top of page

Were women excluded from participation in economic life?

By Ambia Akhtar

Edited by Austin Steele and Mark Potter





The conditions of the Arabian Peninsula within the medieval years saw the ways in which

Islamic teachings were to corroborate with daily life, including the economy. Instead of

implementing barriers for women, principles within Islam held many protective measures that enabled women to have greater economic participation. The few contemporary sources

available to understand their role in the economy have, however, highlighted several attempts to exclude women in particular. Hence, the argument does not focus on whether they were involved in the economy, which they were much a part of, but whether they were restricted from roles they were already completing. Women in the context of medieval Islam must be acknowledged through the range of identities they held, from class to regional differences. In hand with these factors, economic life also held a variety of roles, from the issues surrounding property inheritance and ownership to wage labour. Although there were social pressures and expectations that attempted to restrain women’s economic participation, the evolving legal infrastructure mostly protected their rights in a way which transcended different cultures and societies.


There are many different Islamic sources of information when understanding whether there

were legal means that may have prevented women from economic participation. Although

different schools of thoughts may place emphasis on one source of guidance over another, we

will be looking at the Quran and fatwas (judicial opinion). In verse 4:176, the Quran states “a

male’s share will be equal to that of two females”, which introduces a new set of women’s

rights in inheritance that was not common in non-Islamic communities. This issue of the

division of property inheritance demonstrates the acknowledgement of issues surrounding the lack of legitimacy women held over property before the revelations of the Quran. Although we begin to see direct references towards women’s involvement, other sources of Sharia practice are required to deal with the details on practical elements of property division. Leslie Pierce explores these issues using records of cases that were brought to the Aintab court, which revealed issues women faced in the process of property inheritance amongst other disputes. To begin with, the several cases brought forward by women illustrate not only attempts at exclusion, but also the equal access they had with men to the legal system in order to resolve their issues.[1] We must keep in mind, however, that these records do not reflect the entire picture of all women at all times of all backgrounds. When inheriting property, women held various forms of land that included vineyards, houses and shops. Women also participated in the economy by selling a great deal of their real estate in comparison to men who purchased more property. Although this was not the case of all women, those who chose to sell their share of the inheritance often acquired domestic goods that assisted in social mobility within Aintab society. This mobilization of material objects and cash enabled women greater flexibility to support themselves in times of hardship than holding real estate from inheritance.[2] We begin to see how women’s roles can shift according to their situations, which intertwined factors such as periods of conflicts as well as instability within their personal lives. Pierce does consider that most of the Aintab court records do not universally reflect “a simple struggle between sexes”, indicating how women’s exclusion was not based merely on their gender.[3] This, however, was subject to differing cultures and societies, emphasizing the importance of the Sharia law’s neutral position in such matters. Women’s rights to property were often ignored in the tradition of patriarchal authority to keep property rights under strong, male leaders of the family.[4] David S. Powers adds to this point by explaining how women’s property shares were seen to be discouraged by many tribes as it would leave the family line after her marriage to

her husband.[5] These factors were often seen in the period of ‘Jahilyya’ (pre-Islam), illustrating one way in which the arrival of Islamic legislation assisted in maintaining women’s economic rights. For the women in the Aintab courts, the arrival of the Ottoman state asserted primacy of Sharia law over ‘customary’ local practice, further protecting women’s right to inheritance. Pierce thoroughly uses the Aintab court records that revealed the identities of those who attempted to infringe on women’s right to property, including a variety of male relatives in most of the cases. These relations towards women originated from several sibling and generational feuds of property rather than different gender-based treatment.[6] Both Pierce and Powers draw out similar arguments that acknowledge several attempts at restricting women from inheriting property that targeted their weaker positions and the dominance of local cultures. In terms of property inheritance, however, jurists mostly upheld women’s economic rights through adherence to the Quranic verses as well as the fatwas in place that challenged these obstacles.


Alongside the process of inheritance, general property ownership was common amongst

women of the elite classes as a source of income. This form of economic participation was

recorded in waqifiyaats (religious endowment documents) for women, as well as the

involvement of female waqifas (donors).[7] In eighteenth century Mamluk society, women held a degree of control and were guaranteed protection of their properties by Islamic law through these documents. Some of the benefits of the waqf were that particular properties were not taxed.[8] More importantly, this principle enabled Mamluk women to establish ahli waqfs, which was a system that allowed women to derive a comfortable source of self-controlled income.[9] Although these waqfs served as protection for women, the fact that these were essential for women exclusively highlights the high level of threat women faced from being excluded from economic activity. Mary Ann Fay emphasizes that this was limited to a few elite women, as only seven waqfiya female donors were recorded between 1700-49. This increased to 106 by the late eighteenth century, illustrating a more open approach on behalf of women to secure their assets. Fay argues, however, that this increase for waqfs also occurred amongst men due to the consequences of constant political struggles and periods of crisis Mamluk society faced.[10] Similar to Leslie Pierce’s argument, Fay concludes that the use of waqfs as a form of economic protection cannot be simply gendered. Instead, circumstances and constant instability shaped the level of participation women were able to commit to, which again surpasses exclusion solely due to biological differences.


As mentioned before, elite women often inherited and amassed shops, living units, mills and

public baths. In a series of deathbed testimonies of women from fourteenth century Jerusalem, a woman named Nafisa bin Ali is recorded to own many material possessions as well as property. These included a “gold ring, chameleon necklace”, “two units built of stone” as well as passing ownership over her vineyard. Amongst these domestic goods and estate, records also show the ownership of one female black slave as a part of her property.[11] This primary source provides a rich outlook on the different ways women were able to participate

economically, as well as primarily be in charge of their own financial matters. Firstly, the

inclusion of material goods, that identify Nafisa bin Ali as a woman from a wealthy family,

illustrate the importance of expensive objects as a form of social mobility, as seen before. In

addition to this, property ownership can also be seen to be prevalent within this source, where different kinds of land were accessible to be acquired by women. The detail of the vineyard within the source indicates how women understood the economy of the time in which they invested their wealth into.[12] For a woman to already own such land that is included in her will, Nafisa bin Ali is a great example of how women were able to be active in the economy without much disagreement or opposition from external factors. As we will come to see in Huda Lufti’s discussion of wage labour however, property ownership illustrates the differences of elite and lower-class women's economic experience. Nafisa bin Ali’s ownership of her slave within the testament highlights how women of different classes required different aspects of financial income according to their status. In most cases, property inheritance and ownership could be seen to involve disputes with elite women rather than women of lower classes. Here, we begin to see how women of higher classes may have contributed to the exclusion of those below them in the tight circle of property ownership. Mary Ann Fay argues against this, pointing out that there were occasions of female slaves being included with a female donor’s waqf, highlighting how Mamluk society could break down these tensions.[13] This, however, would not have been a frequent habit for all female slaves to share in inheriting property from their employers, and thus cannot truly deny some level of exclusivity within this form of economic participation. Women’s activity in the economy can already be seen to be quite high through the different levels of property inheritance and ownership. Regional and class differences, however, begin to form barriers against women continuing to grow their wealth, leading away from means of

protection to methods of prevention.


If property inheritance and ownership is the way in which we assess elite women’s exclusion,

the level of wage labour and its own opposition could perhaps inform us on the involvement

of working-class women. Similar to inheritance legislation, the Quran has mentioned the

implicit acknowledgement of female wage labour in verse 2:233, describing a wet-nurse as a

form of occupation that deserves fair payment. Here we see how more traditional forms of

labour requires compensation, signifying one way in which women have a right to engage in

earning a direct income. The wages received for the role of breastfeeding is one of the few

written contracts clearly taken into the “Islamic legal sphere” due to its dictation within the

holy Quran.[14] Although some schools may vary in their ruling on different types of female

economic participation, the Maliki fatwa dictates that what a woman earns is her own.[15] This is significant as it indicates a shift from the period of Jahiliyyah, where many women from different faiths such as Judaism shared their wealth with their husbands. Again, this autonomy illustrates how Islamic legislation through both the Quran and fatwas have played a large role in limiting opposition towards certain women's occupations. Huda Lufti uses the examples seen in 14th century Egypitan Mamluk society, where there were evident tensions and levels of prohibition for women to participate in wage labour. Although traditional views of women's place in the home may have influenced some levels of exclusion, there were many physical restrictions in place too. As periods of catastrophe were regular occurrences during this period, the appearance of women working in the streets were linked to sources of chaos and destruction in Mamluk society. [16] The fact that women were used as scapegoats when the community experienced plagues and famines marks an era where state regulations began to be hostile towards women’s independence. As Lufti argues, however, there were differences in theorizing and practicing these restrictions to women’s labour, and most cases did not have the luxuries to stop a source of income.[17] Similar to Mary Ann Fay’s analysis of eighteenth century Mamluk society, Lufti also draws out the distinctions between the level of exclusion of elite women and those of lower classes. Women who tended to engage with wage labour were seen to be able to reject this literature ideal, highlighting a common understanding of accepting some women’s role in the economy. For instance, lower class women performed valuable services to the harems of urban households, including the roles of midwives, maids and female doctors. Body purification of the deceased was a way in which women of working-class status engaged in the economy as female specialists

(al- Ghazila).[18] These were roles that have a significant purpose within any communities at any time and working-class women often took such routes in order to hold a source of income in periods of hardship. Thus, women of working classes can be seen to be exempt from strict rules of female segregation and did move within public spaces that held men as a part of their jobs. These social freedoms, and limitations to a certain extent, signify the ways in which different women of various classes were allowed to engage within

the economy.


Furthermore, it is limited to think of women participating in wage labour only as a last resort

and not out of pure choice. In fourteenth century Ifriqiya, the infamous ruling of the female

hairdresser highlights the importance of fatwas in protecting women’s right to work.[19] More importantly, this case illustrates a deeper picture of the precautions women had to take in order to protect their rights. This example of male opposition to his wife’s continuation to work reemphasizes the layer of cultural barriers that women had to consider, hence the written agreement within the marriage contract. Another case that signifies the unequal treatment of women’s wage labour is the case of the female silk weavers’ who received a large taxation on their work. This came from the fears by the male employers who presumed the women were making secret profits for themselves.[20] This method of discouragement, as well as the poor presumptions of the characters of these workers, continues to prove the unregulated levels of exclusion women faced when trying to earn an income. Maya Shatzmiller presents several examples of the continued ways in which cultural attitudes like gender segregation discouraged women from accessing full working rights.[21] Her well-rounded arguments specify women’s traditional roles within the domestic sphere becoming difficult to separate with a role in the economy, especially wage labour. Although there have been vague attempts at discerning women's working rights within the Quran, fatwas and other Islamic legal frameworks were essential in providing some security for female

workers.[22]


We have seen how women were involved within the economy at some level regardless of the

cultural or even political restrictions placed on them. Many historians agree that there are few records that portray a true picture of the number of women who were involved in forms of property ownership or wage labour. Haim Gerber and Ronald C. Jennings explore the

differences of women’s economic experience under Ottoman rule within the Anatolian cities

of Bursa and Kayseri in the seventeenth century. Jennings observed the higher levels of

property inheritance and ownership disputes over trade records in the city of Kayseri, where

women equally used the courts to dispute their entitled wealth. Women’s property holdings

were consistently upheld in the Kayseri courts, highlighting the active role in which the Sharia law played in order to minimise the obstructions for perhaps elite women to participate in the economy.[23] Jennings, however, is correct in pointing out the limited resources that do not paint the entire picture of whether we can make such a claim, as it did not encompass all women and not all results could have been recorded accurately. In comparison, Haim Gebrer believes the location of Bursa as a metropolis in comparison to Kayseri, provided more far-reaching opportunities for Bursa women to engage with the economy.[24]This included investing their money into merchants exploring for new resources, as well as buying further estates to sell at profitable levels.[25] Unlike Leslie Pierce’s argument on most Aintab women who often sold their shares for cash settlements, the women of Bursa highlight the ways in which regional differences could determine the level of social pressures they faced. Bursa women, however, too faced many cultural obstacles, similar to tribal traditions mentioned by David S Powers. Women in Bursa commonly owned and cultivated large parts of fertile agricultural land. Many cases, however, arose on the subject of kanun (state law by Ottoman rule) which focused on ‘direct law’ that often highly discriminated against daughters inheriting the land.[26] Here, the continued reluctance to pass on property to women indicates not only the unavoidable gendered

perception, but also the level of state regulation by political bodies. Of course, as we have seen before, most other features of the Ottoman rule, as well as other Islamic leadership over the years, reflect the Sharia stance that tends to support women's economic rights in most cases. Gerber also describes women in seventeenth century Bursa as being involved in artisanship like candle making, and records show small enterprises of home products being sold by the women.[27] These forms of trading transcend the restrictions of class or regional differences, highlighting ways in which women were able to manipulate economic participation to suit their lifestyles.


Ultimately, women have been prominent in a range of economic activities over the decades

even when faced with attempts to prevent their involvement. Property inheritance marked the ways in which Islamic legislation differed from other religions in its direct protective laws, however the series of court records cement the constant attempts to obstruct women's shares. As Leslie Pierce argued, most of the attempts at controlling what women received as property were shaped by family conflicts, headed by male relatives. The success and failures of these protections of women’s economic rights have been seen to differ with fatwas from different schools of thoughts. The local cultural differences discussed by David S Powers also shaped the level and methods in which women were able to get control over their estates, as seen in the cases of Aintab and Burma’s legal systems. To suggest that all men conflicted with

women’s participation in the economy would oversimplify and dilute the extent of the struggles women faced to explore outside their domestic sphere. The elite and working-class women division is quite important when observing the purpose behind different forms of economic activity, such as property ownerships and wage labour. Although there were few direct legislations preventing slave women from owning property, the lack of records and the rarity of this highlight the ways in which exclusion of women came from different factors that go beyond gender. Therefore, women were not prevented from economic participation as such, instead were very much involved. Yet, women were subjected to constantly fend off attempts at reversing their protected Islamic rights.


Notes


[1] Leslie Pierce, Morality Tales, Law and Gender in the Ottoman Court of Aintab (Berkeley:

University of California Press, 2003), p. 210.

[2] Pierce, Morality Tales, p. 220.

[3] Pierce, Morality Tales, p. 210.

[4] Pierce, Morality Tales, p. 213.

[5] David S. Powers, “Law and Custom in the Maghrib, 1475-1500: On the Disinheritance of Women”, in Ron Shaham (ed.), Law, Custom and Stature in the Muslim World (Leiden: Brill, 2007), p. 20.

[6] Leslie Pierce, Morality Tales, p. 215.

[7] Mary Ann Fay, “Women and Waqf: Toward a Reconsideration of Women's Place in the Mamluk Household.” International Journal of Middle East Studies, 29/1 (1997), p. 34.

[8] Fay, “Women and Waqf”, p. 36.

[9] Fay, “Women and Waqf”, p.36.

[10] Fay, “Women and Waqf”, p.37.

[11] Huda Lufti, Al-Quds Al -Mamlukiyya, A History of Mamluk Jerusalem Based on the Haram Documents, (Berlin: Klaus Schwarz,1985), p. 55.

[12] Fay, “Women and Waqf”, p. 41.

[13] Fay, “Women and Waqf”, p. 42

[14] Maya Shatzmiller, “Women and Wage Labour in The Medieval Islamic West: Legal Issues in An Economic Context”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 40/2 (1997), p. 184.

[15] Shatzmiller, “Women and Wage Labour in The Medieval Islamic West”, p. 185.

[16] Huda Lufti, “Manners and Customs of Fourteenth-Century Cairene Women: Female Anarchy versus Male Sharʼi Order in Muslim Prescriptive Treatises,” in Nikki Keddie and Beth Baron (eds.), Women in Middle Eastern History: Shifting Boundaries in Sex and Gender (New Haven, Yale Press University Press, 1991), p. 101.

[17] Lufti, “Manners and Customs of Fourteenth-Century Cairene Women”, p. 102.

[18] Lufti, “Manners and Customs of Fourteenth-Century Cairene Women”, p. 113.

[19] Shatzmiller, “Women and Wage Labour in The Medieval Islamic West”, p. 189.

[20] Shatzmiller, “Women and Wage Labour in The Medieval Islamic West”, p.195.

[21] Shatzmiller, “Women and Wage Labour in The Medieval Islamic West”, p. 175.

[22] Shatzmiller, “Women and Wage Labour in The Medieval Islamic West”, p. 201.

[23] Ronald C. Jennings, “Women in Early 17th Century Ottoman Judicial Records: The Sharia Court of Anatolian Kayseri”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 18/1 (1975), p. 60.

[24] Haim Gerber, “Social and Economic Position of Women in an Ottoman City, Bursa, 1600-1700”, International Journal of Middle East Studies, 12/3 (1980), p. 239.

[25] Gerber, “Social and Economic Position of Women in an Ottoman City”, p. 236.

[26] Gerber, “Social and Economic Position of Women in an Ottoman City”, p. 235.

[27] Gerber, “Social and Economic Position of Women in an Ottoman City”, p. 237.


Bibliography


Fay, Mary Ann. “Women and Waqf: Toward a Reconsideration of Women's Place in the

Mamluk Household”. International Journal of Middle East Studies. 29/1, 1997


Gerber, Haim. “Social and Economic Position of Women in an Ottoman City, Bursa, 1600-

1700”. International Journal of Middle East Studies. 12/3, 1980


Jennings, Ronald C. “Women in Early 17th Century Ottoman Judicial Records: The Sharia

Court of Anatolian Kayseri”. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient. 18/1,

1975


Lufti, Huda. Al-Quds Al -Mamlukiyya, A History of Mamluk Jerusalem Based on the Haram

Documents. Berlin: Klaus Schwarz, 1985


Lufti, Huda. “Manners and Customs of Fourteenth-Century Cairene Women: Female

Anarchy versus Male Sharʼi Order in Muslim Prescriptive Treatises”. In Nikki Keddie and

Beth Baron (eds.). Women in Middle Eastern History: Shifting Boundaries in Sex and

Gender. New Haven: Yale Press University Press, 1991


Pierce, Leslie. Morality Tales, Law and Gender in the Ottoman Court of Aintab. Berkeley:

University of California Press, 2003


Powers, S. David. “Law and Custom in the Maghrib, 1475-1500: On the Disinheritance of

Women”. In Ron Shaham (ed.), Law, Custom and Stature in the Muslim World. Leiden: Brill, 2007


Shatzmiller, Maya. “Women and Wage Labour in The Medieval Islamic West: Legal Issues

in An Economic Context”. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient. 40/2,

1997

Comments


bottom of page