In a heated debate with a male relative about one of my articles, he snaps: “Next you’ll be asking to be a minister!” I stop for a second: “Why not?” What is so shocking about a woman minister, political consultant, a member of the Shoura Council, ambassador or judge? I still cannot understand why men in my country insist on viewing women as inferior. I still cannot believe that they do not see that women have proven their capabilities in many fields. Political leadership is no exception.

When Muslim men are asked why they object to women in politics, they usually quote one particular Hadith: “A nation which places its affairs in the hands of a woman shall never prosper!” Let us examine this Hadith first in its context. If the Prophet (peace be upon him) actually did say this, it was upon hearing that the Persians had appointed Chosroe’s daughter as ruler. He was probably predicting the fall of the dynasty — not disenfranchising women.

Scholars will agree that there are several Hadiths of this type; i.e. limited to certain events which do not include any kind of later application. If he was undermining the role of women as leaders, would he contradict himself by telling his followers that a third of their religion could be learned from Aisha (his wife)?

I say “if the Prophet actually said this,” because several scholars have found reasons to reject its authenticity. First of all, the narrator of the Hadith is Abu Bakrah, a man who was convicted of, and flogged for, false testimony during Caliph Omar’s reign. Hence, according to Islamic law, his narration of Hadith should not be accepted. Moreover, the context in which he first mentions the Hadith is even more perplexing: Abu Bakrah had sided with Aisha and her troops against Ali in the “Battle of the Camel.” After her defeat and return to Madinah he narrated the Hadith.

Scholars who reject this Hadith say that this companion could not have understood the Prophet’s words as an injunction against female leadership. If that were the case, then he would be in an awkward position. It is not possible that a true companion would remember an injunction of the Prophet and proceed to disobey it. Nor would he be so disrespectful as to announce subsequently the recollection without explaining why he ignored it.

Leaving that Hadith aside, let us examine the Prophet’s political history with women. Actions speak louder than words, and Islamic history is rich in women leaders. Two women were among the first people to come and secretly pledge their allegiance to the Prophet. Later, after the Prophet returned to Makkah, he was approached by dozens of men pledging allegiance, and many women came as well. He did not turn them away or ask them to send their male guardians to pledge allegiance on their behalf.

The Qur’an says: “O Prophet! Whenever believing women come unto thee to pledge their allegiance to thee... then accept their pledge of allegiance.” (60:12) This is the equivalent to voting today. Over 1,400 years ago, Muslim women were already allowed to vote. They continued to do so during the reigns of subsequent rulers. What has become of us today? Not one Saudi woman is a member of the Shoura or has a say in any political matter.

What about women who were even more politically active in Islamic history? The first martyr in Islam, Sumaya, was a woman. Moreover, women fought in battles, side by side even with the Prophet. Two prominent examples of this are Umm Imara and Nasiba bint Kaab. Omar, the second Caliph, narrates: “I heard the Prophet saying: ‘On the day of Uhud, I never looked right or left without seeing Umm Imara fighting to defend me.’” As for Nasiba bint Kaab, she fought alongside both the Prophet and the first caliph, Abu Bakr. She was such a distinguished and courageous warrior that the caliph himself attended her reception on her return to Madinah.

If women in Islam were meant to lead the kind of marginalized lives we lead today, why didn’t anyone tell these women to stay home? Are we claiming to know better than the Prophet and his companions?

The Prophet’s wives were also politically active. Umm Salamah was instrumental in advising the Prophet during the crisis of Hudaibiyah. Her advice prevented disunity and prevailed over the advice of other men including Omar ibn Al-Khattab. Aisha was a rich source of religious knowledge and the first Muslim woman to lead men into battle. She is the epitome of a woman leader. If women were not meant to be leaders, why are some of the Prophet’s wives so politically inspiring?

The earliest woman actually to hold a governmental position was probably Al-Shafa bint Abdullah ibn Abd Shams whom the second caliph appointed manager of the market at Madinah. She supervised men and women and had authority over both. Could the Prophet’s close companion be wrong in giving such an example? Are we better and more pious than Omar? If not, then why don’t we have a single politically appointed position where a woman has authority over a man? Even in our purely female academic institutions, the chain always goes back to a man who has the last word. Islam is not a chauvinistic religion; it never was and never should be.

And what about women as religious authorities? One of the most powerful positions in early and contemporary Islam is that of judge. Why does the mere mention of such a topic cause such problems? What do our early religious scholars think of women being judges? Ibn Hazm, a prominent traditional scholar, was of the opinion that women could be judges in all kinds of cases. He relied on the following Qur’anic verse “Behold, God bids you to deliver all that you have been entrusted with unto those who are entitled thereto, and whenever you judge between people, to judge with justice. Verily, most excellent is what God exhorts you to do: verily, God is all-hearing, all-seeing!” (4:58); Ibn Hazm said that since this verse addressed both men and women, there was no need to discriminate between the two.

Imam Abu Hanifah similarly believed that women could be judges but only on issues regarding domestic/family law. Despite these examples, we do not have a single female judge in Saudi Arabia. Are these imams not the same religious authorities that we resort to in other religious matters? Why are we selective in what we use and what we refuse? And, if this is the case, who decides what to use and what to refuse?

Perhaps the strongest proof that a woman can hold a political position as leader of an entire nation is the fact that Allah Himself, in the Qur’an, portrays Bilquis, Queen of Sheba, in a favorable light. We are told the story of a strong woman who is a democratic ruler, consulting her people before making important decisions. After witnessing Solomon’s power, she becomes a believer and remains the Queen of Sheba. We as Muslims know that when we are told a story in the Qur’an, it is not for entertainment but for our education. If it was wrong for a woman to be a leader, would Allah fail to mention that crucial point?

In conclusion, I must admit that my relative was absolutely right: I am asking for the right to be a minister. I am asking for the right to be whatever my abilities may enable me to be.

* * *

(Moodhy Al-Khalaf is a Saudi writer. She is based in Riyadh.)