In general, there has been two main orientations regarding the qualifications of an imam at prayer--especially Friday services--the first more liberal than the second. The first orientation practically demands nothing of an imam other than the ability to pray. As long as a man could perform the requisite set of acts and oral recitations required in prayer, the first orientation argued, he was deemed qualified to lead prayer.
The second and more demanding orientation set out what can be called a priority or preference system for an imam. This orientation saw the imam as a sort of teacher to the community--someone who could perform an educational or instructional role during the Friday services. Therefore, the second orientation gave preference to the person who memorized more of the Qur'an compared to others in the community, so that he could recite various portions and expose the community to a wider selection of the Qur'an. The second orientation gave preference to the person who could pronounce and vocalize the words of the Qur'an the best. Importantly, it also gave preference to the person who was the most learned in religion and also the most learned about the affairs of the community. During the khutba this person would be able to educate the community about the meaning of the Qur'an and Sunna and apply the teachings of Islam to the specific issues that are relevant to the community of worshippers. The first orientation practically expected nothing of the khutba--it was deemed sufficient for the imam to remind people of a few religious obligations and exhortations and then move on. The second orientation, relying on the precedent set by the Prophet and al-Khulafa' al-Rashidun, expected the khutba to be an opportunity for inspiring a discourse in the community about the most pressing or pertinent issues confronting the imam's own community. Therefore, it is not enough that the imam be able to recite a few suras from the Qur'an. Rather, the imam should be able to provoke the love of learning in the community, and should set an example as to how the teachings of Islam should and can inform and affect real-life challenges. The way these scholars used to put it is that the imam should play a leading role in creating a community bonded by enjoining the good and forbidding the evil (i.e. bonded by an ethical and moral discourse).
Between the two orientations, I believe, and God knows best, that the second is by far the more correct and the most true to the spirit of jumu'a.
Now, as to the gender issue.
There is no question that the vast majority of jurists excluded women from ever leading men in prayer. Many jurists, however, permitted women to lead women in prayer, if no male is available to lead the prayer. Some jurists said women may lead women even if a male is available to lead as long as women lead only women.
The Qur'an itself does not mandate that only men be allowed to lead prayer. The Sunna is indecisive on the issue. There is evidence that the Prophet on more than one occasion allowed a woman to lead her household in prayer--although the household included men--when the woman was clearly the most learned in the faith.
Up to the fourth Islamic century, there were at least two schools of thought that allowed women to lead men in prayer, if the woman in question was the most learned. In such a case, the men stood to the side so that they were not praying behind the woman imam. However, these schools (al-Thawri and Ibn Jarir) became extinct. So it is fair to say that since the fourth century all schools of thought did not allow women to lead men in prayer.
In my view, I look at the evidence and ask the following question: if a female could better teach and instruct the community about the Islamic faith should she be precluded from doing so because she is a female? Now, there is no dispute that a female could hold a class (halaqa) and instruct women and men about Islam. I think everyone agrees on that point. But the question is: Is there a specific exclusion against women when it comes to prayer? It seems to me that if there is such an exclusion the evidence in favor of this exclusion ought to be strong, if not unequivocally so. But the legal evidence in favor of such an exclusion is not very strong--it is more an issue of customary practice and male-consensus than direct textual evidence. Consequently, in my opinion, priority ought to be given to what is in the best interest of the community, and knowledge is the ultimate good. It seems to me that if a female possesses greater knowledge than a male--if a female is more capable of setting a good example in terms of how she recites the Qur'an and also in terms of teaching the community more about the Islamic faith, a female ought not be precluded from leading jumu'a simply on the grounds of being female.
I do agree with your position that the community of students should learn to depend on themselves. I also agree that if a female leads prayer, the males should not stand directly behind her--she could stand ahead of the lines with the men standing to her side.
The second and more demanding orientation set out what can be called a priority or preference system for an imam. This orientation saw the imam as a sort of teacher to the community--someone who could perform an educational or instructional role during the Friday services. Therefore, the second orientation gave preference to the person who memorized more of the Qur'an compared to others in the community, so that he could recite various portions and expose the community to a wider selection of the Qur'an. The second orientation gave preference to the person who could pronounce and vocalize the words of the Qur'an the best. Importantly, it also gave preference to the person who was the most learned in religion and also the most learned about the affairs of the community. During the khutba this person would be able to educate the community about the meaning of the Qur'an and Sunna and apply the teachings of Islam to the specific issues that are relevant to the community of worshippers. The first orientation practically expected nothing of the khutba--it was deemed sufficient for the imam to remind people of a few religious obligations and exhortations and then move on. The second orientation, relying on the precedent set by the Prophet and al-Khulafa' al-Rashidun, expected the khutba to be an opportunity for inspiring a discourse in the community about the most pressing or pertinent issues confronting the imam's own community. Therefore, it is not enough that the imam be able to recite a few suras from the Qur'an. Rather, the imam should be able to provoke the love of learning in the community, and should set an example as to how the teachings of Islam should and can inform and affect real-life challenges. The way these scholars used to put it is that the imam should play a leading role in creating a community bonded by enjoining the good and forbidding the evil (i.e. bonded by an ethical and moral discourse).
Between the two orientations, I believe, and God knows best, that the second is by far the more correct and the most true to the spirit of jumu'a.
Now, as to the gender issue.
There is no question that the vast majority of jurists excluded women from ever leading men in prayer. Many jurists, however, permitted women to lead women in prayer, if no male is available to lead the prayer. Some jurists said women may lead women even if a male is available to lead as long as women lead only women.
The Qur'an itself does not mandate that only men be allowed to lead prayer. The Sunna is indecisive on the issue. There is evidence that the Prophet on more than one occasion allowed a woman to lead her household in prayer--although the household included men--when the woman was clearly the most learned in the faith.
Up to the fourth Islamic century, there were at least two schools of thought that allowed women to lead men in prayer, if the woman in question was the most learned. In such a case, the men stood to the side so that they were not praying behind the woman imam. However, these schools (al-Thawri and Ibn Jarir) became extinct. So it is fair to say that since the fourth century all schools of thought did not allow women to lead men in prayer.
In my view, I look at the evidence and ask the following question: if a female could better teach and instruct the community about the Islamic faith should she be precluded from doing so because she is a female? Now, there is no dispute that a female could hold a class (halaqa) and instruct women and men about Islam. I think everyone agrees on that point. But the question is: Is there a specific exclusion against women when it comes to prayer? It seems to me that if there is such an exclusion the evidence in favor of this exclusion ought to be strong, if not unequivocally so. But the legal evidence in favor of such an exclusion is not very strong--it is more an issue of customary practice and male-consensus than direct textual evidence. Consequently, in my opinion, priority ought to be given to what is in the best interest of the community, and knowledge is the ultimate good. It seems to me that if a female possesses greater knowledge than a male--if a female is more capable of setting a good example in terms of how she recites the Qur'an and also in terms of teaching the community more about the Islamic faith, a female ought not be precluded from leading jumu'a simply on the grounds of being female.
I do agree with your position that the community of students should learn to depend on themselves. I also agree that if a female leads prayer, the males should not stand directly behind her--she could stand ahead of the lines with the men standing to her side.
No comments:
Post a Comment