The Jurisprudence of Gender Segregation (Ikhtilāṭ) in Islamic Public Policy, Focused on the Rulings of Imām Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawzīyyah

The unrestricted intermingling (Ikhtilāṭ) of non-related men and women is a phenomenon that has become commonplace in contemporary society, to the extent that its prohibition may appear strange even to some Muslims. Yet, in classical Islamic jurisprudence, particularly the works of Imām Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawzīyyah, this practice is condemned as a foundational cause of moral decay and collective calamity.

I. The Severity of Unrestricted Intermingling (Ikhtilāṭ)

Imām Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawzīyyah (d. 751 AH), a pivotal authority on Islamic public policy (Siyāsah Shar’iyyah), analyzed the issue of free mixing within his framework for governance, Al-Turuq al-Hukmiyya fi'l-Siyāsa al-Shar'iyya. He issued an unequivocal warning regarding the consequences of societal tolerance for Ikhtilāṭ:

“There is no doubt that allowing for the women to mix freely with the men is the origin of every trial and evil; and it is from the greatest reasons for the descending of punishment which is general (encompassing everyone) just as it is from the reasons for corruption of the general and specific affairs. Mixing between men and women is the reason for the increase of fawāḥish (lewdness) and fornication (Zinā); and it is from the reasons for general death and contagious diseases.” 

This statement establishes Ikhtilāṭ not merely as a moral indiscretion, but as a critical pathway (legal principle of Sadd al-Dharā’i’—blocking the means) to widespread sin and collective Divine Retribution (Uqūbah ‘Āmmah).

II. The Mandate of the Ruler in Enforcing Segregation

Ibn al-Qayyim emphasized that enforcing segregation is an obligatory public duty (Hisbah), requiring the active intervention of the governing authority:

It is therefore obligatory upon the ruler to prevent the mixing of men and women in the marketplaces, (public) areas, and gatherings of men.

Supporting this stance, the second Caliph, ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khaṭṭāb (may Allāh be pleased with him), actively prevented women from walking in the pathways reserved for men and from intermingling with them in the streets. This established a precedent for rulers to enforce spatial separation as a measure of governance.

The Example of Imām Mālik

Imām Mālik ibn Anas (may Allāh have mercy upon him), whose rulings influenced the field of public law, emphasized caution even in commercial settings. He said: “I hold that it is for the Imām to give priority to scrutinizing the goldsmiths (who are) sitting in the gatherings of women. And I hold that he should not leave the young woman to sit with the goldsmiths. As for the woman of high rank and the man who is a lowly servant, (the woman) having no (reason to have) concern for the gathering and he (the servant) does not care who sits with him, then I do not see a prohibitive problem with that.”

III. Prophetic Guidance on Spatial Separation and Modesty

The need for segregation stems from the great spiritual danger (Fitnah) posed by unmanaged interaction. The Prophet ﷺ provided foundational warnings and specific instructions to ensure physical distance:

1. The Severity of Fitnah: The Prophet ﷺ said: “I have not left among the people after me, a Fitnah more harmful upon the men than women.” This warning underscores the spiritual vulnerability of the human heart that necessitated strict external safeguards.
2. The Command to Separate: It is reported that the Prophet ﷺ commanded, “Separate the men and women”. This directive was practically implemented even in acts of worship, such as the arrangement of prayer rows, where the best rows for men are the front (closest to the Imām) and the best for women are the rear (furthest from men).
3. Segregation in Public Pathways: When the Prophet ﷺ observed men and women mixing on a road, he instructed the women: “You should be on the outer borders of the path.” Women, adhering strictly, walked so close to the walls that their dresses would catch upon them. This established the principle that women should not claim the middle of public pathways, precisely to avoid close proximity (Mukhālaṭah) with men.

Prohibition on Catalysts for Temptation

The ruler is also obligated to prevent women from going out beautified and wearing makeup, and from wearing clothing in which they are kaasiyāt ‘āriyāt (clothed but naked at the same time); such as clothing that is thin or revealing.

Furthermore, the act of a woman wearing perfume in public is severely condemned as a catalyst for Zinā of the eyes. The Prophet ﷺ said: “Every eye can commit adultery. The woman who adorns herself with fragrances to pass by an assembly of men is as such,” meaning she is like an adulteress (Zāniyah). This is understood metaphorically, as her action intentionally facilitates sinful gazes from men.

IV. The Theological Link to Calamity

The strongest argument against unrestricted Ikhtilāṭ is the consequence of general punishment. Ibn al-Qayyim highlights the historical precedent linking sexual immorality to mass death and disease:

The historical narrative concerning the hosts of Prophet Mūsā (Moses) details that when calculated moral temptation (through the adornment of women and subsequent intermingling) led to rampant acts of fāḥishah (lewdness), Allāh sent a disease to them, resulting in the death of tens of thousands of people. This context proves the strong theological correlation between widespread, open Zinā (brought about by mixing) and Divine Retribution.

As ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ood (may Allāh be pleased with him) said: “When az-Zinā spreads in a village then Allāh permits its destruction.”

The profound danger of systemic immorality is also summarized in the reported saying of the Prophet ﷺ: “A people have never shorted (others) in their measurements nor reduced their weights except that Allāh ‘Azza wa Jal has prevented them from expansion. And fornication has not spread amongst a people except that death has spread amongst them (as well). And the act of the people of Lūṭ has not appeared amongst a people except that ignominy spreads amongst them. And a people have not abandoned commanding the good and forbidding the evil except that their actions are not raised up (to Allāh) and their supplications are not responded to.” (The narrator’s chain for this specific Hadīth is deemed weak due to Zayd Ibn al-Hawaaree al-‘Ammee, who was declared 'da’eef')

If rulers truly understood the catastrophic corruption this tolerance brings to the Dunyā (world) and the religion of the people under their custody, they would be the most stern in its prevention.