The Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, Prof. Ahmad At-Tayyeb, continued his talk about the liable to legal classification and juristic Ijtihad in Al-Azhar Ash-Sharif classes, maintaining that woman had a lion’s share of the gains obtained through such activities. Most issues related to woman, either as an individual or as a family and society member, were investigated. His Eminence the Grand Imam added in episode 25 of his Grand Imam At-Tayyeb TV Talk that the first of these gains is the permissibility of woman’s travel without a maḥram (a male companion – a husband or an unmarriageable relative). In our Juristic tradition, woman’s travel was conditioned by the availability of a maḥram, without whom her travel was forbidden. During earlier times, woman’s travel without such a companion was a breach of manhood, given that women were then subject to possible captivity, abduction, and rape in the vast desert areas and that it was the habit of the Arabs to travel at night. The Prophet (pbuh) said, “It is unlawful for a woman who believes in Allah and the Last Day to travel the distance of one day and one night without a maḥram accompanying her.” Then, he - the Arab Prophet who was sent to perfect noble manners - meant to secure the woman’s essential right as due on her family. Yet, with the modern era changes in travel conditions, the ensured sense of safety, and the reduced span of journey, it has become imperative on jurists to exercise Ijtihad in developing the religious ruling banning women’s travel without a maḥram into permitting it on condition of having a trustworthy company, as in the case of Hajj and ˁUmrah. Today, scholars have ended up adopting the Maliki opinion that a woman is permitted to travel without a maḥram in case hers is a safe journey.

The Grand Imam also indicated that among women gains too, in Al-Azhar International Conference on Renewal in Islamic Thought, is that scholars have agreed to the permissibility of woman’s assuming all public positions that befit her, including senior state positions, judiciary and Iftāˀ. Likewise, it is not permissible to circumvent her right through setting obstacles or administrative complexities on her way to such positions, especially by those who deny that a woman is entitled to such right. They see it unbefitting that a woman judge sits at the court bench like them. Hence, they preclude her from assuming such a constitutional, legal, and religious right. Yet, such attempts are a major sin, and its proponents shall incur negative consequences on the Day of Judgement.

Regarding the chaotic state of divorces, scholars have agreed, perhaps for the first time, that arbitrary divorce that is not sustained by valid legal grounds is forbidden and a moral crime for which the issuer of divorce shall be held accountable on the Judgment Day, whether such divorce is concluded at the desire of the husband or the wife. It is forbidden due to the harm it entails for family, especially the children. You may wonder if I say that, during my revisiting of our earlier jurisprudence regarding the ruling on how divorce can be permissible when it entails harms, I came upon opinions of established jurists that the default ruling on divorce is its impermissibility, and that it becomes permissible only in case of necessity. For them, necessity is the wife’s nushūz, which means her prideful contempt of the husband and humiliation of him. In such a case, divorce can naturally be “permissible.” Again, “permissible,” not obligatory, supererogatory, or recommended. Such is the permissible divorce that is described in the noble hadith as “the most discouraged by Allah of what is permissible.” It is thus misunderstood by the majority of the Muslim nation that divorce be absolutely permissible even though Allah - the Most High - discourages it!

The Grand Imam then pointed out that Al-Azhar International Conference on the Renewal in Islamic Thought dealt with key issues that bring about familial disturbance, including the shabka (a precious betrothal gift of gold) that the suitor presents to his fiancée. The question is whether it is part of the dowry, and so it must be returned with that dowry if the marriage is not concluded, or not part of the dowry, and in such case, it should not be returned! Scholars have concluded that if the annulment of engagement is at the request of the fiancée, the suitor has the right to take it back; but if he is the cause of cancellation, then she has the right to retain all that he has given her as gifts. In all cases, shabka is not considered a dowry, unless it is agreed upon as such, or when such is the customary practice of the community. Likewise, mere change in opinion about concluding marriage by a suitor is not considered a harm that deserves compensation. Yet, if it results in moral or material damage, or both, especially for the fiancée, then the victim has the right to request compensation.

The Grand Imam assured that the conference also took into account some pitiful customs among families, such as obstinacy of the girl’s guardian in denying her the right to choose a husband who suits her in preference for a wealthy young man, or a young man belonging to the same family as the girl. This happens here in Egypt, especially Upper Egypt, as well as in other countries. So, scholars ended up with the following opinion on this topic:

“A guardian is not entitled to prevent a woman from marrying a competent man whom she chooses, when there is no valid reason for nonacceptance. And when the issue is brought to the judge, he may marry that woman to the competent man that she chooses.”

The Grand Imam then concluded episode 25 with the assertion that scholars have conclusively cancelled what is legally known as bayt uṭ-ṭāˁah (House of Obedience; a law that requires a dissident wife to return to her husband's house and to obey him), since it involves an insult to the wife and an unbearable psychological harm. It constitutes inhuman treatment of a wife. Scholars did not miss the point that the practice of bayt uṭ-ṭāˁah does not exist in Islamic Sharia, which honors women as equal peers to men. “How can we expect an oppressed woman unwillingly dragged to her husband’s house to be a source of mercy, affection, and joy?!” the Grand Imam wondered.