…’.8
On the other hand, one must underline that the context in which this hadith was formulated has often been ignored, which significantly restricts the account of its true significance … In fact, it occurred when the Prophet had learned that Chosroes II, Emperor of Persia and inveterate enemy of the Muslims, had died and that his daughter had taken over leadership in his place … The Persian empire of the time was governed with a hand of steel by the ruling family which was known for its insidious despotism. The Prophet was seeking through this phrase to denigrate the daughter of the emperor due to the state of war which prevailed between the two peoples and due also to the politically autocratic regime which lived there and not, to criticize the fact she was a woman. We can at this level pose the question differently: would the Prophet have glorified the ascension to power of the Persian Empire if it had been the son and not the daughter of Chosroes II who had succeeded him? Evidently not. The Prophet criticized the nature of power and the entire political system of the Persian empire of the time! Yet, it is sad to note that a certain, profoundly misogynistic religious reading perceived, through this hadith, the absolute need to impose the nomination of a man for all positions of political responsibility.
It is interesting to note that Abu Bakrah,9 narrator of the hadith, recalled this particular hadith for the first time in a historical context as particular as that in which it was uttered by the Prophet!
Indeed, the story of the tradition states that Abu Bakrah recalled this hadith during the famous ‘Battle of the Camel’ in which were confronted the allies of A’ishah and those of Ali ibn Abu Ṭalib.10 Abu Bakrah, himself an ally of A’ishah’s clan, justified his own refusal to participate in the battle on the basis that it was A’ishah, a woman, who was leading the political action! Abu Bakrah thus made the link between the hadith he had heard from the Prophet and the context of conflict which opposed A’ishah to Imam Ali and which sadly turned to tragedy.
Having interpreted the hadith literally, he considered illicit any participation in an activity led by a woman even if, in this case, it was A’ishah who he held in very high esteem according to certain Islamic sources.11
It is important to note in this regard and concerning this political episode, that the justification given by Abu Bakrah was not repeated by any of the great companions of the Prophet at the time, who themselves abstained from participating in the battle of the camel based on other considerations.
Whereas the Prophet criticized a political framework due to its authoritarianism, Abu Bakrah understood this to mean – as many of the scholars after him did – that it was all political representation of women which should be forbidden.
The following generation of scholars ended up inserting this hadith into the register of recommendations in favour of the prohibition of all political participation by women despite, the fact the Prophet never enjoined anything on the subject. He was merely making an observation of the Persian political situation of the time, and any instrumentalization of this hadith has been undertaken in defiance of the context in which it was formulated and with the intended objective of denying women any form of political participation.12
What’s more, some thinkers, notably contemporary ones, affirm that this hadith, being a simple ahad hadith (hadith reported by a single narrator), cannot logically, therefore, be used as a single source of legislation.13
The interpretation of this hadith has had the most widespread impact we know, with the corollary of justifications, the most in vogue of which remain the notion of the structural weakness of women. The scholars banned women from having access to all political responsibility due to this alleged structural weakness, which puts them in a state of moral and intellectual incapacity to manage the affairs of the State! Women are said to be weaker due to their physical constitution and their biological propensity to conceive of everything on an emotional level, which is said to render them predominantly irrational. What is being confused here are emotional predispositions and intellectual capabilities. Yet, there is a big difference between saying that women have a greater inclination towards sensitivity and affectivity – which in no way represents a weakness – and suggesting they are somehow handicapped by this! Is the suggestion that a female neurosurgeon who operates each morning in order to extract cerebral tumours from men is incapable of controlling her alleged over-emotionalism in the political sphere, when she clearly does so without issue on the operating table?
All these affirmations, in addition to being erroneous and unjustified, are in flagrant contradiction with Qur’anic principles. The Qur’an has never advocated any sort of weakness which is singular to women and nowhere does it stipulate that man is endowed with greater reason or that women are more deficient than men or that women are devoid of rationality. Nowhere … ! However the Qur’an has stated that human beings in general are weak:
man has been created weak. [...] (al-Nisā’ 4: 28)
The weakness referred to by the Qur’an here is a deficiency linked to the creation of human beings themselves, due to their incapacity to control their negative impulses, a weakness intrinsic to human beings and which transcends gender.
What is more, through the example of Balkis, the Qur’an counters all the presumptions which tend to paint women as inferior and exclude her, politically speaking, by raising a woman to the height of wisdom, as a democratic political leader, fair and capable … Infinitely wiser than all of those men she consulted and who appear to be the dignitaries of her people. And, yet, it is deplorable to see how certain classical Muslim commentators have strongly criticized the person of Balkis. Whereas the Qur’an speaks of her in glowing, respectful terms which could not be clearer nor more precise, many exegetes have a pernicious approach to this individual and a number of them get mired in very long, harsh and often very disagreeable commentaries!
Whosoever reads the various works of exegesis will recall the awkwardness, the reticence, even the hostility of certain exegetes faced with a female personality reigning on a magnificent throne14 and who in addition, displayed intelligence and wisdom! It is worth noting here that the Qur’an describes the throne, emblem of her power, as magnificent, suggesting a significant intellectual capacity of this woman who managed this vast and rich kingdom with such know-how!
Some erudite Muslims avoid the crux of the matter, namely the extraordinary personality of this queen as described in the Qur’an, as well as her political capabilities, in favour of a very reductive approach which sometimes veers into deeply disparaging. This is the case of a famous theologian of the early period of Islam who describes her as a ‘iljatu’, a pejorative term which means ‘donkey’ or ‘disbeliever’, an expression often used to refer disparagingly, even insultingly to non-believers. This scholar expresses surprise at seeing men allowing themselves to be governed by an ‘iljatu’ who, being a woman is deemed weak and lacking in reason but who turns out to be, much to his disappointment, more intelligent than the men – said to be sages – who surrounded her! They push their derision to the point of inappropriately criticising her physique.15 One might ask what the link is between this woman’s physical appearance and her political decisions, her physical appearance having been born of Divine creation! And how can he vilify and belittle her entire person simply because she happens to be a woman?!
Other scholars go further and even suggest this poor queen has jinn ancestry! Balkis’ mother must be a jinn, and according to some even the leader of jinns!16 It is only by diminishing her humanity that the commentators can rest assured concerning her future as a woman … no need to take her as an example if she is really only half human! In reading the commentary attributed to the story of Balkis, one is stunned in the face of so much speculation and unlikely stories which turn the reader away from the true educational dimension of this story.
At
