Discussion of the issue of women driving cars.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : The living example present in our reality now
The Shaykh : What?
The questioner : I do not mean the one I am about to bring up
The Shaykh : Ah
The questioner : which is the issue of women driving cars
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : Now, the benefit, or rather the prevention of harm, is realized in preventing her from driving a car
The Shaykh : Yes
The questioner : especially in our country; as for other countries, we do not know about them
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : I mean, the benefit you mentioned may exist in one place and not in another
The Shaykh : Good.
The questioner : So, is it permissible for a person, for example, to issue a fatwa against women driving, even if he is convinced of this opinion, in order to bring about the aforementioned benefit or to prevent a definite harm?
The Shaykh : This is another issue: is it prohibited? Because if the one in authority is legislating, he has the right to prohibit what is originally permissible
As for the current topic, we should remove the word "prohibit" from it. Is it prohibited? The one who prohibits is the one in authority, and the people of the nation have no authority over the one in authority; rather, the exact opposite is true: it is for the one in authority to prohibit. But we are proceeding with this example to clarify whether this falls under the unrestricted public interests or not, regardless of the opinion of the one in authority. Understood?
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : Okay, now if it is said that there is harm in women driving cars, we say that preventing harm takes precedence over seeking benefit. So, if we acknowledge that there is a benefit in women driving cars, the issue enters a different phase, which is: if a benefit conflicts with a harm, then preventing the harm takes precedence over seeking the benefit. But is this example of that nature or not?
The questioner : I look at it as being of that nature.
The Shaykh : You look at it as being of that nature?
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : We say now: is the harm being referred to due to the woman riding in a car, or due to something else? So bring up what you have, because you mentioned that this is in our country, but do not speak about other countries.
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : So, does the harm come from the woman riding in her own car, or what?
The questioner : The implications of this matter, O Shaykh, are that she leaves her house and goes wherever she wants, right?
The Shaykh : Ah
The questioner : And now, there are cases where she is out without riding in a car... among the matters that specifically require her to leave the house is riding in a car.
The Shaykh : May Allah reward you, you do not prevent a woman from riding in a car absolutely; you ride in them.
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : And it is necessary, but the research is about her riding in her own car. So what is the harm you are referring to if the woman rides in her own car? What is the difference between her own car and a car that is not her own, or rather, a public car?
The questioner : Her own car does not have someone with her to protect her.
The Shaykh : It does not have someone with her to protect her.
The questioner : And to guide her, and to be her guardian.
The Shaykh : This question and the answer to it mean that you do not allow a woman to leave her house absolutely unless there is someone with her to protect her. That is one point.
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : The other point is that you allow a woman to drive the car herself if there is someone with her to protect her. Is that so?
The questioner : This is the principle that I see, as for them...
The Shaykh : You did not answer me. Leave them.
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : I am discussing this with you and asking you: is that so?
The questioner : This is required. Yes.
The Shaykh : So, the cause you mentioned earlier has fallen away, when you said that the meaning of your words is that you do not allow a woman to leave her house on foot unless there is someone with her to protect her... and I do not think any of you do that first, and then I do not think any of you, and you are among those who say, "Yes, it is not permissible for her to leave her house on foot unless there is someone with her to protect her." So why did you distinguish between her leaving on foot and her leaving in a car? The best that can be said about the cause you mentioned is that it is a deficient cause. Likewise, any cause that is not complete.
The questioner : The best for him is to combine them. It was mentioned in the first question that the benefit may be realized in one part of the ruling and not in another.
The Shaykh : So let me understand: your answer is that you agree that it is a deficient cause and not a complete cause. I asked you, and as is your custom, you would say "Yes" or you might say "No." Instead, you used an expression from which I understand whether I am right or wrong in agreeing with my statement that it is not a complete cause. So I am forced to verify my understanding of you by saying "Yes" or that.
The questioner : Yes, that is so.
The Shaykh : May Allah reward you, then.
The questioner : And the deficient cause, I want to inquire about it.
The Shaykh : Ah?
The questioner : Or the deficient benefit, which we can express with this term.
The Shaykh : Perhaps the truth is that I do not know what you mean by "deficient benefit." Is the deficient benefit legislated or not legislated? That is the point and the problem in the matter.
But if you understood from me and agreed with me that this is a deficient cause, then that means, according to the jurists, that a deficient cause does not stand to establish a ruling by its presence or to negate that ruling by its absence. In any case,
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : Let us leave this talk that resembles philosophy. What is the difference between a deficient cause and a complete cause? What is the difference between her leaving alone on foot, as we said, and her leaving by car? Because I see the exact opposite: if the woman is honorable, protected, and chaste, then if she leaves by car, it is more protective and more preserving for her than her leaving on foot.
The questioner : It is so, but O Shaykh,
The Shaykh : Yes
The questioner : when she drives the car,
The Shaykh : Ah
The questioner : she is more inclined to go to what she wants than if she were going on foot.
The Shaykh : May Allah reward you. This answer is not valid for the woman I mentioned. The woman I mentioned is either as I described her, or she is of the type you are referring to. Suppose this woman is my daughter, or my wife, or my sister. I know if her gaze is wandering,
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : in her manner, or not. So at that time, I do not allow her to leave absolutely unless there is a mahram with her.
The Shaykh : What?
The questioner : I do not mean the one I am about to bring up
The Shaykh : Ah
The questioner : which is the issue of women driving cars
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : Now, the benefit, or rather the prevention of harm, is realized in preventing her from driving a car
The Shaykh : Yes
The questioner : especially in our country; as for other countries, we do not know about them
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : I mean, the benefit you mentioned may exist in one place and not in another
The Shaykh : Good.
The questioner : So, is it permissible for a person, for example, to issue a fatwa against women driving, even if he is convinced of this opinion, in order to bring about the aforementioned benefit or to prevent a definite harm?
The Shaykh : This is another issue: is it prohibited? Because if the one in authority is legislating, he has the right to prohibit what is originally permissible
As for the current topic, we should remove the word "prohibit" from it. Is it prohibited? The one who prohibits is the one in authority, and the people of the nation have no authority over the one in authority; rather, the exact opposite is true: it is for the one in authority to prohibit. But we are proceeding with this example to clarify whether this falls under the unrestricted public interests or not, regardless of the opinion of the one in authority. Understood?
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : Okay, now if it is said that there is harm in women driving cars, we say that preventing harm takes precedence over seeking benefit. So, if we acknowledge that there is a benefit in women driving cars, the issue enters a different phase, which is: if a benefit conflicts with a harm, then preventing the harm takes precedence over seeking the benefit. But is this example of that nature or not?
The questioner : I look at it as being of that nature.
The Shaykh : You look at it as being of that nature?
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : We say now: is the harm being referred to due to the woman riding in a car, or due to something else? So bring up what you have, because you mentioned that this is in our country, but do not speak about other countries.
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : So, does the harm come from the woman riding in her own car, or what?
The questioner : The implications of this matter, O Shaykh, are that she leaves her house and goes wherever she wants, right?
The Shaykh : Ah
The questioner : And now, there are cases where she is out without riding in a car... among the matters that specifically require her to leave the house is riding in a car.
The Shaykh : May Allah reward you, you do not prevent a woman from riding in a car absolutely; you ride in them.
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : And it is necessary, but the research is about her riding in her own car. So what is the harm you are referring to if the woman rides in her own car? What is the difference between her own car and a car that is not her own, or rather, a public car?
The questioner : Her own car does not have someone with her to protect her.
The Shaykh : It does not have someone with her to protect her.
The questioner : And to guide her, and to be her guardian.
The Shaykh : This question and the answer to it mean that you do not allow a woman to leave her house absolutely unless there is someone with her to protect her. That is one point.
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : The other point is that you allow a woman to drive the car herself if there is someone with her to protect her. Is that so?
The questioner : This is the principle that I see, as for them...
The Shaykh : You did not answer me. Leave them.
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : I am discussing this with you and asking you: is that so?
The questioner : This is required. Yes.
The Shaykh : So, the cause you mentioned earlier has fallen away, when you said that the meaning of your words is that you do not allow a woman to leave her house on foot unless there is someone with her to protect her... and I do not think any of you do that first, and then I do not think any of you, and you are among those who say, "Yes, it is not permissible for her to leave her house on foot unless there is someone with her to protect her." So why did you distinguish between her leaving on foot and her leaving in a car? The best that can be said about the cause you mentioned is that it is a deficient cause. Likewise, any cause that is not complete.
The questioner : The best for him is to combine them. It was mentioned in the first question that the benefit may be realized in one part of the ruling and not in another.
The Shaykh : So let me understand: your answer is that you agree that it is a deficient cause and not a complete cause. I asked you, and as is your custom, you would say "Yes" or you might say "No." Instead, you used an expression from which I understand whether I am right or wrong in agreeing with my statement that it is not a complete cause. So I am forced to verify my understanding of you by saying "Yes" or that.
The questioner : Yes, that is so.
The Shaykh : May Allah reward you, then.
The questioner : And the deficient cause, I want to inquire about it.
The Shaykh : Ah?
The questioner : Or the deficient benefit, which we can express with this term.
The Shaykh : Perhaps the truth is that I do not know what you mean by "deficient benefit." Is the deficient benefit legislated or not legislated? That is the point and the problem in the matter.
But if you understood from me and agreed with me that this is a deficient cause, then that means, according to the jurists, that a deficient cause does not stand to establish a ruling by its presence or to negate that ruling by its absence. In any case,
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : Let us leave this talk that resembles philosophy. What is the difference between a deficient cause and a complete cause? What is the difference between her leaving alone on foot, as we said, and her leaving by car? Because I see the exact opposite: if the woman is honorable, protected, and chaste, then if she leaves by car, it is more protective and more preserving for her than her leaving on foot.
The questioner : It is so, but O Shaykh,
The Shaykh : Yes
The questioner : when she drives the car,
The Shaykh : Ah
The questioner : she is more inclined to go to what she wants than if she were going on foot.
The Shaykh : May Allah reward you. This answer is not valid for the woman I mentioned. The woman I mentioned is either as I described her, or she is of the type you are referring to. Suppose this woman is my daughter, or my wife, or my sister. I know if her gaze is wandering,
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : in her manner, or not. So at that time, I do not allow her to leave absolutely unless there is a mahram with her.