Articles

Regarding Women Driving Cars
Author : The General Iftaa` Department
Date Added : 05-08-2025

The Response of the Iftaa’ Department to What Some Media Outlets Have Published Concerning "Women Driving Cars"

All praise is due to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.

The General Iftaa’ Department had previously issued several fatwas, numbered (862) and (1296), affirming the permissibility of women driving cars and exercising their right to mobility without sin or prohibition. These fatwas were published on the Iftaa’ Department’s website on (25/07/2010) and through various media outlets as well.

The basis of this ruling is that mobility through means of transportation—whether traditional or modern—is a universal human right. The Sharia does not prohibit it, whether for men or women. Rather, it affirms and defends this right, considering the protection of human rights a fundamental objective of the noble Sharia. This is supported by numerous well-established narrations from the Prophetic Sunna, which document the Sahabiyat (The righteous women who met the Prophet Muhammad {Peace be upon him}, believed in him as the Messenger of Allah and died as Muslims) exercising this right without any objection. This is the fatwa that the General Iftaa’ Department has consistently upheld in response to numerous inquiries it receives regularly.

As for what was stated in Fatwa No. (914) regarding the rejection of arbitrary restrictions imposed by some husbands on their wives, it reaffirms the above. It is not a husband’s right to prevent his wife from using modern means of communication, such as the telephone, just as it is not his right to oppress her by depriving her of visiting her family or fulfilling her duties. Conversely, the wife must also consider the reasons for harmonious marital life and safeguard the household from discord and disruption. Thus, she should seek her husband’s permission before leaving for non-essential needs, as the husband is a guardian and is responsible for his household. His responsibility entails observing these rulings so that both spouses are clear about their rights and obligations.

What some media outlets have done—by isolating the phrase "driving cars" out of context, neglecting to mention the human rights affirmed by the fatwa, and falsely attributing to the Iftaa’ Department the prohibition of what Allah and His Messenger have not forbidden—is an act far removed from integrity and objectivity. It violates the covenants of truthfulness and trustworthiness that a Muslim must uphold in their work and duties. This necessitates that discerning audiences verify and ascertain the facts before engaging in discussions that lack any established basis.

We ask Allah The Almighty to Guide everyone to righteousness and Lead us all to the straight path.

Article Number [ Previous | Next ]

Read for Author




Comments


Captcha


Warning: this window is not dedicated to receive religious questions, but to comment on topics published for the benefit of the site administrators—and not for publication. We are pleased to receive religious questions in the section "Send Your Question". So we apologize to readers for not answering any questions through this window of "Comments" for the sake of work organization. Thank you.




Summarized Fatawaa

Is it permissible to eat from an Udhiyah slaughtered on behalf of a deceased person?

Praise be to Allah, and prayers and peace be upon our Master the Messenger of Allah.
 
It is permissible to eat from the sacrifice (uḍḥiyyah) that is offered on behalf of a deceased person. This is the madhhab (school of thought) of the Hanbalis. In this case, the heirs take the place of the deceased as if he were alive, with the same rights to eat from it, give it in charity, and offer it as a gift.
 
It is stated in Maṭālib Uli al-Nuhā (Vol.2/P.472): "Offering a sacrifice on behalf of a deceased person is better than offering one on behalf of a living person, because the deceased is unable (to perform deeds) and is in need of reward. It is to be treated like a sacrifice on behalf of a living person in terms of eating, giving charity, and giving gifts." And Allah Almighty knows best.

Someone wiped over his shoes after wearing them in a state of purity, then took them off and prayed without them?

Ablution is not invalidated by taking off leather socks or shoes after wiping over them. However, whoever takes them off after wiping must wash his feet only. If he prayed without washing his feet, he must wash his feet and repeat the prayer. And Allah the Almighty knows best.

Is it permissible to fast the six days of Shawwal before making up for the missed fasts of Ramadan?

● If a person missed fasts due to a valid excuse, they may fast the six days of Shawwal before making up for Ramadan fasts, because qada (makeup fasts) in this case can be delayed, while the six days of Shawwal must be observed within Shawwal.
● However, if a person missed fasts without a valid excuse, they must make up for the missed fasts immediately after Eid, before fasting the six days of Shawwal. If they fast the six days first, it is valid, but they must still make up for the missed Ramadan fasts afterward.
It is also permissible to combine the intention of qada (makeup fasts) and the six days of Shawwal in one fast. However, it is better to fast them separately, as this increases the reward and avoids scholarly disagreement regarding combining intentions.

What is the ruling of Islamic Law regarding one who purchases a sacrificial animal (uḍḥiyah) and it then develops a defect before slaughter?

Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
If a defect that invalidates the sacrifice (uḍḥiyah) arises after its purchase — for example, if one purchased a sound, defect-free animal, and it then developed a limp, blindness in one eye, or a similar defect before slaughter — it does not fulfill the requirement of a valid uḍḥiyah, according to the Shāfi'ī school.
It is stated in Asnā al-Maṭālib fī Sharḥ Rawḍ al-Ṭālib (Vol.1/P.535): "Even if the limp develops [in the animal] while the knife is upon it, it still does not fulfill the requirement, because it is lame at the moment of slaughter — this is analogous to a case where a sheep's leg breaks and one hastens to slaughter it [in that condition]."
The Ḥanbalī school, however, held that if the one offering the sacrifice purchased the animal while it was sound and defect-free, and a defect then befell it afterward, the sacrifice remains valid and there is no obligation to replace it.
It is stated in Masā'il al-Imām Aḥmad, one of the Ḥanbalī reference works (Vol.8/P.4021): "I said: If a person purchases the sacrificial animal while it is sound, and it is then afflicted with illness, blindness in one eye, or a broken limb [before slaughter]? He [Imam Aḥmad] said: It is said that it still fulfills the requirement. Isḥāq said likewise, because he purchased it while sound, and the defect befell it only afterward, so it remains sufficient on his behalf." [End of quote]
Accordingly, a sheep afflicted with a defect that invalidates the sacrifice does not fulfill the requirement of a valid uḍḥiyah — whether the defect arose after purchase or during the slaughter itself — according to the Shāfi'ī school. However, there is no objection to following the Ḥanbalī position on this matter [as a valid alternative]. And Allah, the Most High, knows best.