In his program on Alhurra’s digital platforms this week, writer and journalist Ibrahim Issa addressed the question of women’s authority and their right to lead the state. He dismantled the arguments of those who reject granting women leadership roles.
The following contains the most important points from the episode, edited for clarity and flow.
————————-
A single, simple question topples any argument for prohibiting women from leading the state: “Honestly, what have we seen from men when they commanded, presided, and ruled that would make us reject a woman’s rule?” We look at the record of history and at the reality we live in, and we ask: Why must we reject women’s rule, women’s presidency, or women’s leadership? What have male rulers provided that makes rejecting the female alternative either justified or even convincing to anyone with eyes to see or a mind to think?
The preemptive rejection of women’s authority is a retreat behind the illusion of male superiority in leadership, an illusion contradicted by the practical record of governance. This historical failure of male rulers is the first piece of practical evidence that should nullify any argument starting from prohibition.
Therefore, when someone raises his voice today and declares with certainty: No, women holding kingship or the presidency has nothing to do with Islam, such a claim deserves a direct and decisive response, one that ends all debate. “The logical response truly, without exaggeration, and with no desire whatsoever to belittle or mock anyone is simply to tell him, take your nonsense elsewhere!”
This is the only real response, no matter how much they try to wrap their opinion in solemnity and authority.
“A people who Entrust their Affairs to a Woman…”
This response, telling the claimant to step aside, is necessary and should not depend on the form or appearance in which the claim is delivered. The only answer is: “Take your nonsense elsewhere!” That must remain the position, no matter how large, lofty, or puffed-up the turban is. We do not bow to the trappings of religious authority when they stand in contradiction to reason and evidence.
And even when we try to trace the source of this categorical prohibition, we turn to these claimants and ask: “Where did you get this ruling?” Their answer reveals that they do not rely on any explicit Qur’anic text, but on other sources.
The prohibition against women assuming kingship or the presidency is derived from Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh). And when asked for supporting evidence, jurists cite the hadith: “A people who entrust their affairs to a woman will not prosper.”
They claim that preventing women from assuming any leadership is beyond dispute. They insist that this hadith represents an unquestionable rule. They have transformed this text into an absolute legislative principle, applying it to every level of major authority, deriving from it a general, permanent ruling.
But a critical reading of the hadith, both in its wording and its essence, does not support such absoluteness. The Prophet’s words “A people who entrust their affairs to a woman will not prosper” do not necessarily mean that a woman is categorically forbidden from ruling. To conclude that the hadith decisively establishes that “any people who place their affairs in the hands of a woman will fail” is a hasty inference, inconsistent with the intent and context of the statement.
The greater danger lies in granting this text, which is a single narration hadith, (ahad) the absolute authority to cancel women’s leadership. Here we are facing a problem within jurisprudential methodology itself.
The Qur’anic Challenge
The greatest test for any religious prohibition must pass through the Qur’an. And we affirm that the Qur’an never said this. The Qur’an never said, in any way or form, that women are forbidden from assuming leadership, authority, imamate, rulership, kingship, or presidency. “He never said this at all!”
Therefore, if anyone claims to extract from the Qur’an a verse, or an interpretation of a verse, that forbids women from leadership or the presidency, then whoever makes such a claim, whoever fabricates such an allegation, “is a liar against God.”
But they bypass the authority of the Qur’an, claiming instead that this hadith must be upheld as an absolute rule, since it appears in Sahih al-Bukhari (highest grade Hadith).
When Sahih al-Bukhari is invoked as proof, we must place that claim in its proper context. Our response is: no, my friend—that is what hadith literalists assert. The absolute notion that everything in Bukhari must be accepted without question is not a universal principle of Islam, but a belief specific to those who place extreme, unquestioning faith in Bukhari. They regard the chain and authenticity of every narration in it as beyond discussion.
But let us be clear: we do not accept the unquestionable authenticity of everything in Sahih al-Bukhari. Every text, even those found in Bukhari, must be weighed against the Qur’an.
Thus, when we place the hadith, “A people who entrust their affairs to a woman will not prosper,” against the Qur’an, the Qur’an offers no support for such a claim.
Are “Ahad” Hadiths Authoritative?
Even if we set aside debates over authenticity, there remains a fundamental methodological issue.
This hadith is an ahad (report transmitted by a single or few narrators.) And the jurists themselves established a principle regarding ahad hadiths: “Your own jurisprudence, your own rulings, state clearly and unequivocally that solitary hadiths cannot be the basis of law.”
Thus, the major rulings of Sharia, and matters concerning general governance and supreme leadership, cannot be built on a solitary hadith. This alone invalidates the argument.
Their use of a solitary hadith, a text that implies probability, not certainty, to establish a categorical ruling prohibiting women from leadership, is a violation of their own principles. It is a glaring methodological contradiction that demands rejection of the argument altogether.
The Narrator Was Punished!
Now we turn to another dismantling of the argument, relating to the narrator of That hadith. We are compelled to point out a historical fact that cannot be denied: its narrator, Abu Bakra al-Thaqafi, was subjected to legal punishment, he was flogged.
The reason he was punished was his testimony in an adultery case concerning al-Mughira ibn Shu‘bah. The enforcement of the divine punishment (hadd) for false accusation against this narrator casts doubt on his reliability as a transmitter of hadith.
Therefore, attempting to build a general, absolute ruling, one as serious as barring women from kingship or the presidency, on a report transmitted by a narrator whose credibility is compromised, only further weakens the case and justifies dismissing the hadith.
A Specific Context
We must also consider the historical and political context of the hadith. Two key points deserve attention:
First: the hadith refers to a specific historical incident, when the daughter of Khosrow assumed the throne of Persia. The statement was made in response to that political event in Persia. This shows that the hadith was tied to a particular circumstance, not a universal law for all nations at all times.
Second: the hadith was later exploited politically. Abu Bakra al-Thaqafi narrated it during the conflict between Aisha, the Prophet’s widow, and Ali ibn Abi Talib, the fourth caliph.” In that political context, the hadith was used as if it were directed against Aisha and her supporters.
Thus, the political context of the original event (the Persian succession) and the later context of its narration (the conflict between Aisha and Ali) demonstrate how the hadith shifted from a comment on a Persian political episode to a tool for internal political struggle.
Therefore, in the absence of any decisive Qur’anic text, the primary reference, and given the problems surrounding solitary hadiths, the credibility of the narrator, and the specific political and historical circumstances, we reach a decisive conclusion:
The hadith “A people who entrust their affairs to a woman will not prosper” cannot be regarded as legislative authority.
Accordingly, the only fitting response to anyone who seeks to drag us back to this kind of jurisprudence contradicting the Qur’an itself is to tell them clearly: “Take your nonsense elsewhere!”
