The recent election of Ingrid Mattson to the presidency of the Islamic Society of North America was received with great enthusiasm by the North American Muslim community and the public at large. Her election was seen as a sign of maturation , and as a vindication of Islam�respect of women�rights and contemporary Muslims�bility to overcome cultural traditions and rise to the level of the high moral demands of Islam.

Yet some Muslims in North America, and many in Muslim societies, raised questions as to the propriety of a female presiding over the largest Muslim organization in North America, and as to the compatibility of female leadership with Islamic principles and precepts. As one of the skeptics about the position taken by the Islamic Society of North America put it: 엨y ISNA is violating [the] Sunnah and clear guidelines in Islam? Is that ISNA now being influenced by [a] local version of Islam?
Those who resist the notion of women leadership in the name of Islam base their position on historical arguments made by early Muslim jurists. Yet a fair examination of early Muslim scholarship and Islamic sources reveals a variety of positions with regards to the public rights and duties of women. While Ibn Jarir al-Tabari places no limitations on women�right to assume the post of judge in all legal matters, al-Mawardi contends that women cannot be allowed to serve as judges under any circumstances. In between stands Abu Hanifa who allows women to serve as judges but only in cases involving commercial deals.

Historical Islamic jurisprudence, while recognizing the capacity of women to enjoy certain civil and political liberties, managed, nonetheless, to curtail these liberties on social and rational grounds. The degree of limitation on the exercise of civil and political rights also varied across historical periods and legal schools.

When approaching Islamic sources to shed light on the issue of women�rights, a clear distinction emerges between the rights of women in the public sphere, and their rights in the area of family law. For while Islamic sources differentiate men�and women�responsibilities within the family, all limitations on women�rights imposed by early jurists in the public sphere were based on either historically-bound interpretations of Islamic texts, or practical limitations associated with the social and political structures of historical society.

The Qur� is unequivocal in assigning equal responsibilities for men and women for maintaining public order: 씨e believers, men and women, are protectors one of another; they enjoin the right (ma벵f) and forbid the intolerable (munkar); they observe regular prayers, practice regular charity, and obey God and His Messenger.Qur'an 9:71). Since men and women are entrusted with the same public responsibility to enjoin the right and forbid the intolerable, one should expect that both would enjoy equal political rights. Yet it is obvious that classical jurists deny women political equality with men. The question therefore arises as to what is the basis of the classical position?

Jurists who deny women the right to public office base their arguments on one Qur�ic and one prophetic statement. The Qur�ic statement reads: 썥n are the protectors (qawwamun) of women, because God has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because men support women from their means.4: 34) The word qawwamun which connotes 쳵pportnd 찲otectionas come to signify authority as well. The fact that qawwamun also signifies authority is not difficult to see as the remainder of the above Qur�ic statement empowers men with the right to discipline women guilty of mischief. But can the above verse be used to deny women access to public office?

The answer is an emphatic no. For the authority implied by qawwamun and the obedience it entails is relevant ᠥen under classical interpretation ֱ7thin the confines of the family. It is clear that the Qurɭn does not intend to give authority to every single man over every single woman. Nor do those who extend the implication of this verse to the public sphere expect that any single woman in society should obey any single man. If this is the case, no one can invoke the notion of qawwamun to deny women access to public office.

The other textual evidence used by classical jurists, and continues to be held by contemporary traditionalist jurists, is in the form of a hadith text that states: 씨ey shall never succeed those who entrust their affairs to a woman.eportedly the statement is a comment made by the Prophet upon hearing the news of the accession of Buran, the daughter of King Anusherawan, to the Persian throne after the passing away of her father. I wish to argue here that there are sufficient reasons to show that the above hadith does not stand in the face of a close scrutiny, and cannot, hence, be allowed to undermine the principle of moral and political equality between the sexes, which is firmly established in the Qur�ic texts.

The following issues must be recalled when interpreting the above hadith:

1. The hadith statement is not given in the form of a directive, but an opinion that has to be understood in its historical and cultural context. That is, the hadith has to be interpreted in the context of a historical society where women were not active participants in political life, and in the context of a political culture that places the hereditary rule over the principle of merit in deciding political succession.
2. The hadith is a single statement that has no support in the most authoritative Islamic source ᠩe. the Qurέn.
3. The hadith stands in a direct contradiction with the principle of moral and political equality of the sexes, a principle established by numerous Qur�ic verses.
4. Finally, the hadith, being a singular narration (khabar ahad), is of a lesser degree of certainty than the Qur�ic narration (khabar mutawatar), and hence cannot overrule principles established in the Qur�.

The issue of women leadership is influenced more by cultural, rather than religious, traditions, and hence boils down to rational arguments on psychological differences between the two genders, as well as the impact of full participation of women in public life on the family. The critics of women's participation in leadership functions are fully entitled to express their misgivings with regard to women leadership, but then they should respect the public choice when it supports female leaders. The critics are not, however, entitled to elevate their misgivings and literalist interpretations to the level formal requirements.

The objection to the election of the first female president of the Islamic Society of North America is borne out of serious confusion: the Prophet, God's peace and blessings be with him, questioned the wisdom of appointing an inexperienced women to a leadership position because she happened to be the king's daughter; the Islamic society of North America elected an experienced Muslim leader, with a long track record in leadership and public service.

Hello to all the people on this website:

May I impose upon you just a bit?

I've posted a diary on Street Prophets that comments on the Pope's recent speech at Regensberg. I have never, ever tried to drum up traffic for one of my diaries before. But the fact of the matter is, I am profoundly saddened by this controversy, and I honestly think I have a perspective that lends some insight (and dignity!) to the discussion. The diary can be found at Violence, Truth, and the Perfection of Allah -- Pope Benedict's Dilemma.

If you would, might you take a look? And if you think it adds something of benefit to the discussion, please either link to it, or post it elsewhere, as you think fit.

Peace be with you all.
agnusdei

This whole issue is ridiculous, and is clear evidence of the need for men to maintain "superiority" over women for the sake of their fragile ego. It is usually weak men who try to exclude women from these positions. The example of Bilquis, The Queen of Sheba, in the Quran, extols the virtues and strengths of Bilquis as the leader of a nation. Allah chose to include this story in the Quran for a reason. If He wanted to exclude women from leadership positions He this surah would have given the perfect opportunity to do so.

The only people for whom this is a debate are those Muslims in this country with foreign accents. For the rest of us born and raised in America, we are quite use to the fact that the MSAs are almost entirely run by women - probably because they tend to be more serious about Islam than the men. What is ISNA if not a very big MSA.

I think its funny to see people tripping over themselves to redefine the traditions to allow female leadership. Safi's job is fairly unconvincing and shows the real and sad limits to the method of reinterpreting. Perhaps it could be done in a convincing way, but Safi's article just doesn't make the cut. The hadith of putting the affairs in the nads of women was dealt with gingerly; he can't take the logical step of saying that it is probably bunk and can only say that it's not an order. Perhaps not, but it sure as heck sounds like a prediction to me. And, why can't he say that maybe everything that the Prophet commented on was specific to that instance of Buran's assumption of leadership, but Safi gives only the statement that the hadith must be interpreted, "and in the context of a political culture that places the hereditary rule over the principle of merit in deciding political succession." Does he mean the Prophet said she (Buran) would fail because she simply inherited and the most meritorious person was not chosen? Why did he not just say that then? Why did we have to wait for Louay Safi to figure this out in 2006? Or, does Safi mean to say this this comment of the Prophet is confined to a specific incident and not for all time? I think he would be violating the political Islamist creed if he tries to say that what the Prophet said is not relevant to all times and places (that's a progressive-only perogative, apparently)!

As for "moral and *political* equality of the sexes, a principle established by numerous Quríanic verses", I say the verses he brought establishes moral equality without a doubt, but from where does he bring 'political equality'? This can only make sense if he sees the Quran as a political document because nothing I see in those verses suggests anything political, only equality in getting reward for good deeds and punishment for bad deeds.

I've posted a longer article about this at: http://www.progressiveislam.org/the_steps_that_isnas_louay_safi_just_cant_take

Enjoy.

The timid beaten muslim women image taking a knock here. You think Oprah will interview her : )

>> ... I see in those verses suggests anything political, only equality in getting reward for good deeds and punishment for bad deeds.

Would a universal value have to be given application in every specific situation to make it valid?

>> 4. Finally, the hadith, being a singular narration (khabar ahad), is of a lesser degree of certainty than the Quríanic narration (khabar mutawatar), and hence cannot overrule principles established in the Qurían

Question - can Hadeeth really be used to override Quraanic principle? I would've assumed a congruence or at least an overriding principle?

Peace be upon all of you

I am not aware of what hadiths support or do not support the position of ISNA. However, I do recall that the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) used to work for a women, a women who later proposed to him in marriage.

The role of women in American mosques and the muslim world appears to be in total disregard for the respect and high status given to them by the Prophet Muhammad during his lifetime.

I hope this move by ISNA will help to elevate the position of Muslim Women in America.

It's absurd that we still have some people objecting to a woman heading ISNA. Is she qualified? Of course. Is she more qualified than many of her predecessors? Damn straight. Well, then - it's not about time; it's late!