A Defective Analogy and a Stale Opinion: Comparing the Mixing of Men and Women in Universities to the Mixing in the Sacred Mosque in Makkah

The questioner : May Allah reward you, O Shaykh. Some of our brothers in Kuwait criticized the university authorities regarding the issue of mixing, saying, "This is the sanctuary of Allah, where there are men and women." What is the response to that?

The Shaykh : Who said it is the sanctuary of Allah?

The questioner : It is the House of Allah, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Ah, how did they say it?

The questioner : They said, "This is the sanctuary, the sanctuary of the House of Allah, the Makkah sanctuary, where there is mixing between women and men."

The Shaykh : Ah, this is the sanctuary of Allah, meaning Makkah, meaning the nations...

The questioner : Yes, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Yes, so they compared the mixing there to the mixing in the university?

The questioner : Yes, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : I seek help from Allah, but I want to ask: who are the ones who say such things? Are they people of knowledge, or are they people of ignorance, as I suspect? If the matter is as I suspect, then students of knowledge should not pay attention to the barking of every barker, because this door never seems to end. Whenever one of them has a whim, and he is more ignorant than Abu Jahal, we treat him with respect, elevate his words from the ground, and give them weight, discussion, and lectures, and so on. What I want to mention before answering such a question is that we should focus on the person who raises such a question. If he has weight in knowledge in the Muslim world, his statement may be correct, or it may be wrong, or it may be one of the slips of scholars, as it is said, "The slip of a scholar is the slip of the world." This is what should be attended to, and one should inquire about the truth of his statement. So now, before I answer, I repeat the question: Who is the one who says this?

The questioner : The authorities, O Shaykh, in the university.

The Shaykh : Are they scholars?

The questioner : No, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Well, the authorities in the university, my brothers, these are employees. They are employees in a center where the rulings of the Shari'ah are not observed. Therefore, we should not give them any attention. Nevertheless, we must answer this because I know that some, or many, of the students of knowledge—and they may not be employees in universities—claim that mixing in the university is permissible in the path of seeking knowledge. For this reason, I will answer this question, and within the folds of the answer, I will address what deserves an answer, which is what I pointed out: that some students of knowledge permit studying in mixed universities. I say first: Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him), as you know, has words that are cited as examples, told, and transmitted, even if they contain some harshness, severity, and affectation at times. You know, for example, that he rejects the fourth of the four proofs, which is analogical reasoning (qiyas), rejecting it in its entirety and in detail in his scholarly books, such as Al-Ihkam fi Usul al-Ahkam. Even though he sometimes falls into the very qiyas he rejected against his will, the point is that when he responds to his opponents who advocate qiyas, and he brings up their qiyas and tries to invalidate it, he says—and this is the point—he says, "This is qiyas, and all qiyas is invalid." This is his school of thought, and we do not agree with it. But the point is, he said, "Even if there were truth in it, this would be the very essence of falsehood from it."

The questioner : Allahu Akbar.

The Shaykh : I say this analogy is the most defective analogy on the face of the earth. Why? For two reasons. First, the mixing that occurs in universities between the undisciplined young men and the women who display their adornment is compared to the women who intended the Sacred House for Hajj or 'Umrah, and you rarely see any of them displaying their adornment. Therefore, I say if the mixing that was used as the basis for the comparison—and that is the mixing in Makkah—were permissible by the Shari'ah, and it is not permissible as will be explained, then it is one of the most defective analogies on the face of the earth. It is as Ibn Hazm said, as I quoted earlier: "Even if there were truth in it, this would be the very essence of falsehood from it." Why? Because they are comparing this undisciplined university mixing to this modest mixing that exists in Makkah. This is the first point. Second, it is not permissible for women to mix with men in Hajj, or in 'Umrah, or in any place, even if it is one of the Houses of Allah the Exalted, which the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) described as . The mixing that occurs in Makkah and in the Sacred Mosque by some women is not permissible by the Shari'ah. So they are comparing what is not permissible to what is not permissible. Whoever says this is not from the people of knowledge, but from the people of religion? Now, regarding the response to some students, who may be with you in Kuwait and elsewhere, who claim that mixing in the university is permissible to acquire knowledge, such as medicine, pharmacy, and the like, for some women: We say that the stronger analogy invalidates this university mixing. The stronger analogy, which Ibn Hazm might have accepted as I pointed out earlier, is what the noble verse indicates: to the end of the verse. "Do not say 'uff' to them" is prohibited by the explicit text of the verse. Do you not see that the Noble Qur'an forbids the son from striking either of his parents with his hand if he forbids him from facing them with "uff"? Does it not forbid him from striking them with his hand? This is called what? A stronger analogy (qiyas awla), because this is more harmful. Regarding mixing in the university in the path of seeking knowledge: First, we say this knowledge is not an individual obligation (fard 'ayn), but rather a collective obligation (fard kifayah). If some people fulfill it, it drops from the rest. So if a woman, and even a young man, does not belong to a university to seek knowledge, he is not a sinner, because he did not abandon seeking knowledge that is an individual obligation upon him. How much more so if he seeks this knowledge, which is a collective obligation, and it involves what is forbidden, namely mixing? What is the evidence for the prohibition? Here is the crux of the matter, as they say. One of the harms of this era—and this is what made me misunderstand your first phrase when you mentioned the sanctuary—is that some people today call the university campus a sanctuary, "the university sanctuary." You must have knowledge of this, and this is an encroachment on the rulings of the Shari'ah, because they liken the university sanctuary to the sanctuaries of the three respected mosques, which have a special virtue. The harm started from this naming, and from here came that invalid analogy: the mixing in the university sanctuary is like the mixing in the Sacred Mosque. We all know what I pointed out earlier regarding the saying of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him): . Despite this, the Wise Lawgiver forbade the mixing of women and men in the best of places, and in the best state a Muslim man and woman can be in regarding distance from what Allah has forbidden, which is standing before Allah for supplication. Despite this, he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . Glory be to Allah! The Wise Lawgiver, Blessed and Exalted is He, legislated means and ways to keep evil away from both sexes, even in the state of standing for prayer. Many students of knowledge, let alone the general Muslims, may not know the reason for this legislation, namely that the worst rows for men are the last ones, and the worst rows for women are the first ones. Many may not know the reason for that. The reason is that there was a man among the Companions of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) who attended the mosque and prayed, but he deliberately prayed in the last row. Why? Because there was a beautiful woman praying in the first row, so when he prostrated, he would look under his armpit at her.

The questioner : (may Allah be pleased with him),

The Shaykh : (may Allah be pleased with him), by the right of this, for he was a Companion. Perhaps you remember, and I do not mention this so that you would do as they did, but I mention it so that you know that we are not like them in excellence. And Allah (Mighty and Majestic) holds a person accountable according to the preponderance of his good deeds over his bad deeds. So whoever’s good deeds outweigh his bad deeds is among the successful, and the opposite is the opposite. And the greatest virtue that is available to people is that of the Companions of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), who accompanied him, heard his speech, saw him, and sometimes saw his actions, and worshipped as they saw him worship until the end. The point is that this man was a Companion and did this deed, and Allah (Mighty and Majestic) revealed regarding him . The foremost ones who apply: what is the best of the rows of men? The first of them. And the last ones who apply: and the worst of the rows of men is the last of them. I say: We mention this only to know this ruling, that the Wise Lawgiver prescribed this separation between women and men, because the soul is a commander of evil, except what my Lord has shown mercy to. So if this noble Companion was seduced in the mosque, in the Sacred Precinct, truly, and in the best of places, what do we say about ourselves if we are in universities, and as they say in our Syria, "a mixed bag"? We can never exonerate ourselves from being infected very strongly by those who study in universities, whether they are males or females. And like this man, for example, from the Companions of the Messenger, whom we should not measure ourselves against. That man who came to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)—we do not do this today, we do his deed but we do not do his repentance. We may do his deed and commit the sin he committed, but we do not immediately proceed to engage in the means of repentance, as this man did. This man came to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and said: O Messenger of Allah, I entered a garden in Medina and I found a woman in it, so I did not leave anything that a man does with his wife except that I did it with her, except that I did not have intercourse with her. Allah is the Greatest. He (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . He said: Yes. So Allah (Mighty and Majestic) revealed: . There is no doubt that this man’s prayer is not like our prayer. Where do we take this negation of doubt from? Because he was a Companion. And if we say he was a Companion, we do not mean that he was a Prophet, meaning infallible. No. This is like the first one; both committed a transgression, but this second one came to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) mentioning what he did, seeking repentance or the path of repentance and purification. So he (peace and blessings be upon him) said to him: . He said: Yes. And Allah (Mighty and Majestic) revealed: , meaning the prayer. As we all know in many hadiths, the prayer between one prayer and the next is an expiation for what is between them, as long as the major sins are avoided. And the hadiths in this meaning are many and very many. The point is that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) made a separator in the best of places between women and men. And this is from the chapter of blocking the means. The chapter of blocking the means. This is a very great chapter in Islam. The Qur’anic texts and Prophetic hadiths came one after another supporting this rule. So those who said or made that false analogy, or those young men who have some knowledge and permit seeking knowledge in a university where the good and the bad are mixed, as it is said, either they do not know this established rule in the Book and the Sunnah, which is the rule of blocking the means. And we have now mentioned one of its proofs, which is the separation of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) between men and women in prayer. And not only this separation, but he made the best of rows, as you know, the best of rows of men is the first of them, and the best of rows of women is the last of them, and that is to keep the two sexes away from each other in the best of places. There is no doubt that if universities adopted Islam as a methodology in all aspects of the university, there is no doubt that they are not the best of places. The best of places are the mosques. So how do they not take charge of Islam in what they plan and what they study in the university? Something else also regarding the same subject: In Sahih al-Bukhari, it is narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), when he finished the prayer with the taslim, would remain for a moment. He remained for a moment. The narrator said: So we saw that he only did that so that the women would leave before the men, so that the women would leave the best of places before the men, so that there would be no mixing when exiting the Sacred Precinct, truly, meaning the mosque. From the completion of this, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) mentioned in more than one hadith that women do not have the right to the middle of the road, but rather they have the sides of the roads. So where was the upbringing of women in the time of the Messenger? Where is the upbringing of women in our time today?? I am pushed by men with my shoulder and I walk, and not like the walk of men. So the woman in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), because of this noble Prophetic guidance, her jilbab would touch the wall. She would take the edge of the road completely, so that her garment would rub against the wall, whether on the right or the left, because the middle of the road is for men. So with the existence of the rule of blocking the means in Islam, and with the existence of these hadiths in which this rule is realized in the best of places, how can it be said that mixing in other than the best of places is permissible? This is truly one of the misfortunes of this time: the legalization of what Allah (Mighty and Majestic) has forbidden. And you must know, or at least remember, that the forbidden things in Islam are of two types: a type that is forbidden in itself, and this is not even debated by many people of doubt and suspicion that it is forbidden. And another type that is not forbidden in itself, but rather it is forbidden because it leads to what is forbidden in itself. The first forbidden thing, and the examples of this are many and very many. And it is sufficient for us now what has a direct relation to the subject of mixing, which is his (peace and blessings be upon him) saying: . This is the forbidden thing in itself, and what comes before it is forbidden out of fear that it will lead to the forbidden thing in itself. And this hadith is explicit in that. And from this hadith, I take the poet of Egypt in his time, Shawqi, when he said: "A glance, then a smile, then a greeting, then speech, then an appointment, then a meeting." This meeting is the forbidden thing, but this meeting usually cannot happen except with preliminaries. So the rulings of the result are given to the preliminaries that lead to that result, which is forbidden. So every means that leads to a forbidden thing is forbidden, and every means that leads to a permissible thing is permissible, if the means is permissible and leads to a permissible thing, it is permissible, and so on. So we have known the answer and the response to the two groups: the group that said they analogized university mixing to the mixing in the Sacred Mosque, and the other group who, if Allah wills, did not fall into this false analogy, but they fell into falsehood when they permitted what Allah has forbidden in the best of places, which are the mosques. And with this, the answer is complete, if Allah wills.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : And upon you be peace, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings.

The questioner : O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Yes.