“The Mosque as Sacred Space: A Socio-Legal Analysis of

Women in the Cape Mosque” - a thesis submitted to the

Department of Religious Studies, for the degree
Bachelor of Social Science (Honours), UCT, March 1999.

[pg 46] CHAPTER FOUR

A LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE POSITION OF CAPE MUSLIM WOMEN IN THE

SACRED SPACE (HARAM) OF THE MOSQUE

“...the female is a site of differences that are not only sexual or only
racist, economic, or cultural (or religious), but all these together, and
often at odds with one another ...” [de Laurentis 1986: 14-15].

1. Introduction

The pre-sermon (khutbah) address by a woman, American Professor Amina

Wadud-Muhsin at the Claremont Main Road Mosque in Cape Town on Friday 12th
August 1994, was presented in the main sector of the mosque which was divided
into a section for men and women. This presentation lends itself towards
delineating the local Islamic traditional and progressive understanding of the
moral character or status of acts vis-à-vis the Shari‘ah, i.e. whether prohibited
(haram) or lawful (halal). Consideration will be given to the variant legal proofs
of the traditionalists and progressives against, i.e. prohibiting, or for, i.e.
permitting certain acts. These include the act of a woman performing the pre-
khutbah talk and locating women next to men in the prime area of the sacred
space (haram) of the mosque. With the application of these would I be able to
conduct an analysis and explicate the local traditional and progressive
understanding. Further, I will designate the traditional and progressive
understanding of the role and position of Cape Muslim women in the mosque and
take into account their understanding of the Shari‘ah and the power relations of
exclusion, as a mechanism of social control. I will not only draw on the male
views of traditionalists from the Muslim Judicial Council (M.J.C.) but also that of a
learned female (‘alimah), one of the only female graduates from al-Azhar
University Egypt in South Africa Shaykhah Maymunah [pg 47] Solomons. Most
of the male traditional views were acquired via telephonic interviews with
members of the M.J.C. subsequent to the Wadud pre-khutbah event. The female
view I obtained through a recent unstructured interview1 as well as primary and
1
The three male traditional, telephonic interviews, I conducted with members of the Muslim Judicial Council,
on 16 October 1995. Due to the sensitivity of the issue then of the position of women in the mosque the
interviewees requested not to be mentioned by name. The length of each telephonic interview was about 30

Page | 1
secondary sources. The progressive views were also procured via extensive
unstructured interviews2 after the occurrence of the pre-khutbah and from
primary and secondary sources. It should be noted that I did not encounter any
problems in gaining access to traditional and progressive interviewees and
relevant sources.

2. Local Islamic Traditional Response

The traditional voice of men have always been hegemonic in the predominantly
partriachal-traditional Cape Muslim society through the learned scholars (‘ulama)
who frequently advised and directed society in legal (shar‘) matters including
social practice. With the action of progressives in permitting a woman to
conduct the pre-khutbah3 and positioning women in the “Holy of Holies” of the
mosque they were challenging and contesting the [pg 48] traditional sacred
symbol of exclusion in this domain. Thus the ‘ulama invoked evidence from the
primary sources of the Shari‘ah like the Qur’an and Sunnah in an attempt to
maintain the partriachal-traditional status quo, power and authority as well as
coercive social control.4
The subsequent arrival in the partriachal-traditional Cape society of the
first South African Muslim women to graduate from the traditionally acclaimed
Al-Azhar University Shaykhah Maymunah Solomons inadvertently created
another space for the unrecognised voices of women.5 The society then had to
accommodate the traditional voice of a learned woman whether on an individual
minutes and was structured in that I had specific questions related to their evidences for prohibiting the pre-
khutbah address of Amina Wadud-Muhsin. Most of these views they still maintain since these are still being
applied in the traditional Cape society, e.g. women are still excluded from the main area of the sacred space of
the mosque during congregational prayers. The unstructured interview, I conducted with Shaykhah Maymunah
Solomons on Saturday 1 June 1998, at her home, 108 Tenth Street, Kensington. The interview lasted about 1
hour and 40 minutes. Even though the interview was unstructured, I used guiding questions for the interview in
order to secure her views vis-à-vis a woman performing the pre-khutbah address and the location of women in
the prime area of the sacred space of the mosque.
2
The first male progressive, unstructured interview, I conducted with Imam A. Rashied Omar, at his home in
Seventh Avenue, Kensington, on Friday 13 October 1995. The interview lasted 1 hour, and focused on the
evidences for permitting a woman to perform the pre-khutbah address in front of a mixed audience and the
location of women in the prime area of the mosque. The second male unstructured interview I conducted with
then Dr. E.E.I. Moosa in his office at the University of Cape Town, on Friday 20 October 1995. The interview
lasted 2 hours and focused on the evidences for permitting the pre-khutbah address and the location of women in
the main domain. Presently they maintain their views as women are still located next to men in the prime area
in the Claremont Main Road Masjid. They did not allow another woman thereafter to conduct the pre-khutbah
taking into consideration the response and resistance of the traditional society then.
3
Progressive invitation to Professor Amina Wadud-Muhsin, to perform the pre-khutbah address.
4
Coercion became self-evident in the manner in which traditionalists responded to the progressive initiatives.
5
In the early 1800’s women like Saartjie van de Kaap and Salia van Macassar were indirectly involved in Cape
Muslim activities. In recent times Fatima Khan, Mrs. N. Mintin, women from the Muslim Youth Movement
and others have been active voices in local Muslim society.

Page | 2
or social level, a central or peripheral/marginal level in shar‘ matters particularly
social practice.6 Although there is only one legal voice from the women among
the partriachal-traditional society that single voice is significant and needs to be
heard especially if the social practice impacts on women, e.g. with their role and
position in the sacred space (haram) of the mosque.

2.1 Traditional Male Response to Amina Wadud-Muhsin

The learned men (‘ulama) of the M.J.C. did not issue a formal written legal
response (fatwa) on the prohibition (nahy) or permissibility (ibahah) of a woman
performing the pre-sermon (khutbah) address in the sacred space (haram) of the
mosque. Its members nevertheless used the local mosques and other social
platforms to express their views in opposition to a woman speaking from the
prime area of the haram on a Friday congregational (Jumu‘ah) platform. These
views were normally in the form of textual arguments coercively prohibiting the
act of [pg 49] a woman performing the pre-khutbah talk and personal attacks
against the progressives who deemed such an act permissible. Firstly, in order
to justify impermissibility they argued that the voice of the woman is part of her
concealed body area that cannot be publicly exposed (‘awrah) in terms of the
Qur’an where God says, “O wives of the Prophet! You are not like any other
women. If you keep your duty, then be not soft in speech, lest he in whose heart
is a disease should be moved with desire, but speak in an honourable way” [Q.
33: 32]. Hence the progressives should not have permitted a woman to address
a congregation primarily constituting men. Secondly, that a woman should not
subject herself to public exposure as ‘A’ishah bint Abi Bakr (b. 614) the wife of
the Prophet was known to give advice to men on religious matters but even then
it occurred behind a veil. Thus it is not permitted for a woman to openly address
men in the sacred space of the mosque. Thirdly, that the time or hour of the
Friday congregational prayer (Jumu‘ah) is sacred and that the alternative was to
let Professor Amina Wadud-Muhsin address men and women in a hall outside the
sacred space of the mosque. This argument contradicts the former ones as here
a woman is permitted to address men and women in a hall opposed to the
former with the prohibition (nahy) in the sacred space of the mosque. Fourthly,
in terms of the Qur’an men should not look at women with lust or carnal desire

6
One learned female traditional voice would be no threat and match to the plethora of learned male traditional
voices that echo patriarchal-traditional views. The views of Shaykhah Maymunah on the voice of a woman and
‘awrah will become evident in the section dealing with the traditional female view.

Page | 3
and vice versa, as God says, “Tell the believing men to lower their gaze ...And
tell the believing women to lower their gaze and protect their private parts, and
not to show off their adornment except only that which is apparent for necessity
to see ...” [Q. 24: 30-31]. Thus it is not permitted for a woman to address men
as it may stir up carnal desires within men which will distract them from their
worship (‘ibadat), or vice versa. Fifthly, that a woman is prohibited from seeing
any part of a man who is a marriageable person. This is in view of the tradition
(hadith) of the Prophet when he told his wives Umm Salmah and Maymunah to
veil themselves when Ibn Maktum entered. “But he is blind,” they said. The
Prophet then replied, “But are you blind too? Do you not see him?” The
researchers of traditions (muhaddithun), have stated that the manner in which
this hadith was transmitted renders it unsound [Al-Qaradawi: 168]. However, the
conservative ‘ulama [pg 50] have not accepted this finding. Sixthly, there is a
strict hadith stipulating the separation of the sexes in the sacred space of the
mosque, i.e. the arrangement of the sexes, women being placed on the fringes
or back of the prime area by the Prophet for mixed congregational (jama‘ah)
prayers. Local practice recognises the location of women on the upper or lower
levels of mosques. Moreover the prime area of the sacred space of the
traditional mosque is chiefly the domain of men. The normal social practice for a
woman is that she stands behind a male follower when there is one man besides
the leader of the prayer (imam) or she stands behind the imam if she is alone
[Ibn Rushd 1994: 164-165] in the prime area of the sacred space. For
traditionalists the exclusion of women is a preventative or social control measure
as the objective of the Shari‘ah is prevention i.e. that the Qur’anic prohibition is
not to commit adultery or fornication (zina) but rather not to go near anything
that may lead to zina. Here and in their prior responses traditionalists utilise the
legal maxim that recommends ‘blocking of the means’ (sadd al-dhara‘i) as a
deterrent measure. This legal maxim cuts off all suspected roads remotely
leading towards haram in an attempt to maintain moral purity and modesty
through the coercive exclusion of women from the main sector of the sacred
space of the mosque. Thus central to advancing particular interests of power
and purity is the strategy of exclusion most often employed in an attempt to
dominate the prime area of mosques.
Due to the novelty of the act of permitting a woman to perform the pre-
khutbah address and the location of women into the main domain of the
mosque, the M.J.C contested that, “this was unprecedented in the entire history

Page | 4
of Islam, since the time of the Prophet” [M.J.C. 1994: 1]. For this reason they
deployed an amalgam of textual arguments to bolster their position of
prohibition. In the above mode of deployment several arguments are employed
but all of them point to the same conclusion. Often when the sheer novelty of
the practice at hand defies precedent the deployment of many arguments
becomes standard practice. This form of argumentation is regularly deployed
when the practice is deemed to be of great general bearing or there is a desire
to emphasise that the decision is based on strong [pg 51] legal grounds rather
than on personal preference. The primary reason for this mode of argument
appears to be that the more arguments they deploy in support of the final
conclusion the more convincing the view [Moosagie 1995: 211].
With the novelty of the social practice regarding the position of women in
the Cape mosque what became evident was the manipulation and coercive
social control through the power relations of exclusion linked to the moral
categories of haram and halal. Here there was a general traditional view that in
the period after revelation and when the Shari‘ah was silent all acts could be
morally assessed to maintain social control by utilising the sources of the
Shari‘ah. These sources were often used in a supporting role especially when
they were invoked to nuance a social practice with a moral code. In this instance
the moral code is the traditional sexual ethic which protects men and women
from illicit sexual desire and the avoidance of which is better for the purity of the
heart, strength of soul and perfection of chastity [Al-Qaradawi: 150]. One of the
means of achieving these was via the sacred symbol of the separation of sexes
and the exclusion of women from the “Holy of Holies”.
In relation to the traditional sexual ethic there are certain realities that
Cape Muslims have to confront. We are living in a non-Islamic environment
where the chastity and morality of men and women are constantly challenged
and where the sexual ethic has been broken down outside the mosque. It was
alleged that the attendance of the sacred space (haram) of the mosque while
preserving and maintaining the sexual ethic through the exclusion of women
from the prime area would imbibe the Prophetic ethos thereby inculcating the
purity of heart. Hence there was the coercive attempt to maintain the sexual
ethic within the only prevalent place, i.e. the sacred space of the mosque despite
the progressives effort in breaking it down. This was symptomatic of sacred
space where there was a constant contestation, a charged site for contested

Page | 5
negotiations over the management of the sacred symbols that signified power
relations.
The Cape traditional ‘ulama marshalled numerous textual arguments to
overwhelm their opponents to prohibit women from the main domain of the
sacred space and to retain [pg 52] their position of power and authority in that
sector of the mosque. With their apparent overpowering amalgam of arguments
there was thus no need to invoke the ‘principle of natural permissibility’ despite
the novelty of the social practice and the silence of the Shari‘ah on the issue.
The traditionalist response of prohibition was coercively asserted toward their
opposition in order to preserve the traditional sexual ethic and therefore also
their authority and power. This they did even though they presented
contradictory textual arguments, e.g. in the instance of their first, second and
third arguments in opposition to the progressive move of a woman speaking
from the “Holy of Holies” in prohibiting a woman from occupying the prime area
of the mosque. With this presentation of textual arguments they portrayed an
understanding that all space is sacred including the mosque since the sacred
symbol of the separation of sexes ideally should be instituted in all space. In
addition they also presented arguments which were unauthentic, e.g. with the
fifth one in an attempt to coercively manipulate the moral status of a woman
performing the pre-khutbah to that of haram in order to retain the male
hegemony in the haram.

2.2 Traditional Female View in Relation to the Amina-Wadud Muhsin

Pre-Sermon (Khutbah) Address and the Position of Women

Maymunah Solomons under the guidance of Shaykh Abubakr Najaar (d. 1994)
left to study at Egypt in 1981 with a strong desire to learn more about Islam.
After four years she graduated receiving her BA degree or shahadah (al-‘Ijazah
al-‘Aliyah) majoring in Shari‘ah being the first South African woman to acquire
this qualification. In addition she successfully completed a teaching course after
which she returned to Cape Town in February 1995. She was welcomed by most
of the male shuyukh (pl. of shaykh) in a ceremony hosted by the Islamic Council
of South Africa. Presently she is involved in the religious education of children at
al-Azhar, Cape Town and females during the evenings with special emphasis on
social practice and morality. It is noteworthy that she does not teach men or
mixed audiences [pg 53] to avoid any contact with male students.

Page | 6
Notwithstanding this she regards public lectures as permissible since there is not
enough time for any bonding to occur between the lecturer and student and
does not consider the voice of a woman as part of her ‘awrah. She is also
inundated with shari‘ issues pertaining to women in social practice via the
telephone and counselling. In relation to the prohibition of a woman from
performing the pre-khutbah address and the exclusion of women from the main
area of the sacred space (haram) of the mosque in a patriarchal-traditional
society, how does she comprehend these?
Shaykhah Maymunah categorically stated that a woman never performed
the pre-khutbah in the entire history of Islam. She admits that ‘A’ishah bint Abi
Bakr the third and favourite wife of the Prophet frequently advised men on
religious issues particularly social practice and reported a large number of the
traditions of the Prophet (ahadith). It was recorded that 1210 ahadith were
narrated on her authority [Gibb Vol. I, 1960: 307-308]. Then Maymunah also
used a model to clarify the position and role of women. She mentioned that al-
Sayyidah Nafisah bint al-Hasan ibn Zayd ibn al-Hasan (d. 208/824) often taught
and informed al-Shafi‘i about issues regarding women. Furthermore Nafisah had
a reputation for learning and piety as al-Shafi‘i regularly visited her to collect
traditions. On the death of al-Shafi‘i his body was brought to her house so that
she could recite the prayer (du‘ah) for the dead over him [Bosworth Vol. VII,
1993: 879]. Maymunah added that conditionally these engagements were
conducted with an adherence to the Islamic ethic of dress and modesty7 and a
distinction was made between the voice of the women and the content of what
was said to the men. With the sacred space (haram) of the mosque she states
that it is sanctified with the worship (‘ibadat) which takes place in it. In addition
a person is recommended to perform the intention (niyyah) of seclusion (‘itikaf)
as a means of maintaining a spiritual [pg 54] balance within the mosque as the
Sufis when they go into seclusion. Consequently, by permitting a woman to
address an audience of men and women from the front of the sacred precincts of
the mosque, one will disturb the desired spiritual balance since the natural
sexual inclinations of men could be aroused. She further acknowledges that
there might be certain traditional views, which promote the leadership (imamah)
7
In terms of traditionalists, covering the body is a key attribute of modesty, and is the expression of the spatial
confinement of a woman. This spatial confinement is the physical expression of a woman’s exclusion from the
prime domain of sacred space, the sphere of knowledge and power. This clarifies why traditionalists manipulate
Islam with coercion for their claim to advise and direct society. However, Fatima Mernissi states that the
modesty of a woman has a wider symbolic function, i.e. it refers to the need for the believer to curb his initiative
and critical judgement. See Mernissi’s, Women’s Rebellion & Islamic Memory (New Jersey: Zed Books Ltd,
1996), 113.

Page | 7
for prayer (salah) of a woman but that these were isolated and extinct and that
these exceptional cases should not be used for justification in general social
practice.
With the imamah of the woman for men there are three variant and
contradicting traditional positions. Firstly, there is the view of impermissibility in
the performance of the compulsory (fard) and recommended or optional
(nawafil) prayers. A view held by the Hanafites, Malikites 8 and Shafites. They
argue that the Prophet had recommended the arrangement of the sexes in
prayer. Women were placed on the fringes of the sacred space (haram) of the
mosque behind the men following the imam. Thus the imamah of a woman for
men is not allowed. Secondly, the view that the imamah for the fard salah is
incorrect while that of the nawafil like the tarawih prayer during the month of
compulsory fast (Ramadan) is correct according to the early Hanbalites. They
contend that the Prophet ordered a male to perform the call to prayer (adhan)
for Umm Waraqah daughter of Nawfal, who led her household in prayer. Hence
it is correct for a woman to lead men in the optional prayers. Thirdly, there is the
view that a woman can unconditionally lead men in prayer. This is the view of
Abu Thawr Ibrahim ibn Khalid ibn Abi al-Yamani al-Kalbi (d. 246/860), Abu
Ibrahim Isma‘il ibn Yahya al-Muzani (d. 264/878) and Abu Ja‘far Muhammad ibn
Jarir al-Tabari (d. 310/923), who cite the same proof as in the second position [al-
Munif 1990: 128-132].
Unlike her male counterparts Shaykhah Maymunah does not deploy
lengthy arguments but ones that are concise. She makes a distinction between
the sacred where it is [pg 55] not permitted for women to address mixed
audience and space outside the sacred where it is permitted as in the examples
of ‘A’ishah and Nafisah who taught men. This contradicts her personal position
of not teaching men. However, this is her personal view and she does not
impose it as a social practice. In addition she does not manipulate the moral
categories of haram and halal in order to nuance her personal views in relation
to a woman performing the pre-khutbah.
With men and women being located in separate sections of the prime area
of sacred space Shaykhah Maymunah concedes that women should maintain the
haram but should be located on the fringes of the mosque. She explains that
being placed on the fringes or at the back rows is neither related to inferiority

8
The Malikites have the extreme view, which states that a woman cannot even lead a group of women, with the
conditions for congregational prescribed prayer. See L. Bakhtiar’s, Encyclopedia of Islamic Law: A
Compendium of the Major Schools (Chicago: Kazi Publications, Inc., 1996), 114.

Page | 8
nor inequality of women. It is merely connected to obedience of the Prophet. He
ordered and encouraged all women to attend the festival (‘Id) congregational
sermon and prayer even those who had their menses (hayd) but placed them at
the fringes or the back rows of the haram. A similar position was recently
advocated by the late traditional Egyptian ‘alim, Muhammad al-Ghazali, in his
work, Qadaya al-Mar’ah Bayna al-Taqalid al-Rakidah wa al-Wafidah,9 in the
section, ‘Do Not Prevent (or Exclude) Them (i.e. Women) From The Mosques’ [al-
Ghazali 1990: 200]. To further entrench the segregation Maymunah added that
the Prophet ordered the women to enter and exit the sacred precinct through a
separate door for the women (bab al-nisa) to prevent any interaction and
physical contact between the women and men. Al-Ghazali on the same
argument mentions that ‘Umar ibn Khattab prevented women and men from
entering and exiting the same door in order to curtail the mixing of women with
men as God desires from humans to stay away from that which is bad [Ibid.]. In
addition Maymunah clarifies that prayer and that which is connected to Jumu‘ah
are ‘ibadat and are like the night journey of the Prophet (mi‘raj). Since women
and men are exposed to each other standing next to the other separated by a
[pg 56] rope will act as a natural distraction from such a spiritual journey. Al-
Ghazali once again argues along similar lines where he states that the mosque is
a place for pure worship alone. It is not a place where women are exposed to
men and vice versa [Ibid.: 199-200]. Finally they both concur that a woman
should not be excluded from the mosque as they obtain spiritual and education
benefits there [Ibid.: 200] but should maintain the fringes of the main domain of
the sacred space of the mosque.
Unlike the local traditional ‘ulama, it appears that Shaykhah Maymunah
differentiates between the area which is more sacred like the mosque and the
less sacred resembling that which is outside of those parameters. Outside the
mosque it is generally permissible for women to address a congregation of men
and women. While in the areas that are more sacred like the mosque women
are prohibited from addressing a congregation of men and women in the pre-
khutbah related to the ‘ibadah of Jumu‘ah, from the front close to the pulpit
(minbar) in the “Holy of Holies”. Since she is strongly rooted in the tradition and
obedience of the Prophet, she maintains that women should be placed at the

9
In a khutbah, subsequent to the Wadud pre-khutbah, delivered by Dr. E.E.I. Moosa, at the Claremont Main
Masjid, he focused entirely on the introduction of Muhammad al-Ghazali’s work on the position of women in
the prime area of the sacred space of the mosque. See Claremont Main Road Masjid’s Khutbah Focus, Issues of
Women by Dr. Ebrahim Moosa (Claremont: Claremont Main Road Masjid).

Page | 9
fringes of the main sector of the mosque as long as the conditions of modesty
are adhered to. Finally she also responded to the progressive idea of men and
women being placed alongside each other in the sacred precincts to break down
the oppressive categories of excluding women from the main domain.
Progressives claim that “it is only by breaking down oppressive categories and
accepting responsibility for our behaviour that we - believing men and believing
women - can reclaim our full humanity, reclaim our Islam”.10 She raises the
concern that if we break down oppressive categories like the separation of sexes
in the main sector of a mosque, why did the Prophet then still locate women
behind men, on its fringes?

3. Subsequent Local Islamic Progressive Response

[pg 57] The relative arguments of the local Islamic progressives primarily
consisted of responses to the coercive local traditional arguments as well as
justifications for their actions. These actions included permitting a woman to
perform the pre-khutbah address and the institutionalization of women into the
main sector of the sacred space (haram) of the mosque at the right-hand side of
the men. Firstly, they argued, that “the simple legal maxim is that which is not
expressly or forbidden is permissible in Islam” [Al-Qalam August 1994: 2] since
women have not been prohibited from presenting the pre-khutbah. Hence the
original principle of the social practice of a woman presenting the pre-khutbah is
permissibility.11 Secondly, that the pre-khutbah replaced the authoritative
khutbah removing the argument that women cannot take leadership positions
even though they are not overt with their view that women can lead, e.g.
prayers, as there is explicit nass relating to the imamah of a woman.12 This
evidence seems to be contradictory since they declared the argument to counter
the local traditional view that women cannot lead while concurrently holding an
opinion that women can lead, e.g. Jumu‘ah. It was expressly stated by Associate
Professor A.I. Tayob from the University of Cape Town, a supporter of the

10
See quotation of Sa‘diyyah Shaikh, an MA graduate in religious studies, UCT, of her article entitled “Sexual
Men and Spiritual Women” in Al-Qalam, September 1994, p. 7.
11
There is no clear textual evidence, which directly prohibits or permits the woman from performing the pre-
khutbah. Since the pre-khutbah is a social practice or part of mu‘amalat, the principle was summoned.
12
The explicit text referred to is the tradition related to Umm Waraqah bint Nawfal, which a few traditionalists
have used, as proof for the unconditional leadership of men by a woman. However, in terms of the text of the
tradition, it is not specific in terms of all the members of that congregation. It is also unclear about whether or
not the muadhdhin remained, and prayed behind Umm Waraqah. A text which Dr. E.E.I. Moosa frequently
referred to as a reference for the unconditional leadership of women in his interview on Friday 20 October 1995.

Page | 10
Claremont Main Road Mosque that “the professor presented the pre-khutbah in a
pre-khutbah less mosque” [Ibid.: 15]. Why do they argue along the lines of the
pre-khutbah if they believe that women can lead and hence perform the
khutbah? Thirdly, in response to the first argument of the traditionalists they
contended that the proof for the voice of the woman being ‘awrah, is a specific
address, directed to the wives of the Prophet [Al-Qalam September 1994: 12]
hence not applicable to Muslim women in general. Fourthly, that “men and
women, deal quite well with each other outside the mosque” and that “the
mosque is symbolised in our community by sexual [pg 58] separation” however,
“in Islam modest dress is a cover for both men and women. It acts as a
boundary and a protection for our individuality, (including sexuality)” [Ibid.: 20].
The fact that “we deal quite well with each other outside the mosque” does this
imply that we now have to break down the sexual ethic of the separation of
sexes within the sacred confines of the mosque where women are located on its
borders? However, for traditionalists the separation of sexes in the mosque is
just an extension of modest dress in order to protect one’s sexuality thereby
inculcating the purity of the heart. Fifthly, progressives acknowledge that they
follow the position of natural permissibility and the status of acts. In this regard
they argue that a person should go out into the world optimistically and that
there are selected things which are proscribed and prohibited via revelation.
Even though they believe that revelation and the intellect operate together the
intellect alone can also provide them with discernment or good judgement on
those acts, which are morally correct in social practice.13 Nevertheless, we are
usually held back by imbalances in our psychological make-up, by false hopes
and desires and by distorted perceptions. These imbalances located in the lower
self sporadically influences and sway the intellect. Since the intellect is marred
and blotted with these prejudices its deployment in the assessment of the status
of acts could become manipulatory. When progressives nuance a contextual
moral code like the equality of the sexes, e.g. placing men and women in the
prime area of mosques separated by a rope the intellect could be beguiled
through the persuasions of the lower self. Despite this weakness they still
contend that if the intellect does not fulfil this role then moral accountability
would become futile. Sixthly, that the pre-khutbah does not fall within the
category of ‘ibadat, which cannot be delved into but under mu‘amalat as a social
practice. Hence one can invoke the principle of natural permissibility. If it was
13
This argument and all the proceeding ones I acquired from the interview with the then Dr. E.E.I. Moosa, held
in his office at UCT on Friday 20 October 1995.

Page | 11
the khutbah which constitutes an essential part of Jumu‘ah this would have been
prohibited as it forms part of ‘ibadat. Once again they do not argue along the
lines of the permissibility of a woman in a leadership position. Here they merely
tried to appease their traditional counterparts. Seventhly, in response to the [pg
59] fourth argument of the local traditionalists, the progressives contend that
the “lowering of the gaze” had nothing to do with mere looking. It relates to
looking with lust, as the Qur’anic command is not to look lustfully, i.e. “and
protect your modesty” or “guard your private parts”. In this regard the lowering
of the gaze is only partial because necessity and the general interest of the
social environment require that some looking at members of the opposite sex be
allowed. Since “lowering the voice” does not refer to sealing the lips similarly
“lowering the gaze” does not mean shutting the eyes. It rather refers to averting
one’s gaze from the faces of the passers-by and not to caress the attractive
features of the members of the opposite sex with the person’s eyes [Al-
Qaradawi: 152-153]. Eighthly, that unlike the traditionalists the progressives
never used the same tactics, e.g. coercive demonisation and slander in an
attempt to assert social control and manipulate the moral categories of haram
and halal thereby maintaining power and authority of the prime area of the
haram. The progressives merely pointed out the error of their opponents or
exposed the wrong of their action and the error of their thinking, rather than the
error of their person or that they were evil. Thus their coercive newspaper
campaign was only instituted to highlight the issues at hand but not to demonise
and slander anyone.
The arguments and justifications of the local progressives display a
relatively different understanding of what the haram of a mosque comprises. For
them it is function and use together with the context that sanctifies sacred
space. These are in contrast to the traditionalist perception of sacred space that
is shaped by a traditional symbol where women are excluded and separated
from men in the “Holy of Holies” of the mosque. With the performance of the
pre-khutbah by a woman progressives have shown a contradiction in
argumentation where they argue for the natural permissibility of the pre-khutbah
for a woman on the one hand. This is so since it formed part of mu‘amalat as a
social practice and not of ‘ibadat. Simultaneously they asserted the view of
women leading, e.g. performing the [pg 60] ‘ibadat of the khutbah and prayer.14

14
Amina Wadud-Muhsin contrary stated in her book then that, “Neither male nor female will be equally
beneficial in every situation. To force even modern patriarchal societies to submit before a female ruler would
be detrimental to the harmonious welfare of that society”. The leadership of a woman in the mosque via her

Page | 12
They also believed that revelation and the intellect are connected and that the
intellect can function independently and provide good judgement on social
practice which is morally correct. Unlike the traditionalists who drew on power
and authority to manipulate social control. Progressives drew on the intellect,
which could be affected with their biases fuelled by imbalances inherent in the
lower self. However, this conceivably led to the manipulation of social control
where contextual morals code needed to be assessed, e.g. gender equality and
the empowerment of women. Hence progressives allowed a woman to perform
the pre-khutbah and permitted women to be seated alongside men separated by
a rope in the main domain of the mosque since these were cogitated as part of
the liberation of women.

4. Conclusion

Sacred space was regarded as contested space, a site of negotiated contests

based on power relations. The traditionalist understanding of the Shari‘ah was
driven by a zest for preserving the traditional sexual ethic rigged on the
patriarchal organisation of the separation of sexes in the sacred space (haram)
of the mosque. Even outside the mosque they retained their patriarchal
organisation. It appeared as if they considered all space to be sacred since the
separation of the sexes had to be maintained in all areas. Where women have to
be excluded from the “Holy of Holies” they did not deem it necessary to invoke
the principle of natural permissibility. After all, they relied on an amalgam of
coercive arguments and responses to bolster their purposes for keeping power
and authority of the main domain of mosques. Hence they manipulated the
moral categories like prohibited (haram) because their ideas were established on
their relative understanding of sacred space and the Shari‘ah.
[pg 61] For Shaykhah Maymunah there existed space that was more
sacred like the mosque and that which was less outside the mosque. In the
former it was prohibited for a woman to address a congregation of men and
women stationed in the main area and for men and women to be located in such
a space only separated by a rope. While in the latter it was permissible for a
woman to address an audience of men and women. Moreover, it was prohibited
for women to lead prayers like the Friday congregational prayer (Jumu‘ah) or
anything related to Jumu‘ah like the pre-khutbah, as these were part of ‘ibadat.
presentation of the pre-khutbah unsettled the harmony within the Cape traditional society. See A. Wadud-
Muhsin’s, Qur’an and Woman (Kuala Lumpur: Penerbit Fajar Sdn. Bhd., 1992), 89.

Page | 13
With all her arguments she utilised evidence, which were consistent and
authentic. Even though she reinforced traditional views of the past since she
believed that the ‘ulama of the past always had a concern for society she did not
manipulate the moral categories like haram in order to ratify her personal
opinions.
The progressives have delineated a different legal understanding of
sacred space in terms its function and use as well as the context that moulded
the sacred. This was distinct to the traditional sexual ethic based on the
patriarchal organisation of the sexes in the mosque and separation of the sexes
outside the sacred space. The progressive arguments whether responses to
coercive traditional challenges and arguments or justifications for the social
practices related to women were driven by an understanding of the Shari‘ah
which calls for a reinterpretation of the past. These reinterpretations were
shaped by contemporary needs and ideals such as gender equality, i.e. granting
women the right to lead, performing the khutbah and locating them next to men
in the prime area of the haram of the mosque. Hence where the Shari‘ah was
silent on issues pertaining to social practice especially related to women, the
progressives were quick to invoke the principle of natural permissibility, even if
their arguments were contradictory. On the one hand they tried to appease their
traditional counterparts by arguing that the pre-khutbah was part of social
practice while they concurrently stated that women could lead the worship of
Jumu‘ah and other prayers unconditionally. In addition they also relied on the
intellect in determining the moral status [pg 62] of acts in social practice
belonging to women. However, while the intellect would often be impregnated
with prejudices developed by imbalances inherent in the lower self this opened
the possibility of the coercive manipulation of the moral categories of haram and
halal linked to progressive motives. These motives were often informed by the
context, e.g. gender equality and the liberation of women.

Page | 14