mercy on him] book. He too has written this same thing verbatim.
Imām al-Ḥaramayn ‘Allāmah Juwaynī [Allāh have mercy on him] has written very important
books on the political system of Islām. He lived at the time of such acclaimed a ruler as Niẓām al-
Mulk al-Ṭūsī. Upon his request, he wrote his seminal book Ghiyāth al-Umam on the political
rules of Islām. In it, he wrote while explaining the conditions of the head of government:

‫ وال حاجة إىل اإلطناب يف نصب الدالالت‬،‫ الذكورة واحلرية وحنيزة العقل والبلوغ‬:‫ومن الصفات الالزمة املعتربة‬
)‫ مطبوعه قطر‬،٨٢‫ ص‬،‫(غياث األمم للجويين‬ ‫على إثبات هذه الصفات‬
“Amongst the necessary characteristics that are taken into consideration are: being male,
being free, firmness of mind and maturity. There is no need to elongate in producing proofs
to establish these characteristics.”
This same Imām al-Ḥaramayn [Allāh have mercy on him] wrote in another book of his al-Irshād:

‫(اإلرشاد يف أصول‬ ‫وأمجعوا أن املرأة ال جيوز أن تكون إماما وإن اختلفوا يف جواز كوهنا قاضية فيما جيوز شهادهتا فيه‬
)‫ طبع مصر‬،٤٢٧‫ وص‬٣٥٩‫ ص‬،‫اإلعتقاد إلمام احلرمني اجلويين‬

“Everyone agrees that it is not permissible for a woman to be the head of government,
although there is disagreement whether she can be a Qāḍī in those things in which her
testimony is valid.”
‘Allāmah Qalqashandī [Allāh have mercy on him] is regarded as an authority in literature and
prose, and history and politics. In a book he wrote on the principles of governance, he described
fourteen characteristics of competence for the head of government. To commence with he wrote:

‫ واملرأة‬،‫واملعىن يف ذلك أن اإلمام ال يستغين عن اإلختالط ابلرجال واملشاورة معهم يف األمور‬....‫األول الذكورة‬
‫ فال جتعل إليها الوالية على غريها‬،‫ وألن املرأة انقصة يف أمر نفسها حىت ال متلك النكاح‬،‫ممنوعة من ذلك‬
“The first is being male…The wisdom behind this is that the head of government cannot
avoid intermingling with men and consulting with them in affairs, and the woman is
forbidden from that, and because the woman is deficient in commanding her own self to the
point that she has no independent authority over getting married, so authority will not be
given to her over another.”
Imām Baghawī [Allāh have mercy on him] is a famous Mufassir, Muḥaddith and Faqīh of the
fifth century of Hijrah. He wrote:

‫ألن اإلمام حيتاج إىل اخلروج إلقامة أمر اجلهاد والقيام أبمور‬...‫اتفقوا على أن املرأة ال تصلح أن تكون إماما‬
)‫ه‬١٤٠٠ ‫ سنة‬،‫ طبع بريوت‬،‫ ابب كراهية تولية النساء‬،٧٧‫ ص‬١‫ ج‬،‫(شرح السنة للبغوي‬ ‫واملرأة عورة ال تصلح للربوز‬...‫املسلمني‬
“The Ummah are in agreement that a woman cannot be the head of government…because
the imām needs to emerge to administer the task of Jihād and to oversee the affairs of the
Muslims…while the woman is to be concealed & is not suited to come out [in public].”
After citing the ḥadīth of Ḥaḍrat Abū Bakrah [Allāh be pleased with him], Ḥaḍrat Abū Bakr ibn
al-‘Arabī [Allāh have mercy on him] said:
 )‫ سورة النمل‬،٤٤٥‫ ص‬٣‫ ج‬،‫(أحكام القرآن البن العريب‬ ‫وهذا نص أن املرأة ال تكون خليفة وال خالف فيه‬
“This ḥadīth is a clear text that a woman cannot be caliph, and there is no disagreement on
this.”
‘Allāmah al-Qurṭubī [Allāh have mercy on him] too in his Tafsīr, presented this citation of Ibn al-
‘Arabī [Allāh have mercy on him] and gave it support, and said there is no disagreement amongst
the scholars on this matter. (Tafsīr al-Qurṭubī, v13 p83, Sūrat al-Naml)
Imām al-Ghazālī [Allāh have mercy on him] said:

،‫(فضائح الباطنية للغزايل‬ ‫الرابع الذكورية فال تنعقد اإلمامة المرأة وإن اتصف جبميع خالل الكمال وصفات اإلستقالل‬
)٢٤٥‫ ص‬،‫ اإلمامة العظمى‬،‫ مأخوذ از عبد هللا الدميجي‬،١٨٠‫ص‬

“The fourth condition of headship is being male, hence being imām for a woman will not be
realised even if she possesses all the characteristics of perfection and the qualities of
autonomy.”
Nearly all books on ‘Aqā’id (beliefs) and Kalām (theology) undertake a study of the rules of
being imām and politics. All of them state the condition of being a male as a matter of consensus.
‘Allāmah Taftāzānī [Allāh have mercy on him] wrote:

)٢٧٧‫ ص‬٢‫ ج‬،‫(شرح املقاصد‬ ‫يشرتط ىف اإلمام أن يكون مكلفا حرا ذكرا عدال‬
“It is a condition for the imām to be accountable (sane and mature), free, male and
credible.”
These few citations from the Fuqahā’, Muḥaddithīn and scholars of Islāmic politics were
presented as a mere sample. Otherwise, in whichever book the conditions of rulership are
described, being male is stated as one important condition. If anyone did happen to omit
mentioning this condition then it is because it is such a famous and well-known condition – like
the condition of being sane and mature – that it was not considered necessary to officially
mention it. Or else, there is no disagreement on this matter.
There are researchers of the present age who have written books on the topic of Islāmic politics.
All agree that it is a point of consensus of the Ummah that it is impermissible for a woman to be
head of government. I am presenting some citations below:
Dr Muḥammad Munīr ‘Ajlānī writes:

‫(عبقرية اإلسالم يف أصول‬ ‫ال نعرف بني املسلمني من أجاز خالفة املرأة فاإلمجاع يف هذه القضية اتم مل يشذ عنه أحد‬
)١٤٠٥ ‫ سنة‬،‫ بريوت‬،‫ مطبوعة دار النفائس‬،٧٠‫ ص‬،‫احلكم‬

“We know of no scholar amongst the Muslims who permitted a woman being caliph, hence
there is a complete consensus on this matter from which no one has strayed.”
Dr Muḥammad Ḍiyā’ al-Dīn al-Rayyis wrote a detailed book with extensive research on the rules
of Islāmic politics. In it he wrote:
 ‫ بل الكل متفق على‬،‫إذا كان قد وقع بينهم خالف فيما يتعلق ابلقضاء فلم يرو عنهم خالف فيهما يتعلق ابإلمامة‬
)١٩٧٦ ‫ سنة‬،‫ مطبوعة دار الرتاث القاهرة‬،٢٩٤‫ ص‬،‫(النظرايت السياسية اإلسالمية‬ ‫أنه ال جيوز أن يليها امرأة‬
“Although disagreement has occurred amongst the Fuqahā’ regarding (the woman) being
Qāḍī, no disagreement has been narrated regarding heading a government. In fact,
everyone agrees that it is not permissible for a woman to hold that position.”
Dr Ibrāhīm Yūsuf Muṣṭafā ‘Ajū wrote:

)٨٢‫ ص‬،‫(تعليق هتذيب الرايسة وترتيب السياسة للقلعي‬ ‫مما أمجعت عليه األمة أن املرأة ال جيوز هلا أن تلي رايسة الدولة‬
“The Ummah has reached consensus that it is not permissible for a woman hold the position
of heading a government.”
‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Umar ibn Sulaymān al-Dumayjī wrote:

)٢٤٣‫ ص‬،‫(اإلمامة العظمى عند أهل السنة‬ ‫من شروط اإلمام أن يكون ذكرا وال خالف يف ذلك بني العلماء‬
“Amongst the conditions of the head of government is that he is male. There is no
disagreement amongst the scholars on this.”
The famous Mufassir of Qur’ān in the present age, ‘Allāmah Muḥammad Amīn Shinqīṭī [Allāh
have mercy on him], wrote:

)٦٥‫ ص‬١‫ ج‬،‫(أضواء البيان يف تفسري القرآن ابلقرآن‬ ‫من شروط اإلمام األعظم كونه ذكرا وال خالف يف ذلك بني العلماء‬
“Amongst the conditions of the Imām A‘ẓam (head of government) is that he is male. There
is no disagreement amongst the scholars on this.”
If all passages on this topic from the imāms, Mufsassirs, Muḥaddiths, Fuqahā, Mutakallimīn and
thinkers in the history of Islām were gathered, then it would certainly become a large book, but
these few examples are sufficient to establish that for fourteen centuries up until today there has
not been any disagreement on this matter amongst the scholars of Islām.
The Stance of Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī
Some people in our time mistakenly attribute to the famous Mufassir of Qur’ān, Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Jarīr
al-Ṭabarī [Allāh have mercy on him], that he advocated the permissibility of a woman being
ruler. However, no one has presented any citation from Imām Ibn Jarīr [Allāh have mercy on
him]. From his works, the printed Tafsīr Jāmi‘ al-Bayān in 30 volumes is available. Until today,
no one has been able to show a sentence from it from which this stance of his is inferred. We
have ourselves looked at the likely places of his Tafsīr but found no such thing anywhere therein.
Apart from this, some volumes of his book Tahdhīb al-Āthār have been published. In that too no
such thing has been found.
The reality is that some scholars have narrated from him that he advocates the permissibility of a
woman being Qāḍī. Some people have misquoted this as the permissibility of a woman being
head of government. Thus, Qāḍī Abū Bakr Ibn al-‘Arabī writes:

‫ ونقل عن حممد بن جرير الطربي إمام الدين أنه جيوز أن‬،‫وهذا نص يف أن املرأة ال تكون خليفة وال خالف فيه‬
،‫ ولعله كما نقل عن أيب حنيفة رمحه هللا تعاىل أهنا إمنا تقضي فيما تشهد فيه‬،‫تكون املرأة قاضية ومل يصح ذلك عنه‬
‫ وال أبن يكتب هلا منشور أبن فالنة مقدمة على احلكم إال يف الدماء‬،‫وليس أبن تكون قاضية على اإلطالق‬
)١٤٤٥‫ ص‬٣‫ ج‬،‫(أحكام القرآن البن العريب‬ ‫ وإمنا ذلك كسبيل التحكيم أو اإلستبانة يف القضية الواحدة‬،‫والنكاح‬
“This ḥadīth is a clear text that a woman cannot be caliph, and there is no disagreement on
this. However, it is narrated from Imām Muḥammad ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī [Allāh have mercy
on him] that according to him it is permissible for a woman to be Qāḍī, but the attribution
of this position to him is not correct. It appears that his position would be the same as what
is narrated from Imām Abū Ḥanīfah [Allāh have mercy on him] that a woman can pass
judgement in the matters in which she can give testimony. This does not mean she becomes
a Qāḍī in an absolute sense. Nor does it mean that an official appointment will be made of
her as Qāḍi and it will be declared that so-and-so woman has become a Qāḍī in matters
apart from Qiṣāṣ and marriage. Rather, it means that she will be made a mediator in some
matter, or a case is handed over to her on a one-off basis.”
From this clarification of Imām Ibn ‘Arabī [Allāh have mercy on him], the following matters
become clear:
1. The issue of rulership is separate to the issue of becoming Qāḍī.
2. In the issue of rulership, Imām Ibn Jarīr [Allāh have mercy on him], in line with all
scholars, agrees that a woman cannot be ruler.
3. The permissibility of a woman being Qāḍi has been reported from Imām Ibn Jarīr al-
Ṭabarī [Allāh have mercy on him], but the attribution of this view to him is incorrect.
4. The permissibility of a woman passing a decree on judicial cases that has been narrated
from Imām Abū Ḥanīfah and Ibn Jarīr [Allāh have mercy on them] is not concerning a
woman officially becoming a Qāḍi, but concerning settling some specific case as a
mediator on a one-off basis.
Anyhow, even if there is slight disagreement amongst the Fuqahā’, it is about a woman being
Qāḍī. There is no disagreement over a woman becoming head of government. Hence, Imām al-
Ḥaramayn al-Juwaynī [Allāh have mercy on him] wrote:
 ‫ ومن جوز من العلماء تويل املرأة للقضاء فيما جيوز أن تكون شاهدة فيه أحال‬،‫والذكورة ال شك يف اعتبارها‬
‫ فإن القضاء قد يثبت خمتصا واإلمامة يستحيل يف وضع الشرع ثبوهتا على اإلختصاص‬،‫انتصاب املرأة لإلمامة‬
)٨٣ ‫ و‬٨٢‫ ص‬،‫(غياث األمم للجويين‬

“There is no doubt over being male being a condition of rulership. The scholars who said it
is permissible for a woman to be Qāḍī in those matters in which she can be a witness, they
too consider it impossible to appoint a woman as ruler. This is because it is possible in terms
of being Qāḍī that the parameters of autonomy are limited to some matters, but according
to the principles of Sharī‘ah, it is not possible to limit the headship of government to any
specific matters.”
The Incident of Queen Bilqīs
Some people in our time try to derive the permissibility of a woman being ruler from the account
of Queen Bilqīs described in Sūrah Naml of the Noble Qur’ān. But it is completely
incomprehensible how the permissibility of a woman being head of government can be
established from the incidents described in the Qur’ān. The Noble Qur’ān has clearly stated that
this queen was ruler of non-Muslims who worshipped the sun. The information that Hudhud
shared with Ḥaḍrat Sulaymān [upon him peace] about them, according to the description of the
Noble Qur’ān, included:

‫وجدهتا وقومها يسجدون للشمس من دون هللا‬

“I found her and her people prostrating to the sun, apart from Allāh.”
It is clear from this that she was the queen of a sun-worshipping cult. She herself would worship
the sun. It is manifest that if a disbelieving nation appointed a woman as their ruler, how can it be
evidence for Muslims, in opposition to the clear statements of the Qur’ān and Sunnah?!
Had Ḥaḍrat Sulaymān [upon him peace] accepted her as queen and handed over governance to
her, then it would at most prove that in the Sharī‘ah of Ḥaḍrat Sulaymān [upon him peace] a
woman can be ruler. But the Noble Qur’ān has stated with clear words that the reality is the
complete reverse! Ḥaḍrat Sulaymān [upon him peace] did not accept her governance. In fact, the
letter he sent addressed to her, in the blessed words of the Noble Qur’ān, was as follows:

‫أال تعلوا علي وأتوين مسلمني‬

“Do not rise up against me & come to me in submission.”
These words clearly state that Ḥaḍrat Sulaymān [upon him peace] not only did not accept her
governance, but ordered her to come under his authority. Not only this: he did not accept the gifts
she sent but returned it, even though exchanging gifts between rulers is a matter of norm. The
Noble Qur’ān also states that Ḥaḍrat Sulaymān [upon him peace] removed her throne and
summoned it to himself and altered its appearance until Queen Bilqīs came to Ḥaḍrat Sulaymān’s
[upon him peace] location and, according to the description of the Noble Qur’ān, said:

)٤٤ :‫(سورة النمل‬ ‫رب إين ظلمت نفسي وأسلمت مع سليمان هلل رب العاملني‬
“Lord, I have oppressed myself and I surrender with Sulaymān to Allāh, Lord of the
Worlds.”
This is the account that has been narrated in the Noble Qur’ān. Anyone who looks at the account
in the Noble Qur’ān can only reach the conclusion that Ḥaḍrat Sulaymān [upon him peace] did
not accept the governance of Queen Bilqīs. He ordered her to come to him in submission.
Eventually, he terminated her rulership. Queen Bilqīs herself, after having coming into the
presence of Ḥaḍrat Sulaymān [upon him peace], announced her submission.
There is no trace anywhere in this story, even from afar, that Ḥaḍrat Sulaymān [upon him peace]
regarded her governance permissible or that he accepted it.
Some people present some Isrā’īlī accounts that Ḥaḍrat Sulaymān [upon him peace] married her
and sent her back to Yemen. But this is definitely an unreliable account. It is not proven in any
authentic narration. Historical reports on this matter are very contradictory. According to some,
Ḥaḍrat Sulaymān [upon him peace] married her and kept her with him, and according to others,
he sent her to Shām, and according to others, he returned her to Yemen, and according to others,
he gave her in marriage to the king of Hamdān. ‘Allāmah al-Qurṭubī [Allāh have mercy on him],
wrote after citing all these unreliable reports:

)٢١١‫ و‬٢١٠‫ ص‬١٣‫ ج‬،‫(تفسري القرطيب‬ ‫مل يرد فيه خرب صحيح ال يف أنه تزوجها وال يف أنه زوجها‬
“There is no authentic report about this, neither on him having married her nor him giving her in
marriage.”
Since no authentic historical report is established on the events after Queen Bilqīs became
Muslim, there can be no proper methodology besides adopting īmān in only those events that
have been described in the Noble Qur’ān. It is evident that in that account, the rulership of Queen
Bilqīs does not remain. Rather, her surrendering is mentioned. It is not mentioned that she
became ruler after becoming Muslim. There isn’t even the slightest evidence of female rulership
being permissible in this account.
Ḥaḍrat ‘Ā’ishah [Allāh be pleased with her] & the
Battle of Jamal
Some people argue from the incident of the Jamal Battle for female rulership. They assert that the
Mother of Believers Ḥaḍrat ‘Ā’ishah [Allāh be pleased with her] led this battle. But the reality is
that Ḥaḍrat ‘Ā’ishah [Allāh be pleased with her] never claimed caliphate or headship of
government, nor was it even a marginal thought of any of her companions for her to be made
caliph. Their demand was only that it is necessary according to the rules of the Noble Qur’ān for
Qiṣāṣ to be exacted from the murderers of Ḥaḍrat ‘Uthmān [Allāh be pleased with him]. At the
time of the martyrdom of Ḥaḍrat ‘Uthmān [Allāh be pleased with him] all the Pure Wives had
come to Makkah Mukarramah for Ḥajj. Ḥaḍrat ‘Ā’ishah and the other Pure Wives [Allāh be
pleased with them] initially wanted to return to Madīnah Ṭayyibah and spur Ḥaḍrat ‘Alī [Allāh be
pleased with him] to take Qiṣāṣ. However many people proposed that first they go to Baṣrah and
take the support of the people there. The other Pure Wives [Allāh be pleased with them] refused
to go to Baṣrah and said: “We will not go anywhere besides Madīnah Munawwarah.” However,
Ḥaḍrat ‘Ā’ishah [Allāh be pleased with her] was influenced by the proposal of these individuals
and headed out to Baṣrah. (al-Bidāyah wa ‘l-Nihāyah, v7 p230)
It was not even Ḥaḍrat ‘Ā’ishah’s [Allāh be pleased with her] intention to go to war. In fact,
when she was heading to Baṣrah, en route they encamped at a certain place. At night, dogs began
to bark. Ḥaḍrat ‘Ā’ishah [Allāh be pleased with her] asked people: “What is this place?” They
told her that this is the area of “Ḥaw’ab”. Hearing the name Ḥaw’ab, Ḥaḍrat ‘Ā’ishah [Allāh be
pleased with her] was startled. She remembered a statement of the Prophet . Once, the Prophet
addressed the Pure Wives  and said:

‫ وصححه احلاكم‬،١٢٠‫ ص‬٣‫ ج‬،‫ ومستدرك احلاكم‬،٩٧ ‫ و‬٥٢‫ ص‬٦‫ ج‬،‫(مسند أمحد‬ ‫كيف إبحداكن تنبح عليها كالب احلوأب‬
)٢١٢‫ ص‬٦‫ وصححه ابن كثري يف البداية ج‬،‫ سنده على شرط الصحيح‬:٤٥:١٣ ‫ وقال احلافظ يف الفتح‬،‫ووافقه الذهيب‬

“What will be the state of one amongst you when the dogs of Ḥaw’ab will be barking at
her?”
Ḥaḍrat ‘Ā’ishah [Allāh be pleased with her] refused to go ahead after hearing the name Ḥaw’ab.
She insisted to her companions to take her back. She remained there for one day and night.
However, some individuals said: “Keep moving forward. On your account there will be
reconciliation between two groups of Muslims.” According to some accounts, some expressed
hesitation over this area being Ḥaw’ab. (al-Bidāyah wa ‘l-Nihāyah, v7 p231)
Thus, whatever was destined came to be. Ḥaḍrat ‘Ā’ishah [Allāh be pleased with her] reinitiated
the journey. Upon reaching Baṣrah, when asked the reason for coming, she said:

‫ اإلصالح بني الناس‬،‫أي بين‬

“My son, to reconcile between people.”
From all of this it is clear that the aim of Ḥaḍrat ‘Ā’ishah [Allāh be pleased with her] was not
politics or governance, nor did she wish for any battle. Rather, the purely religious goals of
strengthening the permissible demand for the Qiṣāṣ of Ḥaḍrat ‘Uthmān [Allāh be pleased with
him], and in this connection, reconciling between the Muslims, was kept in view.
Despite this, because Ḥaḍrat ‘Ā’ishah [Allāh be pleased with her] moved a little away from the
accepted parameters of the activity of women, and entered into communal matters, the Noble
Ṣaḥābah and the other Mothers of the Believers [Allāh be pleased with them] themselves did not
approve of this action of hers. Several Ṣaḥābah wrote letters to her. Mother of the Believers
Ḥaḍrat Umm Salamah [Allāh be pleased with her] at this juncture wrote a gripping letter, the
words of which were:

‫ فإين أمحد إليك هللا الذي ال إله إال هو؛ أما‬:‫ إىل عائشة أم املؤمنني‬،‫عن أم سلمة زوج النيب صلى هللا عليه وسلم‬
‫ قد مجع القرآن ذيلك‬،‫ وحجاب مضروب على حرمته‬،‫ إنك س ّدة بني رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم وأمته‬،‫بعد‬
‫ ولو علم رسول هللا صلّى هللا عليه وسلم أن‬،‫ فاهلل من وراء هذه األمة‬.‫ وس ّكر خفارتك فال تبتذليها‬،‫فال تندحيه‬
‫ أما علمت أنه قد هناك عن الفراطة يف البالد فإن عمود الدين ال يثبت ابلنساء‬،‫النساء حيتملن اجلهاد عهد إليك‬
‫ ما كنت قائلة‬.‫ وقصد الوهازة‬،‫ وضم الذيول‬،‫ غضن األطراف‬:‫ وال يرأب هبن إن انصدع؟ جهاد النساء‬،‫إن مال‬
‫انصة قعودا من منهل إىل منهل؟ وغدا تردين على‬
ّ ‫لرسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم لو عارضك ببعض هذه الفلوات‬
‫ اي ّأم سلمة ادخلي اجلنة الستحييت أن ألقى رسول هللا صلى‬:‫ وأقسم لو قيل يل‬.‫رسول هللا صلّى هللا عليه وسلم‬
‫ ووقاعة البيت حصنك؛ فإنك أنصح ما تكوينني هلذه األمة‬،‫علي فاجعليه سرتك‬
ّ ‫هللا عليه وسلم هاتكة حجااب ضربه‬
)‫ مطبوع دار الباز مكة املكرمة‬،٦٦‫ ص‬٥‫(العقد الفريد ج‬ ‫ما قعدت عن نصرهتم‬
“From the wife of the Prophet  Umm Salamah to the Mother of Believers, ‘Ā’ishah, I praise
with you Allāh besides Whom there is no deity. To proceed. You are a door between the
Messenger of Allāh  and his Ummah. You are a purdah that has been placed over the honour of
the Prophet . The Qur’ān has rolled together your hem – do not unroll it! It has safeguarded
your honour – do not dishonour it! If the Messenger of Allāh  knew that the role of Jihād would
fall on women, he would have advised you accordingly. Do you not know that he forbade you
from going forward into [foreign] cities? If the pillar of religion wavers, it cannot resettle through
women, and if it is cracked it is not possible to be mended by women. A woman’s Jihād is that
she averts her gaze and rolls together her hem and walks in small steps. The deserts in which you
are driving your camel from one watering place to another, if the Messenger of Allāh  came
before you there, what would you have to say to him? You will soon have to go to the Messenger
of Allāh . I take an oath, if I am told: ‘Umm Salamah, enter Paradise’, even then I would feel
ashamed that I meet the Messenger of Allāh  in a condition in which I have torn a purdah that
he has placed over me. Make this your purdah. Consider the four walls of your house to be your
fortress because for as long as you remain in your home you will be the biggest well-wisher of
this Ummah.”
Pulsating from each and every word of this letter of Mother of the Believers Ḥaḍrat Umm
Salamah [Allāh be pleased with her] is the pure temperament of religion that gave women the
highest status of honour and holiness.
Ḥaḍrat ‘Ā’ishah [Allāh be pleased with her] too did not deny anything said by Ḥaḍrat Umm
Salamah [Allāh be pleased with her]. Rather, she accepted her advice in principle and, in
appreciation, said the following:
 ‫فما أقبلين لوعظك وأعرفين حلق نصيحتك‬
“I fully accept your advice and am fully aware of your right to give advice.”
However, clarifying her stance, she said:

‫ولنعم املطلع مطلع فرقت فيه بني فئتني متشاجرتني من املسلمني‬

“Great indeed is the stand from which I can become a barrier between two warring parties of the
Muslims.”
It is very clear from this that she neither wanted headship of government, nor was Jihād in her
view, nor was any political rulership her goal. Rather under view was reconciling two groups.
Also in this letter, she said:

)٦٦‫ ص‬٥‫ ج‬،‫(العقد الفريد‬ ‫ وإن أمض فإىل ما ال غىن يل عن اإلزدايد منه‬،‫فإن أقعد ففي غري حرج‬
“If I now sit back, there would be no harm. And if I go ahead, I will be going ahead towards
increasing the fulfilment of something I have no recourse from.”
Despite such precaution, it was a time of tribulation. The efforts of the conspiracies of the
enemies were taking effect. One goal of (the conspiracies) was for an internal war between the
Muslims to take place. Thus, whatever was destined occurred. The Battle of Jamal ensued. Ḥaḍrat
‘Ā’ishah [Allāh be pleased with her] reached a point from which there was no return.
Apart from Ḥaḍrat Umm Salamah [Allāh be pleased with her], other Noble Ṣaḥābah [Allāh be
pleased with them] forbade her from taking on any obligation outside the confines of her home.
Thus, Ḥaḍrat Zayd ibn Ṣūḥān [Allāh be pleased with him] wrote to Ḥaḍrat ‘Ā’ishah [Allāh be
pleased with her] in a letter:

‫ أمرت أن تقري يف بيتك وأمران أن نقاتل الناس حىت ال تكون‬،‫ فإنك أمر أبمر وأمران بغريه‬،‫ أما بعد‬،‫سالم عليك‬
)٦٧‫ ص‬٥‫ ج‬،‫(العقد الفريد‬ ‫ والسالم‬،‫ فرتكت ما أمرت به وكتبت تنهيننا عما أمران به‬،‫فتنة‬
“After sending salām, you have been commanded with something and we have been commanded
with something else. You have been ordered to remain firmly in the home and we have been
ordered to continue fighting until there is no more tribulation. You have abandoned your
obligation and are forbidding us from the task that we have been ordered.”
Further, the matter did not end here. Ḥaḍrat ‘Ā’ishah [Allāh be pleased with her] herself
continued to express utmost remorse over this action of hers. Thus, Ḥāfiẓ Shams al-Dīn al-
Dhahabī [Allāh have mercy on him] said:

‫ وما ظنت أن األمر يبلغ ما‬،‫وال ريب أن عائشة ندمت ندامة كلية علي مسريها إىل البصرة وحضورها يوم اجلمل‬
)١٧٧‫ ص‬٢‫ ج‬،‫(سري أعالم النبالء للذهيب‬ ‫بلغ‬
“There is no doubt that Ḥaḍrat ‘Ā’ishah [Allāh be pleased with her] was completely
remorseful over travelling to Baṣrah and being present at the Battle of Jamal. She did not
imagine the affair would reach what it reached.”
Imām Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr [Allāh have mercy on him] narrated with his chain that once Ḥaḍrat
‘Ā’ishah [Allāh be pleased with her] asked Ḥaḍrat ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Umar [Allāh be pleased with
him]: “Why did you not stop me from making this journey?” Ḥaḍrat Ibn ‘Umar [Allāh be pleased
with him] said: “I saw one individual (meaning, Ḥaḍrat ‘Abdullāh ibn al-Zubayr [Allāh be
pleased with him]) had overpowered your thinking.” Ḥaḍrat ‘Ā’ishah [Allāh be pleased with her]
replied: “By Allāh, had you prevented me, I would not have emerged.” (Naṣb al-Rāyah li ‘l-
Zayla‘ī, v4 p70)
Furthermore, the condition of Ḥaḍrat ‘Ā’ishah’s [Allāh be pleased with her] remorse over the
Battle of Jamal and the journey to it was that when, while reciting the Noble Qur’ān, she reached
the verse in Sūrah Aḥzāb in which Allāh [exalted is He] commanded women:

‫وقرن يف بيوتكن‬
“Remain firmly in your homes.”
She would cry so much that her mantle would become drenched with tears.

٢‫ ج‬،‫؛ وسري أعالم النبالء‬٨٠‫ ص‬٨‫ ج‬،‫(طبقات ابن سعد‬ ‫ بكت حىت تبل مخارها‬،‫ وقرن يف بيوتكن‬:‫إذا قرأت هذه اآلية‬
)١٧٧‫ص‬

The remorse reached the point that initially she had desired to be buried in her own house next to
the leader of the two worlds . However, after the Battle of Jamal she abandoned this desire.
Qays ibn Abī Ḥāzim narrated:

‫قالت عائشة رضي هللا تعاىل عنها وكان حتدث نفسها أن تدفن يف بيتها مع رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم وأيب‬
‫(مستدرك‬ ‫ فدفنت ابلبقيع‬،‫ ادفنوين مع أزواجه‬،‫ إين أحدثت بعد رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم حداث‬:‫ فقالت‬،‫بكر‬
)‫ هذا حديث صحيح على شرط الشيخني ووافقه الذهيب‬:‫؛ قال احلاكم‬٦‫ ص‬٤‫ ج‬،‫احلاكم‬

“Ḥaḍrat ‘Ā’ishah [Allāh be pleased with her] had in mind that she will be buried in her
house with the Messenger of Allāh  and Ḥaḍrat Abū Bakr [Allāh be pleased with him].
However, afterwards, she said: ‘I perpetrated an innovation after the Messenger of Allāh
. Bury me with the other wives of the Prophet .’ Thus she was buried in Baqī‘.”

Commenting on this statement, Ḥāfiẓ Dhahabī [Allāh have mercy on him] said:

‫تعين ابحلدث مسريها يوم اجلمل فإهنا ندمت ندامة كلية واتبت من ذلك على أهنا ما فعلت ذلك إال متأولة قاصدة‬
)١٩٣‫ ص‬٢‫ ج‬،‫(سري أعالم النبالء‬ ‫للخري‬
“By ‘innovation’ Ḥaḍrat ‘Ā’ishah [Allāh be pleased with her] meant going to the Battle of
Jamal because she was completely remorseful over this action of hers and repented from it,
even though this action of hers was based on judgement and her intention was good.”
From all these accounts, it is clear that Ḥaḍrat ‘Ā’ishah [Allāh be pleased with her] had never
desired nor claimed headship of government, nor did anyone propose that she be made the ruler,
nor was it her objective to officially lead a battle. She emerged merely to enact a Qur’ānic
command and to reconcile between Muslims, but the conspiracy of enemies ultimately gave this
journey of hers the form of a war. However, because her mission overall held a specific political
purpose, the Noble Ṣaḥābah [Allāh be pleased with them] did not approve of it, and she herself
was extremely remorseful over it, to the point that on account of remorse she did not approve of
being buried in the Rawḍah of Allāh’s Messenger .

Now one can conclude themselves with fairness: How can an argument be made using an action
that the Mother of Believers Ḥaḍrat ‘Ā’ishah [Allāh be pleased with her] had herself ultimately
considered an error, wept over, and felt ashamed – for remorse over it – to be buried close to the
Prophet ? Even then, the argument is for rulership, the remotest idea of which did not cross
Ḥaḍrat ‘Ā’ishah’s [Allāh be pleased with her] mind!
A Write-Up of Ḥaḍrat Thānawī [Allāh have mercy
on him]
To argue for the permissibility of female rulership some people attempt to offer a write-up of
Ḥakīm al-Ummat Ḥaḍrat Mawlānā Ashraf ‘Alī Ṣāḥib Thānawī [his soul be sanctified], which has
been published in Imdād al-Fatāwā. In it, Ḥaḍrat Thānawī [Allāh have mercy on him], while
answering a question on the ḥadīth: ‫لن يفلح قوم ولوا أمرهم امرأة‬, said a democratic government does not
fall under the purview of this warning.
But before understanding the reality of this write-up of Ḥaḍrat Thānawī [Allāh have mercy on
him], it is necessary to understand that Ḥakīm al-Ummat Ḥaḍrat Thānawī [Allāh have mercy on
him] too, just like the entire Ummah, holds that it is not permissible for a woman to be head of an
Islāmic government. Thus, in this very write-up of Imdād al-Fatāwā Ḥaḍrat [Allāh have mercy
on him] himself wrote:
The respected Fuqahā’ have considered being male a condition of validity for imāmah
kubrā (headship of government) and although it is not a condition for being Qāḍī, it is
nonetheless a condition for being safeguarded from sin. (Imdād al-Fatāwā, v5 p92)
Furthermore, Ḥaḍrat Mawlānā Thānawī [his soul be sanctified] explained this issue with further
clarity in his Tafsīr in these words:
There is a prohibition in our Sharī‘ah for a woman to become queen, so no one should
entertain any doubts from the story of Bilqīs. Firstly, this was the practice of idolaters.
Secondly, even if the Sulaymānī law allowed it, it is not proof when it is opposed by the
Muḥammadan law. (Bayān al-Qur’ān, v8 p85, Sūrat al-Naml)
Furthermore, the section of Aḥkām al-Qur’ān that Ḥaḍrat Thānawī [Allāh have mercy on him]
delegated to Ḥaḍrat Mawlānā Muftī Muḥammad Shafī‘ Ṣāḥib [Allāh have mercy on him], in this
too, under the incident of Queen Bilqīs, the matter is explained clearly. With reference to Ḥaḍrat
Thānawī [Allāh have mercy on him] himself, it refutes the argument that the Noble Qur’ān has
narrated the account of Bilqīs’s rulership without condemnation. (Aḥkām al-Qur’ān li ‘l-Muftī
Muḥammad Shafī‘, v3 p29)
It is clear from these citations that Ḥaḍrat Thānawī [Allāh have mercy on him], like the scholars
of the Ummah, believes that it is not permissible in Sharī‘ah for a woman to be made head of
government. However, the question arises that if a region opposed this ruling of Sharī‘ah and a
woman was made ruler, will the warning that has been stated in the ḥadīth that such people will
never find success apply to them? In answer to this, Ḥaḍrat Thānawī [his soul be sanctified] said
if the government is inclusive and complete, as found in a personal sultanate (or as occurs in the
Islāmic caliphate) and a woman is made head of government, then undoubtedly the warning in
the ḥadīth applies. However, if the government is of a democratic kind, failure is not necessary.
Ḥaḍrat Thānawī [Allāh have mercy on him] explains the reason for this as follows:
The reason for this is that the reality of this governance is mere consultation, and a
woman is qualified to be consulted. (Imdād al-Fatāwā, v5 p92)
It is clearly evident from this that Ḥaḍrat Thānawī [Allāh have mercy on him] did not only say
that a woman’s actual governance is not permissible but he also considered it a cause of failure.
Thus in terms of the original issue, his stance is that a woman cannot be head of government.
However, regarding a democratic government, he expressed his view that this is not really
governance but merely consultation. Hence, Ḥaḍrat Thānawī’s [Allāh have mercy on him] entire
thesis hinges on this: is a democratic government really governance or merely consultation? This
question is not a ruling of Sharī‘ah but a question of reality. Ḥaḍrat Thānawī [Allāh have mercy
on him] felt the ruler of a democratic government is in reality not a ruler, rather that, in the
capacity of a member of parliament, his word merely holds the position of consultation. Hence, in
this write-up he said:
A woman who has democratic rulership is an apparent ruler, not in reality a ruler. Rather,
she is one member of consultation. The true ruler is the composite body of those
consulted. (Imdād al-Fatāwā, v5 p91)
It is again made clear from this citation that he accepts that a woman being ruler is impermissible
and a cause of failure. He did not disagree with this, but according to the information he had, he
did not regard the ruler of a democratic government to be a true ruler. This disagreement is not
over the original matter, but over the reality of a democratic government.
The reality is that although the prime minister in a parliamentary system is merely a member of
consultation in his capacity as a member of parliament, he has two other capacities based on
which it is not possible to consider him merely a member of consultation. The first capacity is
that he is head of the executive branch of the country. In this capacity, he has full autonomy,
while keeping within the boundaries of the law and constitution, to the point that he has the
power to reject the consultation of the entire cabinet and act according to his own judgement.
The reality is that in a democratic system, three functions of the state have been separated out:
one is legislation, which is delegated to the legislature i.e. parliament. The second function is the
administration of the country, which is delegated to the executive branch. The third function is to
adjudicate disputes which is delegated to the judiciary. From these three branches of the state: the
legislature, executive and judiciary, “government” is used unconditionally for the executive
branch. The legislature and judiciary are indeed secondary branches of the state but is not a part
of government. Only the executive branch is referred to as government. The prime minister is
head of this executive branch. He has complete authority to run the activities of government
while remaining within the parameters of the law. Neither does he present everything for
consultation to the legislature nor can he, nor is that necessary. He must pass important executive
decisions by the cabinet but is not bound by their decision. In fact, in a cabinet session, his
decision is final. It is evident that an individual with such power cannot be referred to as merely a
“member of consultation”.
In terms of the legislature, undoubtedly, he is a member of consultation. However, in the
conventional system of parliamentary parties, he holds a further capacity which does not limit
him, even in this legislature, to merely a member of consultation. That capacity is the leader of
the powerful majority party and leader of the legislative chamber. Hence his decision in the
parliament is not merely a personal opinion, but at times represents the majority of the legislative
chamber. In particular, if on behalf of his party, he enforces any policy for the members of
parliament of his party, all members of his party are bound to vote according to this policy in the
assembly. In the parliamentary jargon, this is called “party whip”. Meaning, after this whip is put
into motion, all the members of the party in the parliament are compelled to accept the opinion
for which the whip was put into motion.
Now it is evident that the person who puts this whip into motion cannot be called a mere
“member of consultation”. From this perspective, the capacity of the prime minister in the
legislature is not merely that of a member of consultation, but of a leader of the majority party
and leader of the legislative chamber. In practice, he follows the consultation of others less and
others follow his consultation more. Although theoretically, the president is the leader of the state
and the prime minister of the executive branch, in the parliamentary system, the function of
president is mostly ceremonial, while true powers rest with the prime minister. Hence, in the view
of the entire world, the prime minister is considered the true ruler.
From this explanation it has become clear that Ḥaḍrat Thānawī [his soul be sanctified] did not at
all consider the rulership of a woman to be permissible. He states this in clear words. However,
the question before him was: is the leadership of a democratic government a real rulership or not?
This question has no connection with the study of Sharī‘ah, but with a conventional democratic
system. It is evident that Ḥaḍrat Thānawī’s [Allāh have mercy on him] primary field was the
study of Sharī‘ah. Ḥaḍrat Thānawī’s [his soul be sanctified] field was not studying the political
systems of the present age. It is evident that if the realities explained above in connection with the
prime minister of a parliamentary system were to be brought before Ḥaḍrat Thānawī [his soul be
sanctified], he would have definitely revised his opinion that a prime minister is merely a member
of consultation.
Some Historical Precedents
Some people, in arguing for the permissibility of female rulership, offer some examples of
history: at such-and-such time, a certain woman held power. But it is obvious that all kinds of
events occurred in history, both permissible and impermissible. These incidents are no evidence
in religion. Evidence is Qur’ān and Sunnah. Thus, if at times some incidents of female rulership
sporadically occurred, the clear rules and evidences of the Qur’ān and Sunnah cannot be
abandoned based on them. Furthermore, most of these sporadic incidents are such that Muslims
did not tolerate such governance and eventually they came to an end. At the time of even those
governments, it never happened that a jurist or scholar gave fatwā of female rulership being
permissible.
In this vein, some people present as evidence the candidacy of Miss Fāṭimah Jinnāḥ for
presidency, but to our knowledge there is no scholar in the country who defended this action and
said that a woman can be head of government. Thus presenting this incident as evidence is
nothing besides obfuscation.1

1
Here, Muftī Rashīd Aḥmad Ludhyānwī comments: “At this time too, the ‘Ulamā’ have publicised the fatwā of
impermissibility of female rulership.”
The Verdict of the ‘Ulamā’ of all Schools of Thought
in Pakistan
The impermissibility of female rulership is an accepted rule, based on the clear statements of
Qur’ān and Sunnah and the consensus of the Ummah. Not a single jurist or scholar of the Ummah
has disagreed with this ruling. When the ‘Ulamā’ of all the different schools of thought in
Pakistan convened for a conference on legal issues in Karachi in 1951, in which 33 eminent
members of all schools of thought: Deobandī, Barelwī, Ahl e Ḥadīth, Jamā‘at e Islāmī and Shī‘ah,
were present, they agreed on 22 famous articles which according to them maintained foundational
importance in Pakistan’s law. The 12th article is:
It is necessary for the leader of the country to be a Muslim male, on whose piety,
capability and sound judgement the public or their elected representatives have
confidence.
The ‘Ulamā’ of all schools of thought in Pakistan agreed on these 22 articles, and till today no
disagreement has arisen amongst them.
Thus, for a woman to be head of any Islāmic government is not at all permissible. If this occurs
somewhere, it is necessary for Muslims to exploit all available avenues to swiftly change the
leadership.
Allāh [glorified is He] grants guidance.
Muḥammad Rafī‘ ‘Uthmānī
Jumād al-Ūlā, 1409 (December, 1988)
[Signed by]:
[Muftī] Rashīd Aḥmad Ludhyānwī
[Muftī] Walī Ḥasan Tonkī
[Mawlānā] Salīmullāh [Khān]
[Mawlānā] Muḥammad Yūsuf Ludhyānwī
(Aḥsan al-Fatāwā, 6:149-1822; Nawādir al-Fiqh, 2:151-94)

2
Following this, from pages 183-192 of volume six of Aḥsan al-Fatāwā, Muftī Rashīd Aḥmad Ludhyānwī adds
a short addendum in which he addresses some further “arguments” of those who claim female rulership to be
permissible in Islām.