Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanawi on Female Rulership

A Write-Up of Ḥaḍrat Thānawī [Allāh have mercy on him]

To argue for the permissibility of female rulership some people attempt to offer a write-up of Ḥakīm al-Ummat Ḥaḍrat Mawlānā Ashraf ‘Alī Ṣāḥib Thānawī [his soul be sanctified], which has been published in Imdād al-Fatāwā. In it, Ḥaḍrat Thānawī [Allāh have mercy on him], while answering a question on the ḥadīth: لن يفلح قوم ولوا أمرهم امرأة, said a democratic government does not fall under the purview of this warning.

But before understanding the reality of this write-up of Ḥaḍrat Thānawī [Allāh have mercy on him], it is necessary to understand that Ḥakīm al-Ummat Ḥaḍrat Thānawī [Allāh have mercy on him] too, just like the entire Ummah, holds that it is not permissible for a woman to be head of an Islāmic government. Thus, in this very write-up of Imdād al-Fatāwā Ḥaḍrat [Allāh have mercy on him] himself wrote:
Furthermore, Ḥaḍrat Mawlānā Thānawī [his soul be sanctified] explained this issue with further clarity in his Tafsīr in these words:
Furthermore, the section of Aḥkām al-Qur’ān that Ḥaḍrat Thānawī [Allāh have mercy on him] delegated to Ḥaḍrat Mawlānā Muftī Muḥammad Shafī‘ Ṣāḥib [Allāh have mercy on him], in this too, under the incident of Queen Bilqīs, the matter is explained clearly. With reference to Ḥaḍrat Thānawī [Allāh have mercy on him] himself, it refutes the argument that the Noble Qur’ān has narrated the account of Bilqīs’s rulership without condemnation. (Aḥkām al-Qur’ān li ‘l-Muftī Muḥammad Shafī‘, v3 p29)

It is clear from these citations that Ḥaḍrat Thānawī [Allāh have mercy on him], like the scholars of the Ummah, believes that it is not permissible in Sharī‘ah for a woman to be made head of government. However, the question arises that if a region opposed this ruling of Sharī‘ah and a woman was made ruler, will the warning that has been stated in the ḥadīth that such people will never find success apply to them? In answer to this, Ḥaḍrat Thānawī [his soul be sanctified] said if the government is inclusive and complete, as found in a personal sultanate (or as occurs in the Islāmic caliphate) and a woman is made head of government, then undoubtedly the warning in the ḥadīth applies. However, if the government is of a democratic kind, failure is not necessary. Ḥaḍrat Thānawī [Allāh have mercy on him] explains the reason for this as follows:
It is clearly evident from this that Ḥaḍrat Thānawī [Allāh have mercy on him] did not only say that a woman’s actual governance is not permissible but he also considered it a cause of failure. Thus in terms of the original issue, his stance is that a woman cannot be head of government. However, regarding a democratic government, he expressed his view that this is not really governance but merely consultation. Hence, Ḥaḍrat Thānawī’s [Allāh have mercy on him] entire thesis hinges on this: is a democratic government really governance or merely consultation? This question is not a ruling of Sharī‘ah but a question of reality. Ḥaḍrat Thānawī [Allāh have mercy on him] felt the ruler of a democratic government is in reality not a ruler, rather that, in the capacity of a member of parliament, his word merely holds the position of consultation. Hence, in this write-up he said:
It is again made clear from this citation that he accepts that a woman being ruler is impermissible and a cause of failure. He did not disagree with this, but according to the information he had, he did not regard the ruler of a democratic government to be a true ruler. This disagreement is not over the original matter, but over the reality of a democratic government.

The reality is that although the prime minister in a parliamentary system is merely a member of consultation in his capacity as a member of parliament, he has two other capacities based on which it is not possible to consider him merely a member of consultation. The first capacity is that he is head of the executive branch of the country. In this capacity, he has full autonomy, while keeping within the boundaries of the law and constitution, to the point that he has the power to reject the consultation of the entire cabinet and act according to his own judgement.

The reality is that in a democratic system, three functions of the state have been separated out: one is legislation, which is delegated to the legislature i.e. parliament. The second function is the administration of the country, which is delegated to the executive branch. The third function is to adjudicate disputes which is delegated to the judiciary. From these three branches of the state: the legislature, executive and judiciary, “government” is used unconditionally for the executive branch. The legislature and judiciary are indeed secondary branches of the state but is not a part of government. Only the executive branch is referred to as government. The prime minister is head of this executive branch. He has complete authority to run the activities of government while remaining within the parameters of the law. Neither does he present everything for consultation to the legislature nor can he, nor is that necessary. He must pass important executive decisions by the cabinet but is not bound by their decision. In fact, in a cabinet session, his decision is final. It is evident that an individual with such power cannot be referred to as merely a “member of consultation”.

In terms of the legislature, undoubtedly, he is a member of consultation. However, in the conventional system of parliamentary parties, he holds a further capacity which does not limit him, even in this legislature, to merely a member of consultation. That capacity is the leader of the powerful majority party and leader of the legislative chamber. Hence his decision in the parliament is not merely a personal opinion, but at times represents the majority of the legislative chamber. In particular, if on behalf of his party, he enforces any policy for the members of parliament of his party, all members of his party are bound to vote according to this policy in the assembly. In the parliamentary jargon, this is called “party whip”. Meaning, after this whip is put into motion, all the members of the party in the parliament are compelled to accept the opinion for which the whip was put into motion.

Now it is evident that the person who puts this whip into motion cannot be called a mere “member of consultation”. From this perspective, the capacity of the prime minister in the legislature is not merely that of a member of consultation, but of a leader of the majority party and leader of the legislative chamber. In practice, he follows the consultation of others less and others follow his consultation more. Although theoretically, the president is the leader of the state and the prime minister of the executive branch, in the parliamentary system, the function of president is mostly ceremonial, while true powers rest with the prime minister. Hence, in the view of the entire world, the prime minister is considered the true ruler.

From this explanation it has become clear that Ḥaḍrat Thānawī [his soul be sanctified] did not at all consider the rulership of a woman to be permissible. He states this in clear words. However, the question before him was: is the leadership of a democratic government a real rulership or not? This question has no connection with the study of Sharī‘ah, but with a conventional democratic system. It is evident that Ḥaḍrat Thānawī’s [Allāh have mercy on him] primary field was the study of Sharī‘ah. Ḥaḍrat Thānawī’s [his soul be sanctified] field was not studying the political systems of the present age. It is evident that if the realities explained above in connection with the prime minister of a parliamentary system were to be brought before Ḥaḍrat Thānawī [his soul be sanctified], he would have definitely revised his opinion that a prime minister is merely a member of consultation.

---

Extracted from THIS ARTICLE