The struggle to increase access for Muslim women in American mosques - whether it is to the main prayer room or the boardroom - has gained some visibility in the past few months, as Muslims of both genders have begun to question the rigid attitudes and gender segregation that have increasingly become the norm at mosques. The situation is particularly daunting for those Muslim men and women who seek to alleviate this situation, but come across a corpus of hadith and scholarly writings that call for women to stay at home, or that quote notable Islamic figures as saying they disliked the presence of women at the mosque.

If efforts to incorporate Muslim women more fully into the structure of the mosque are to succeed, they cannot be seen by the average Muslim as an imposition of Western ideals on a time-honored Islamic system. Rather, they must be constructed and understood as Islamic overturnings of cultural patriarchy. A closer look at the hadith concerning a woman's role in the mosque, as well as a contextual re-evaluation of the priorities of a Muslim society, gives ample evidence that the welfare of the Muslim community is best served by a full integration of Muslim women into the religious and community life of the mosque, in a way that can be both respectful of Islamic norms of etiquette and modesty while at the same time insuring that Muslim women have equal opportunities for spiritual enrichment, personal growth, and community service.

Both sides of the debate generally agree that the earliest Muslim women enjoyed a status that is similar to what is being sought now - full participation and access to mosques as both spiritual and community centers, without physical separation between the genders. There clearly was not a barrier between men and women, as women could report seeing both the imam and the men praying, with a "wall" of boys and girls praying in between the genders. Women also reported that they socialized, weaved, and held other community functions in the main prayer area, with the full knowledge (and hence permission) of both the Prophet and his immediate successor Abu Bakr. While some hadith stressed that praying at home was better for women, or that the back rows were the most suitable for women, or that women should have their own entrance into the mosque (but, interestingly enough, not men), none of the hadith directly sanction the complete physical separation of the sexes or the fostering of an environment that makes women feel unwelcome. In fact, men were directly commanded to not prevent women from entering the mosque.

The changes began with the caliph 'Umar, who saw the mosque as primarily a place for prayer, and began ordering congregants (mainly women) to take their post-prayer activities elsewhere. Citing the possibility of men and women fraternizing with each other, he expressed his dislike for women going to the mosque altogether, and began implementing separate facilities for those who still came. (It should be noted that despite 'Umar's strong feelings on the matter, his wife continued to attend the mosque for most of the daily prayers, and went frequently enough that she was present at his assassination there.) 'Umar was helped in this regard by Ayesha, the Prophet's youngest wife, who criticised the behavior of other women in the mosque and actively discouraged them from attending altogether. Many Muslim scholars take these events, along with the earlier prophetic preference for women to pray at home, and argue that creating a "home" in the mosque by walling off the women from the men (usually in the smaller area) would be the most appropriate way to accomodate women.

So what are we to make of these conflicting treatments of women during a collective time that Sunni Muslims consider was "rightly guided"? First of all, the role of women in the mosque during the time of the Prophet closely mirrors what Muslim activists today are striving for. It cannot, therefore, be considered an un-Islamic or "Western" imposition on the Muslim community. In fact, it can be argued that it is more true to the original spirit of Islam as communicated through the Prophet. Second, if these varied mosque policies represent a spectrum of legal possibilities, we must then also take into account the harm that unequal segregation causes versus any possible good that can come out of it.

Mosques in America are not just places of worship, as 'Umar felt they were in his day - they are the focal point of the Muslim community, where access to knowledge, social interaction, and a sense of communal belonging can be found. This is especially important in America, where Muslims are a minority, and the only opportunity many Muslim women have to truly experience their religion is at the mosque. The right of Muslim women to these cornerstones of Muslim life outweighs the "danger" felt by 'Umar and his modern day compatriots of causing sexual "fitna" in the mosque, especially when these same men have somehow managed to endure being in the presense of non-Muslim (and usually more revealing) women once they step outside the mosque.

Placing women behind partitions at mosques leads to the marginalization of women, low self-worth, and ignorance. It is an Islamically appropriate response to the increasing isolation and exclusion of women from the fabric of American mosque life to bring down the barriers, both literal and figurative, that stand between women and the fulfillment of their Muslim identity.

Take Back The Mosque!

Regarding the question, Did the Commander of the Believers `Umar ibn al-Khattab - Allah be well-pleased with him - prevent women from attending the mosque? The answer is: Yes, but only those who stayed there for loitering / relaxation (istirwah), not those attending fard Salat.

Khawla bint Qays said: "We were women, in the Mosque [in Madina al-Munawwara], who may have mixed with the men at times and perhaps even flirted (ghazalna) and even harmed themselves in this intermixing; so `Umar said: 'I swear I shall make free women of you again.' So he brought us out (akhrajana) of the Mosque." Kanz al-`Ummal #23131 from Ibn Sa`d's Tabaqat.

`Umar (RA) never prevented nor forbade women from attending the mosque for the five obligatory prayers nor Tarawih.

This general permission and conditional prohibition is how he understood the meaning of the hadith of the Prophet: "Do not forbid the bondswomen of Allah from [going to] the mosques of Allah."

It is also related that he allowed them to pray Tarawih prayers in the Mosque at Madina far from the men and ordered Sulayman ibn Abi Hatma to be Imam for them, at the far end of the Mosque. Al-Muhalla (3:139).

In fact `Umar himself narrated that the Prophet said more explicitly, "If your women ask permission to go out to Salat, do not forbid them!" Musnad Ahmad (1:40).

To that end `Umar made sure they had a separate entrance and exit to the Mosque, which he forbade men from using, and separate ablution facilities. Al-Muhalla (3:131 and 4:119).

Yes, `Umar *disliked* for women to go the mosque.

`Atika bint Zayd the wife of `Umar would ask `Umar permission to go to Salat in the Masjid and he would remain silent. She would continue, "I swear I will go out unless you forbid me." She used to go out for Salat al-`Isha and Salat al-Fajr. She was asked once: "Why do you go out like that, knowing how jealous he is?" She replied: "And what prevents him from forbidding us?" Musannaf Ibn Abi Shayba (1:106).

`Umar once said to her: "I swear that you know very well I dislike it." She said: "By Allah! I shall not stop until you forbid me." `Umar replied: "I truly do not forbid you." And the day `Umar was stabbed to death in the mosque, she was present. Al-Muhalla of Ibn Hazm (3:139).

It is `A'isha - Allah be well-pleased with her - that tended to forbid the women from going to the mosques, including for the five prescribed prayers let alone Tarawih. She gave her reason in the famous statement: "If the Messenger of Allah had seen what the women of our time do, he would have forbidden them to go to the mosques just as the Israelite women were forbidden." Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, and the books of Sunan.

The majority of the Ulema if not their Consensus agree - and Allah knows best - that if women go to mosques - for obligatory prayers or otherwise - then there should be (1) a separate entrance for them and (2) space for prayer and facilities they can use in isolation from mixing with and view by the men. And Allah knows best.

In conclusion: You are right that in the time of the Prophet there was no curtain separating men from women. The men prayed directly behind the Prophet, then the boys, then the women starting behind the last row of the boys. But not having a curtain in the mosque today in not a sunna in the sense of "something not obligatory but carrying reward, the leaving which does not constitute sin."

Furthermore, the curtain is not against the Sunna but on the contrary is a way to prevent fitna, which prevention is fard and a pre-requisite of obligatory and recommended practices. There is a basic principle that "the prevention of evil take precedence over the obtainment of good." Such prevention, in other words, applies before everything.

In view of this, the Prophet said that the best place for a woman's Salat is in the privacy of her house, and in another narration: in the privacy of her room. If something approaching the function and purposes of this private space can be reduplicated in the mosque, it should be welcome as something close to Wajib, not fought.

So the curtain should be accepted, allowing men and women to pray on alternate sides if space does not allow front rows for men and back rows for women, which is a better arrangement. Together with this there should be separate facilities and, if possible, separate entrances.

This conclusion reunites the basic stipulations of the texts on the issue of women praying in the Mosque, not on the allegation that "`Umar banned women from the mosque" but in order that believing men and women can obtain the benefits of Jama`a without Shaytan interfering with them. Wallahu a`lam.

In future please cite Quran and Hadith properly and fully. Indeed the Asra Nomani's aka "arwens" and a minority of ignorant marxist minded "muslims" want to take the masjid back, from who ? The Muslims who believe in the Quran and Sunnah.

It might not be obvious to you, but the tract you posted was up on my screen as I wrote the article. I found it (and continue to find it) unconvincing. The fitna created by gender aparthied in the mosque is far worse than the possible fitna created by men who can't control their sexual urges. If they can keep a lid on it on the streets with the hotties baring their belly buttons, they can keep a lid on it with modestly attired muhajabahs praying in the same room as them.

Here are a few Prophetic hadith and other citations that I reviewed to write this article. Consider them (pro and con) all together:

1) "Do not prevent your women from going to the mosque, even though their houses are better for them." (Abu Dawud in al-Sunan, Ch. on women going to the masjid, and being insistent/strict about it)

A follow up to the above is this: Abdullah ibn Umar said: "I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say: "Do not prevent your women from going to the mosque if they ask your permission." Bilal ibn Abdullah [ie his son] said, "By Allah, we will prevent them." [Ibn Umar] turned to him and rebuked him, saying: "I tell you what the Messenger of Allah (saw) said, and you say 'By Allah, we will prevent them!'" (reported by Muslim, 667).

2) "A woman's prayer in her house is better than her prayer in her courtyard, and her prayer in her bedroom is better than her prayer in her house." (Abu Dawud in al-Sunan, same chapter)

3) "The best rows for men are the first rows and the worst, the last rows; and the best rows for women are the last rows and the worst, the first." (narrated by Abi Hurayra, in Muslim #881)

4) The Prophet (saw) indicated a certain door of [the] mosque with the words: "Leave this door for women." Nafi` [the sub-narrator] said: "Ibn `Umar did not enter this door until his death. (narrated by ibn Umar, in Abu Dawud, #462) Nafi` said: "`Umar ibn al-Khattab used to prohibit men to enter through the door reserved for women. (Abu Dawud #464)

5) On women in the mosque: Sahl ibn Sa`d's report: "I saw men having tied the ends of their lower garments around their necks, like children, due to shortage of cloth [because of poverty] and offering their prayers behind Allah's Messenger (saw). One of the proclaimers said: O womenfolk, do not lift your heads until men raise theirs [and readjust their garments]." (in Muslim, #883)

6) On women in the mosque: Umm Subayya Khawla bt. Qays said: "I used to listen to the khutba of the Messenger of Allah on jumu`a while I was at the back of the women and listen to him recite Qaf on the minbar while I was at the back of the mosque." (from Tabaqat ibn Sa`d)

7) An alternative translation to one of the hadith Dr. DriveBy posted reads as follows: "It is related by Sawda b. Abi Dubays that Umm Subaya Khawla bt. Qays said: In the time of the Prophet and Abu Bakr and the beginning of the khilafa of Umar, we women in the mosque used to socialize. Sometimes we spun and sometimes some of us would work with palm leaves. Umar then said: I will make you as free women [ie secluded]. So we left [doing so], although we [still] attended the prayers at their times. Umar used to go out when he had prayed the final Isha prayer and go around with his whip to anyone who was in the mosque..." (Kanz al-`Ummal, from Ibn Sa`d's Tabaqat)

These Prophet hadith can be supplemented by a number of others Prophetic ones not included here, such as that women should not wear perfume, that women should attend Eid salat, that woman can go to the mosque at night, etc.

On women's presence at the mosque: While the Prophet (saw) gave *higher value* to the prayer of a woman in her home, he did not make it *mandatory* for her to do so. At the same time, he gave women the *categorical right* to pray in the masjid, as delineated by the *categorical prohibition* on men to prevent women from going. In other words, that which is mustahabb is not wajib. At the same time, he established adab for mosque attendance by both sexes, which indicates both that he *assumed* women would regularly attend, and that in fact, women *did* attend regularly (ie for the five salat, etc). Women not only attended for salat, but used to "hang out" at the mosque to chat, spin and weave -- all through the lifetime of the Prophet (saw) and of Abu Bakr (raa) into the time of Umar (raa).

(Thanks for the research goes to my wife Hina Azam, who is the true scholar in our family)

I think you missed the point editor, the question isnt about whether woman can go to masajid or not, rather that you and people who have no scholarly background can casually dismiss the Quran, Hadith and our scholars.
You posted material which you claim you arent convinced by, and its not about alternative readings. Which makes me wonder why what was good enough for the Prophet (saw), his companions and our greatest scholars seems inadequate for you, is this simple ignorance we see in the common muslims or the true fitna which comes from adopting leftist rhetoric...
It seems that there is no shortage of "experts" on Muslim woman these days is there ? Unfortunetly for our deluded marxist wannabees, we will not change our faith to accomodate them and their fitna.

No, the question is whether or not women have a right to be in the mosque the way they were in the day of the Prophet - without a partition. It seems what was good enough for the Prophet is not good enough for *you*. Scholars of Islam who disagree with this have a right to their opinion, but they do not have a right to make haram what the Prophet allowed.

Congratulations on today's coverage in the New York Times on the issue, and the extensive quotations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/22/national/22muslim.html

Is there something ironic in DrDriveBy's argument the Umar and Aisha could change their mind and do something different than the Prophet(S) did because of changing circumstances that happened within 5 years of the Prophet(S) death, but the 1500 years and 7000 miles distance we have could not possibly warrant a change? (And I know, what is being called for is not even a change it is what happened during the Prophet's times)

>It seems what was good enough for the Prophet is not good enough for *you*. <

Wrong, it seems you have priorities out of order. If one is follow your logic that simply because there were no partition during the Prophet's (SAW) time, hence the need to take them down....you would also by extension of this flawed logic be against Khilafat, the 4 schools of juresprudence and also against the scholars who used ijtihad to make ruling....your attitude is similiar to that of everybodys favorite target - the Wahabees in their application of faith.

While Muslims are being murdered on a daily basis by terrorists whether by bombardment, torture, rape and invasion you and a handful of ignorant marxists moan about partitions in masajid....talk about upside priorities.

While Muslims are being murdered on a daily basis by terrorists whether by bombardment, torture, rape and invasion you and a handful of ignorant marxists moan about partitions in masajid....talk about upside priorities.

This article is only one of hundreds on this site - much of the rest talks about all the horrible things that are happening to Muslims. Our priorities are quite in balance, thank you very much.

your attitude is similiar to that of everybodys favorite target - the Wahabees in their application of faith.

Great! So the Wahabbis should have no problem with my stand! It's all so simple!

All jokes aside dear editor, what about khilafat,
the 4 schools of Islamic juresprudence, Sharia, which came after the Prophet (SAW) ? Should we do away with them based on your logic ?

You are choosing to follow the precedent of Umar and Aisha, others want to follow the precedent of the Prophet. What makes your view right? Is it "wahabbi" to go back to the prophet and not wahabbi to go back to something later? Its the same type of argument, but you assert that yours is indoubtedly correct. Is it because they were after the Prophet? These "Marxists" were after the Prophet and Umar, maybe its less wahabbi to follow them. Or maybe, God forgive me, we should look at the situation with a little bit of the grey stuff and make our own decisions based on our own context in the light of what the Prophet and the Companions and other past precedents, without worshipping the decisions or the historical circumstances those decisions were made in.

>You are choosing to follow the precedent of Umar and Aisha, others want to follow the precedent of the Prophet.<

Perhaps you've forgotten who Hadrat Umar (RA) and Hadrat Aisha (RA) are, and how they dedicated their lives for this deen. You make it seem as if their goals were different from that of the Prophet (saw) himself which brings your knowledge of Islam, and its history into question.
The partition was and is still a logical and practical method to prevent mixing of men and woman both before, during and after salah is offered. It makes perfect sense that this practice started in Hadrat Umar's (RA) time during the rapid expansion of Islam and continues today when Muslims are 1.5 billion strong and counting.

Is it possible that both positions may be correct depending on circumstances? For example a small mosque having no partition and a large one havin a curtain to manage the large number of people.

Whatever the answer we should be mindful that in general Muslims have abused the rights of women and have restricted them to an extent which did not occur in the times of the Prophet (PBUH).

This would not be an issue if Muslim Women, today, had the rights that were given to them thousands of years ago by Islam.
Instead their rights have been slowly whittled away "in the name of Islam" by angry mullahs.

>Instead their rights have been slowly whittled away "in the name of Islam" by angry mullahs.<

Angry Mullahs have nothing to do with it, Muslim womans rights today are being curtailed by those who claim to know whats best for us all, restricting their access to education, jobs and health care, go ask the French, Germans and Belgians.

Again lets all blame anyone but ourselves for our situation.
Blame the French, Germans, Belgians, throw in America of course.

>Blame the French, Germans, Belgians, throw in America of course.<

Oh yes, I forgot to mention those in the "progressive moslem" movement who are hell bent in their condemnation of hijab.
America hasnt yet banned the hijab, beards in their schools, unviersities etc....when and if they do they can join France, Germany and Belgium.