The appropriation of the ḥadīth of Umm Waraqah as proof for the permissibility and validity of a woman’s leading ṣalāh in Amina Wadud’s recent episode in New York throws up some interesting considerations.
Responses have varied. There has been the tendency to question the authenticity of the ḥadīth; another approach looks at the applicability of the ḥadīth to the case in question; while a third approach surveys the views and opinions of the scholars of Islam. While none of these approaches lacks individual merit, it should not be lost to the observer that there is another side to the issue―a side that none of us can afford to lose sight of in the present global climate. The present paper seeks to touch upon each of these various approaches, whilst not omitting to set the issue within the framework of contemporary affairs.
1. Authenticity
The ḥadīth of Umm Waraqah has been documented in Sunan Abī Dāwud, Musnad Aḥmad, al-Ḥākim’s Mustadrak, and al-Bayhaqī’s Dalāʾil al-Nubuwwah.[1] Its chain of narrators in all of these sources leads up to a single strand: al-Walīd ibn ʿAbdillah ibn Jumayʿ, narrating from his grandmother and ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Khallād, both of whom narrate from Umm Waraqah.
Authenticity rests, to a great (though not exclusive) degree upon the narrators. As a rule, a ḥadīth will only be accepted as authentic and reliable basis for law when it meets the requirements of acceptance. In the present ḥadīth the focus comes to rest upon three narrators: al-Walīd, his grandmother, and ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Khallād.
Al-Walīd ibn ʿAbdillah ibn Jumayʿ
Ḥadīth critics have differed on al-Walīd ibn ʿAbdillah ibn Jumayʿ. Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn, al-ʿIjlī, Abū Zurʿah and Abū Ḥātim are on record as having accepted his reliability as a narrator; while Ibn Ḥibbān and al-ʿUqaylī have made disparaging remarks about his credibility. Al-Bazzār adds that he had certain Shīʿī proclivities in him as well.[2] Ibn Ḥajar sums up these various pronouncements by saying that he was “truthful, prone to err, with an accusation of Shīʿism against him”.[3]
The grandmother of al-Walīd
In al-Ḥākim’s version of the ḥadīth her name is given as Laylā bint Mālik. There is general concurrence amongst the muḥaddithūn that she is unknown.[4] When a narrator is unknown the ḥadīth falls short of the requirements of authenticity. To this may be added the fact that there also exists some confusion with regard to al-Walīd ibn ʿAbdillah’s source. In some versions of the ḥadīth it is his grandmother; in others, it is his grandfather; whilst in yet others, his grandmother is identified as Umm Waraqah herself.[5] What we have here is thus a case of jahālah (an unknown narrator) compounded by iḍṭirāb (confusion).
ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Khallād
In ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Khallād we have another example of an unknown entity. His name appears nowhere in ḥadīth literature except in this narration of Walīd ibn ʿAbdillah ibn Jumayʿ. Ibn al-Qaṭṭān states that his condition is unknown, leading Ibn Ḥajar to conclude that he is majhūl al-ḥāl (a less serious case of jahālah that would pass as acceptable to some scholars).[6] A recent recension of Ibn Ḥajar avers, however, that this is not a case of jahālat al-ḥāl, but one of jahālat al-ʿayn, which is considerably more serious.[7]
Missing links
Over and above the disparaging claims that have been made about the above narrators, there is another issue which has a bearing upon the acceptability of the ḥadīth. Al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī points out that the form in which the chain of the ḥadīth appears in the common sources hides another issue that impugns its authenticity. Neither Walīd ibn ʿAbdillah’s grandmother (or grandfather), nor ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Khallād have received this ḥadīth from Umm Waraqah directly. Ibn al-Sakan and Ibn Mandah have recorded the ḥadīth via Laylā bint Mālik (who is Walīd’s grandmother), from her father, from Umm Waraqah; while Abu Nuʿaym records it via Walīd, from his grandmother, from her mother, from Umm Waraqah. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Khallād too, is on record as having received the ḥadīth, not from Umm Waraqah directly, but through an unknown intermediary.[8]
Summary
Opinions have differed around this ḥadīth. Objectivity and honesty demand that both opinions be stated here. Some have looked upon it as a case of a questionable narrator (Walīd ibn ʿAbdillah ibn Jumayʿ) narrating from two unknown narrators, and have therefore concluded that the ḥadīth is not reliable.
A more lenient opinion asserts that the questionable narrator is reliable to most critics, while the two unknown narrators corroborate one another. They therefore claim that the ḥadīth is ḥasan li-ghayrihi, indicating an intrinsic weakness augmented by corroboration. The corroboration, however, is a case of internal corroboration (mutābaʿah) and not external (shāhid). In other words, this ḥadīth is not supported by any other independent and separate ḥadīth, but merely by the fact that Walīd ibn ʿAbdillah happens to narrate it from two persons. Al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī has conclusively negated the existence of any other ḥadīth on this issue.[9]
What this lenient position overlooks is the issue of missing links in the chain. Such missing links constitute a major problem. We have no idea whatsoever about the personality, and consequently the reliability, of the missing persons. An objective appraisal of the state of the ḥadīth cannot fail to take this hidden defect (termed an ʿillah in ḥadīth terminology) into consideration. One of the five essential requirements of authenticity is that the ḥadīth should be free from such defects. In the final analysis, the ḥadīth of Umm Waraqah falls short in authenticity and has to be dismissed as authoritative grounds upon which to formulate law.
2. Applicability
Applicability, of course, will only come into play if it is accepted that the ḥadīth is acceptable. Assuming therefore that it is in fact a reliable ḥadīth, the question that should next be asked is whether it does actually indicate what it is claimed to indicate: that it is fully permissible and valid for a woman to lead males in ṣalāh.
The core of this claim rests upon the part of the ḥadīth which reads:
وَأَمَرَهَا أَنْ تَؤُمَّ أَهْلَ دَارِهَا
He (i.e the Prophet ṣallaLlāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) ordered her (Umm Waraqah) to lead the people of her house (dār) in prayer.
There is no express mention of which individuals constituted the members of her household. There is no mention of a husband, father or son. All that exists is the fact that the ḥadīth makes mention of the fact that the Prophet ṣallaLlāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam appointed a male person to be her muʾadhdhin. This has led some persons to the claim that Umm Waraqah led at least one male in ṣalāh.
The ḥadīth, however, does not state that. It doesn’t state that the muʾadhdhin actually made his ṣalāh behind Umm Waraqah. To assert that would be an assumption into the text, and not the text itself. Assumptions of this nature should never be done subjectively, but in consideration of objective factors known to us through other texts.
The first such factor would be the insistence of the Prophet ṣallaLlāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam upon congregational ṣalāh in the masjid. Well known are the aḥādīth on his extreme annoyance at certain persons performing ṣalāh at home, to the point that he threatened to burn down their houses.[10] Equally well known is the case of the blind man who came seeking permission to perform his ṣalāh at home. After initially granting him permission to do so, RasūluLlāh ṣallaLlāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam recalled him and asked him if he could hear the adhān. When he answered in the affirmative, he ordered him to attend the congregational prayer in the masjid.[11] It has also been stated that in the time of the Prophet ṣallaLlāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam the only male to stay away from the congregational prayer would be an open hypocrite or a severely ill person.[12]
Such a severe attitude against the performance of ṣalāh away from the congregation in the masjid leaves us with very little option but to assume that even the muʾadhdhin of Umm Waraqah was ordered to make adhān for her, but perform his ṣalāh in the masjid with the Prophet ṣallaLlāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam and the rest of the Companions. Any other assumption flies blatantly in face of what is reliably known to us of the attitude of the Prophet ṣallaLlāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam and the practice of the community at Madīnah.
In short, there exists ambiguity in the text of this ḥadīth. As it stands it carries the possibility that the people who prayed behind Umm Waraqah included males; and it carries the other possibility that they were exclusively females. A cardinal rule with regard to dealing with textual ambiguity is that consideration must be given to surrounding evidence. Ignoring the surrounding evidence of attitudes and environment can only be said to be subjective, and therefore, worthy of dismissal.
As for the argument that the word dār refers to the entire neighbourhood, it rests upon an even flimsier basis. The literal meaning of the word ‘dār’, as opposed to ‘bayt’, is that the word ‘dār’ applies to the entire structure, consisting of walls, rooms and inner courtyard, while ‘bayt’ refers to the individual rooms within the ‘dār’. The extension of the word ‘dār’ to an entire neighbourhood is figurative (majāz), and opting for a figurative reading without advancing compelling objective reason is once again a subjective ploy. The words ‘dār’ and ‘bayt’ are used in the very same ḥadīth in a way that puts paid to any such extension. Umm Waraqah was eventually murdered by two of her slaves. ʿUmar’s discovery of the body of Umm Waraqah after her murder is recorded by Ibn al-Sakan as follows:[13]
فلما أصبح عمر قال: والله ما سمعت قراءة خالتي أم ورقة. فدخل الدار فلم ير شيئا. فدخل البيت فإذا هي ملفوفة في قطيفة في جانب البيت.
“In the morning ʿUmar raḍiyaLlāhu ʿanhu said: ‘I By Allah I did not hear the recital of my aunt Umm Waraqah.’ He entered her ‘dar’ and when he did not see anything amiss, he entered her ‘bayt’ and found her wrapped in a qaṭīfah to the side of the ‘bayt.’”
3. Opportunism of postmodernism
It appears from the way in which the ḥadīth of Umm Waraqah has been appropriated and brandished in the case of Amina Wadud’s Jumuʿah adventure, that she and her ilk actually subscribe to the authority of Ḥadīth and Sunnah. A more careful reading of her writings and the attitude towards Ḥadīth as reflected in them points to something more sinister at work here.
Amina Wadud is a feminist. That much is as clear as daylight. In the course of her career as an “Islamic feminist,” she has encountered three sorts of obstacles: cultural attitudes, Qurʾānic verses, and Prophetic aḥādīth. The first (cultural attitudes) she has dismissed with more than contempt. When it came to verses from the Qurʾān she was more tentative. For many years her attitude has been one of hermeneutical prevarication teetering on the verge, but never quite flipping over into blatant rejection. On Sunday 6 February of this year, just a few weeks before her Jumuʿah adventure, she finally took the plunge. A fellow postmodernist would-be reformer, Tarek Fatah, described the meeting in Toronto in which she finally came out of the closet in the following words:
Midway through her speech titled ‘The Qur’an, Women and Interpretive Possibilities’, Wadud waded into the minefield by addressing some difficult passages of the Qur’an. Breaking the ultimate taboo in the Muslim narrative, she stated that despite the fact the Qur’an explicitly asks for cutting off the hands of thieves, she did not agree with the Qur’an. She said she understood that this was a very difficult subject to talk about, but she would be dishonest to herself if she did not express her views. She maintained that as a Muslim with Allah close to her heart, in all honesty she could not continue with the hypocrisy of lying about how she felt about some verses of the Qur’an. The basis of her talk was ‘How to be God’s agent (khalīfa) on Earth; to be a moral agent of the Creator’. In this context, she presented four ways of looking at Qu’ranic verses which Muslims find difficulty dealing with. She identified the four methods as: (1) The literal readings of the text, (2) The legalistic arguments that constrain how verses are applied, (3) Reinterpretation from alternative perspectives, and (4) Saying ‘No to the Qur’an’ when one disagrees with it. Pursuing the last point, she declared that she could not intellectually or spiritually accept some things in the Qur’an, for example some of the ḥudūd punishments like the cutting of hands or the permission to beat one’s wife. She made it clear that she was denying neither the religion nor the revelation. ‘It is the Qur’an,’ she said, ‘that gives me the means to say no to the Qur’an’. (Emphasis added)
This is Amina Wadud’s attitude, not towards the Ḥadīth, but towards the Word of Allah, the Qur’an. She feels herself Qur’anically justified to reject the authority of the Qur’an itself when it happens to clash with her feminist agenda. If such is her attitude towards the Qur’an itself, what expectations can we have for her attitude vis-à-vis the Ḥadīth, rejection of which has always been the premier qualifying requirement for all would-be reformers of the modernistic and postmodernistic hue?
Ḥadīth is conspicuously absent from her writings, no doubt on account of the tendency that Ḥadīth has to restrict the interpretive freedom of the Qur’an’s exegete―a freedom which is the very life-force of postmodernistic exegesis. It can be safely concluded that Amina Wadud dispensed with the legal authority of Ḥadīth and Sunnah a long time ago. When we find her today brandishing the hadith of Umm Waraqah as her reason for believing that a woman may lead the prayer, then it is common sense, and not mere suspicion, which compels us to reject it as a glaring untruth. Amina Wadud does not believe in Ḥadīth. For her to argue on the basis of Ḥadīth is no less incongruous than the Christian missionary who attempts to prove Trinity from the Qur’an.
If Amina Wadud was a believer in Ḥadīth, she would have subjected herself to its authority in all those instances where it overrides her feministic prejudices. She would have accepted ḥadīth where it says that the prayer rows of women should be behind those of men. She would have submitted herself to acceptance of all that the authentic ḥadīth literature contains about women. She would have conceded to every case which her feminism would otherwise condemn as “unacceptable”, “biased”, “oppressive”, “chauvinistic” and “masochistic”. But not only has she never submitted herself to any such authority; she has simply ignored most of it, in what cannot be interpreted as anything than scornful rejection.
Therefore, when we see her and her ilk gloating over the fact that they have “reclaimed a right granted by the Prophet 1500 years ago”, then we have to assert our own right to ask: what happened to everything else that the Prophet ṣallaLlāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam said? What is it, in the final analysis, that makes the ḥadīth of Umm Waraqah acceptable when all other aḥādīth are rejected with contempt, and when even the Qur’an has finally been flung aside? Is it because the ḥadīth has been graded by some as ḥasan li-ghayrihi? Is it because the ḥadīth is in Abū Dāwūd’s Sunan which is one of the Six Books? Is it because of a consistent methodological approach towards ḥadīth? Each of these questions can only be answered in the negative.
Amina Wadud’s appropriation of the ḥadīth of Umm Waraqah is an entirely opportunistic one. She uses the ḥadīth because it serves her cause, and not because Ḥadīth has any inherent authority. In illustration of this fact, let us consider the following: The ḥadīth goes on to state that two of Umm Waraqah’s slaves murdered her, on account of which they were brought to justice and put to death by crucifixion. Would Amina Wadud or any of her enthusiastic supporters support this form of punishment? After all, it forms part of the very same ḥadīth which they are euphorically brandishing in support of their Jumuʿah adventure. On the contrary, the only response which can be expected would be one that reads something like, “although the ḥadīth explicitly prescribes death by crucifixion for such murderers, I do not agree with the ḥadīth.” Thus the first part of the ḥadīth is fine, while the second part is met with blunt rejection.
A woman asked the Prophet ṣallaLlāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam for permission to join the military expeditions as a nurse to the sick. He replied, “Stay in your house; Allah will grant you martyrdom.” Does the command to stay at home, and the implicit refusal for her to join military expeditions as a nurse smack of sexist discrimination to Amina Wadud and her followers? If it does, they had better take care how they respond. Before saying things like “we cannot intellectually or spiritually accept such things” they should take note that the woman who asked that permission is our same Umm Waraqah, and the ḥadīth is the very same ḥadīth in Sunan Abī Dāwūd. But this was the part about which they were not informed.
A similar attitude was once upon a time displayed by the Jews in Madīnah. To such recalcitrants Allah said:
يَٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ ٱدۡخُلُواْ فِي ٱلسِّلۡمِ كَآفَّةٗ وَلَا تَتَّبِعُواْ خُطُوَٰتِ ٱلشَّيۡطَٰنِۚ إِنَّهُۥ لَكُمۡ عَدُوّٞ مُّبِينٞ
“O you who have believed, enter into Islam completely [and perfectly] and do not follow the footsteps of Satan. Indeed, he is to you a clear enemy.” (2:208)
And for the destiny of those who accept what they wish and reject what does not suit them, to them Allah says:
أَفَتُؤۡمِنُونَ بِبَعۡضِ ٱلۡكِتَٰبِ وَتَكۡفُرُونَ بِبَعۡضٖۚ فَمَا جَزَآءُ مَن يَفۡعَلُ ذَٰلِكَ مِنكُمۡ إِلَّا خِزۡيٞ فِي ٱلۡحَيَوٰةِ ٱلدُّنۡيَاۖ وَيَوۡمَ ٱلۡقِيَٰمَةِ يُرَدُّونَ إِلَىٰٓ أَشَدِّ ٱلۡعَذَابِۗ وَمَا ٱللَّهُ بِغَٰفِلٍ عَمَّا تَعۡمَلُونَ
“So do you believe in part of the Scripture and disbelieve in part? Then what is the recompense for those who do that among you except disgrace in worldly life; and on the Day of Resurrection they will be sent back to the severest of punishment. And Allah is not unaware of what you do.” (2:85)
The Legacy of ʿĀʾishah has been something very close to Amina Wadud’s heart, something about which she is known to wax lyrical. Had she been a true devotee of Umm al-Mu’minīn Sayyidah ʿĀʾishah raḍiyaLlahu ʿanhā, she would have followed her example in prayer. If any woman in Islam had the right to lead the salah it would have been Sayyidah ʿĀʾishah. But we have nothing, absolutely nothing that indicates to us that she ever arrogated any such rights to herself. If there was any place in which she would lead the ṣalah for males it would have been in the privacy of her own house. But the sources are not only silent in this regard; they provide us with evidence to the contrary.
It was the habit of Sayyidah ʿĀʾishah to have a slave of hers named Dhakwān lead her in the Tarāwīḥ salah during Ramadan. This slave was much less learned than she was. He did not even memorise the Qurʾān, and used to lead her in salah whilst reading from the muṣḥaf. Her own degree of learning was vastly above his. Despite her knowledge and her sublime status as Umm al-Muʾminīn it was to him that she ceded the right to lead salah.[14]
4. The bigger picture
The times in which we live have brought us more than one tribulation. Where on the one hand we have those who would invade our lands and slaughter our people in order to force us by their military might into a submission and acceptance of their ideas of civilization, we have others who would aid and abet the invader and applaud his oppression. And then we have others who have hitherto been obscured by the shadows, but whose potential as the invader’s agents, witting or unwitting, has not gone unnoticed.
In 2003 the National Security Research Division of the Rand Corporation in America released a study by Cheryl Benard, entitled “Civil Democratic Islam: Partners, Resources and Strategies”. After categorizing Muslims into Traditionalists, Modernists and Secularists, this study advances the following strategy:
“To encourage positive change in the Islamic world towards greater modernity, and compatibility with the contemporary world order, the United States and the West need to consider very carefully which elements, trends and forces within Islam they intend to strengthen; what the goals and values of their various potential allies and protégés really are; and what the broader consequences of their respective agendas are likely to be. A mixed approach composed of the following elements is likely to be the most effective:
Support the modernists first:
– Publish and distribute their works at subsidized cost.
– Encourage them to write for mass audiences and for youth.
– Introduce their views into the curriculum of Islamic education.
– Make their opinions and judgements on fundamental questions of religious interpretation available to a mass audience in competition with those of the fundamentalists and traditionalists who have Web sites, publishing houses, schools, institutes, and many other vehicles for disseminating their views.
– Position secularism and modernism as a “counterculture” option for disaffected youth.
– Facilitate and encourage an awareness of their pre- and non-Islamic history and culture, in the media and the curricula of relevant countries.
– Assist in the development of independent civic organizations, to promote civic culture and provide a space for ordinary citizens to educate themselves about the political process and to articulate their views.[15]
The first of these “independent civic organizations” have started to appear in North America. One of these is a group called the Progressive Muslim Union of North America. One of those invited to form part of its Advisory Board was a person called Farid Zakariya. He holds another distinguished post. He is the founder of a group called “Muslims for Bush”. And this is but the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
What are Muslims to make of Jumuʿah charade of last Friday? Is this simply a case of an honest though deluded feminist making a statement for a cause she passionately believes in? Or is it one of neocon conspiracy, a silent invasion? In light of what we are blatantly told in the Rand Report, denial of the second possibility is imbecility.
At best, what we have here is a symbiosis of interdependence and mutual benefit. The neocon West needs persons like Amina Wadud and episodes like her Jumuʿah adventure to achieve its goals. The Amina Waduds of this world stand to benefit immensely from the exposure and patronage of this government.
The real tragedy lies in the fact that it is the Ḥadīth of Rasūlullāh ṣallaLlāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam that is cast into the role of the bait.
References
[1]Sunan Abī Dāwūd no. 591-592; Musnad Aḥmad vol. 6 p. 405; al-Mustadrak no. 730, vol.1p. 320; Dalāʾil al-Nubuwwah vol. 6 p. 382
[2] al-Mizzi, Tahdhib al-Kamāl vol. 31 pp. 35-37
[3] Ibn Ḥajar, Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb no. 7432
[4] Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb no. 8813
[5] Tahdhīb al-Kamāl vol. 35 p. 391
[6] Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb vol. 3855
[7] al-Arnaʾūṭ & ʿAwwād, Taḥrīr Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb vol. 2 p. 317
[8] al-Iṣabah fī Tamyiz al-Ṣaḥābah vol. 8 p. 289
[9] al-Mustadrak vol. 1 p. 320
[10] Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī no. 644; Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim no. 651
[11] Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim no. 653
[12] Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim no. 158; al-Bayhaqī, Shuʿab al-Īmān vol. 3 p. 59
[13] al-Iṣābah vol. 8 p. 289
[14] Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī in muʿallaq form, book 10, chapter 54. The complete ḥadīth is given by Ibn Abī Shaybah in his Muṣannaf vol. 2 p. 121
[15] Benard, C. Civil Democratic Islam: Partners, Reosurces and Strategies, pp. x-xi,Rand Corporation 2003