I just wanted to add that hazart Ayesha radi allahu anha is mother of muslim ummah. Marrying her is haram upon whole of muslims mankind as “prophet’s (pbuh) wifes are consider mothers of ummah”. So quoting that she was allowed to do hajj is completely different wen compared other woman. Even for sending her harath umar radi allahu anhu was skeptical . Then u can imagine how strict it is for other women to do hajj without mahram. As per sahih bukari a normal women should only go with a mahram (blood ties, breast feeding relations, husband,or even husband’s father (son’s wife is haram upon him).

mahram is the one woman can not marry

when the wives of the prophet pbuh went to Hajj as ladies group the khalifa ummar send with them two sahabi one is usman bin ufaan who is the son in law of the prophet pbuh and also mahram for the wives of the prophe pbuh and 2nd abdul rahman bin auf but instructed them not to walk with the them but one is front of them and another is behind from them and when they did tawaf kaba not men will allowed to do tawaf kaba but these days women who r going without mahram is not allowed in sharia one mahram is compulsory and you can not make any immam to be mahram for any woman cuz mahram is the one woman can marry or her husband only is the mahram(brother,son, father, uncle, son in law whom she can not marry.

Sorry, typographical error I did not catch in time. Make that, “We are not talking here about some blushing teenage virgin who has never lived outside her father’s house.”

I think what we all have to recognize is that human circumstances change, and there may be situations today which the Sahaba and the early jurists might literally not have been able to imagine, so their considerations simply did not and could not take into account what we face today.

In the western countries today, it is entirely possible, indeed it happens, that unmarried women of mature age come to Islam. In the Islamic sense (I am not a scholar, admittedly), they individually literally have *NO* Muslim mahram. They are actually all alone Islamically. Given the sad situation of many (western) converts, they have little prospect for an Islamic marriage, so they will remain without a mahram — no Muslim husband, father, son, brother, uncle. Islamically they are alone, and the early jurists might not have been able to envisage such a situation.

In these situations (which might have seemed extreme or even incomprehensible to the early scholars), does a devout convert woman have no choice but to ignore one of the Pillars of Islam if she is otherwise able to fulfill it? Is she not permitted to travel in the company of other mature and responsible women? Even if she is a true Muslim but has a western name? (In many cases, taking a “Muslim” name is not an obligation.) Some of the comments here tend to indicate that there are circumstances in which she might be able to fulfill this obligation.

But what about other circumstances? What about something like marriage? The blunt reality is that there may be a devout convert woman who has no mahram to serve as a wali. This can easily be the case in the west. Why should a mature, responsible woman who has been living on her own for many years in circumstances that the early jurists might not have even been able to imagine need a wali if she is willing, able, and seeking to marry? Can she not be a responsible person in her own right? Can she not make her own decisions and choices? We are not talking here about some blushing teenage virgin who has lived outside her father’s house.

Allah (swt) knows best. Surely I do not. But I think that some scholars and jurists have to get their heads out of the middle ages and realize that whether they like it or not, in the western countries times have changed, and they have to deal with those circumstances.