Was Shifā bint Abdillāh in Charge of the Market Under Umar?

The Claim

A common talking point amongst deformists seeking to promote gender mixing (ikhtilāṭ) and women assuming positions of authority over men is an alleged incident involving the eminent female companion Shifā’ bint ‘Abdillāh (raḍiyAllāhu ‘anhā). It is claimed she was put in charge of the market by ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb (raḍiyAllāhu ‘anh).

Source

The earliest mention of this alleged incident is found in Muḥammad ibn Sa‘d al-Baghdādī’s (168 – 230 AH) Ṭabaqāt. In his entry on her husband, Abū Ḥathmah ibn Ḥudhayfah (raḍiyAllāhu ‘anh), Ibn Sa‘d writes:
Ibn Sa‘d cites this incident using the passive form (“it is said”) signalling weakness. Furthermore, he presents no chain of transmission and counters it with the statement of her descendants denouncing it as a false report and taking offence at it. Clearly, the very idea that Shifā’, their great female ancestor, would be in charge of the market was not seen as something positive in this early period of the salaf (quite unlike how it is viewed by deformists seeking to use it to justify ikhtilāṭ). The obvious reason for this is that it opposes the ghayrah male family members feel about female family members mixing with strange men.

The first to quote it with a chain of transmission is Ibn Abī ‘Āṣim (206 – 287 AH) as follows:

Authenticity

Duḥaym narrates from an unknown “man”, and there is a gap between Yazīd ibn Abī Ḥabīb and ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb (raḍiyAllāhu ‘anh). Furthermore, Ibn Lahī‘ah is problematic as a narrator. Hence, this is an extremely defective source for this incident and thus cannot be cited as evidence.

Analysis

While discussing the topic of a woman being unqualified to be the ruler, Qāḍī Abū Bakr ibn al-‘Arabī (468 – 543 AH) said:
In the same context, he talks about how a woman may not mix with men. (ibid., 3:483) Al-Qurṭubī quotes the same from Ibn al-‘Arabī in his famous tafsīr. (al-Jāmi‘ li Aḥkām al-Qur’ān, Mu’assasat al-Risālah, 16:139)

Hence, not only is the source extremely defective, but major scholars of the ummah have explicitly rejected it on the grounds of it conflicting with basic principles of dīn.

In his al-Tārīkh al-Kabīr, Ibn Abī Khaythamah (d. 279 AH) reports that the son of Shifā’ (raḍiyAllāhu ‘anhā), Sulaymān ibn Abī Ḥathmah, was put in charge of the market in Madīnah under ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb (raḍiyAllāhu ‘anh), along with al-Sā’ib ibn Yazīd.

Thus, it is possible that Sulaymān, the son of Shifā’ (raḍiyAllāhu ‘anhā) and a prominent person in the time of ‘Umar ibn al-Khatṭāb (raḍiyAllāhu ‘anh), was in charge of the market, while in certain areas that did not require interaction with men, ‘Umar (raḍiyAllāhu ‘anh) allowed Sulaymān ibn Abī Ḥathmah to delegate it to his mother. Subsequently, a misunderstanding led to the false report that it was Shifā’ (raḍiyAllāhu ‘anhā) who was in charge of the market rather than her son. Hence, Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr (368 – 463 AH) said:
The same was quoted by prominent later historians Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī and al-Mizzī.

While some scholars like Ibn Ḥazm (al-Muḥallā, Dār Ibn Ḥazm, 12:320; Jamharat Ansāb al-‘Arab, p.150) and al-Māzarī (’Uddat al-Burūq, p.482) seem to consider the incident suitable to cite as evidence, there is nothing to indicate that they believed it to involve any activity that meant mixing with men or having authority over them.

Summary

In summary, the account of Shifā’ bint ‘Abdillāh (raḍiyAllāhu ‘anhā) being in charge of the market comes from dubious sources and has been rejected as inauthentic by major scholars. Even if there is some truth to it, there is no evidence that any role she may have had involved direct interaction with or authority over men. In fact, given the strict adherence to ḥijāb during that period, it is inconceivable that ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb (raḍiyAllāhu ‘anh) would have sanctioned any such thing.

See also:

Debunked: Attempts to Justify Ikhtilāṭ by Distorting Samrā’ bint Nahīk Narration

The Prohibition of Ikhtilāṭ (Unnecessary Mixing of Non-Elderly Men and Women)