Were women excluded from participation in economic life in Medieval Islam?

By Yusra Amanour

Edited by Fatmanour Chouseinoglou and Mark Potter

To fully explore whether medieval Islamic women participated in economic life, it is important to first define what is meant by economic life. This essay will encapsulate all aspects of life regarding money and finances and will partially focus on the aspect of inheritance. Whether giving women their due inheritance was a practice before Islamic law was popularised is a much-contested idea. Though, we do know with the spread of Islam the practice of receiving inheritance, “whether the property be small or large, a determinate share” was accepted and became the cultural and religious norm for many Muslim countries over time, though not for everyone.[1] Leslie Peirce indicated that “female property rights are recognised as laid out in Sharia but are often thought to be difficult to realise in practice”.[2] This essay will focus on whether all Muslim societies included women in their economic lives, depending on the country and the time period. A comparison of different countries’ traditions and teachings will be discussed to conclude on whether women were excluded from participation in economic life. A differentiation between the treatment of women in the Ottoman court, Amazhigen women, Palestine, and women in Cairo, will allow a conclusion that women were excluded from economic practices multiple times, but mostly due to cultural norms rather than religion.

In Leslie Peirce’s piece on law and gender in Aintab (which is now called Gaziantep), she

focused on how women could further their economic gains thorough buying and owning

property. She comes to the uninvolved conclusion that because “women almost never appeared in the Aintab court records buying real estate”, it could easily mean that women did not take part in economic practices, though this is an extremely over-simplified way of looking at things.[3] This may have been the case because, as Peirce revealed, at times the rules of Islamic teachings were ignored in the “interest of keeping property together...as traditions of patriarchal authorities based on property, primarily land” controlled peoples thinking.[4] Many people wanted their property to stay within the family name and thus women were sometimes excluded because they could not guarantee that, especially if they were already married. This was mainly the case for enterprises that were built on the foundation of a family, but the acceptance of an archaic practice reveals that although religion may have preached for freedom and inheritance for all, people’s greed and selfish nature would always dominate their thinking. Women had to go through courts to receive their inheritance. For example, mentions the sisters Fatma and Ummeturahman, who had to “request official divisions of their share their father’s estate” as, if they did not, their shares would have been given to undeserving men.[5] Excluding women from economic life could remain a standard act as people would desire to keep their fortunes.

Additionally, it was difficult for women to make a name for themselves through inheritance

because of the nature of medieval Islamic patriarchy. Since the way women in Aintab mainly

gained their economic freedom was through the “fixed shares they inherited from the estates

of deceased relatives and secondarily through the portion of their dower to which they were

entitled at marriage”, it meant that for women there was an aspect of dependence on men for

their financial freedom.[6] For unmarried women, they were under the economic protection of their fathers, and when they were married, they gained a dowry which gave them elements of economic liberation, but were still under the aide of their husbands.

Though, many women had jobs and earned money, as the Qur’an teaches that “to men is

allowed what they earn, and to women what they earn”, which was at times a common sight in Aintab.[7] Peirce suggested that women knew that they were not “required to spend her own funds on the household, [but] a woman was expected to support her children in the absence of her husband if other means were lacking”.[8] However, at the end of the day, the woman who earned her own income could keep that money for herself, which suggests that although there were troubles with inheritance and women to owning their own properties, it did not necessarily mean that they were excluded from all economic life.

Though thousands of kilometres away from each other, many of the same practices of

excluding women could be seen all the way in the Maghrib, especially within the Amazigh

culture during the same century. At first glance, David Powers’ writing suggested that for

women in Islamic societies, it would be acceptable for them to gain and earn money as that

was the teachings of the Qur’an, though he reveals that like the people of Aintab, the Berbers

also limited the inheritance of women for patrilineal reasons. It is understood that even though the Islamic law may have been the legal structure for society, it did not necessarily lead the de facto way of life and inheritance. Like Aintab, inheritance operated to “keep familial or tribal property collective and undivided by limiting the right to inherit to male agnates and systematically excluding females”.[9] This reveals that there was an importance of keeping things in the family name, compared to giving women what is due to them. Though for the women in Aintab, this consisted of a small number of incidences, it was the complete cultural norm for the Amazigh women.

Although this was the cultural norm, it was not taken lightly. We see that this fight was fought all the way to the seventeenth century, where the “practice was contested and many fatwas reportedly were issued about it... persisted overtime without resolution”, which disclosed the fact that although the disregard of women when it came to inheritance was a de facto way of life, it was not something that was accepted and agreed with by many.[10] Rather, the newfound views had gained traction over the years to the point that this was now a “political issue at the highest of levels” with the courts.[11] Though it had been discussed many times and the issue was debated by many, the leaders and members of the courts found it difficult to make any new laws that removed people’s inheritance or changed the way society worked. This was because it was extremely difficult to “distinguish the lawful property from the unlawful” and even when they could put a trail back to what was unlawful, the courts had no idea on what action should then be taken regarding the unlawful

property.[12] This idea of women not being able to inherit because of marriage, they essentially would be giving family property to her “husband - a ‘stranger’” may have been the cultural norm for many people and suggest that women were excluded from participation in economic life.[13] Although it could be argued that the sheer presence of the disputes and fatwas suggests that though women were excluded from the economic practice of inheritance and aggrieved about it, that it is more complex than suggesting women were fully excluded, as other aspects economic life for women in the Maghrib are not discussed. One wishes that Powers would have explored more on the women’s personal lives and position in society.

The role and position of women in society can be suggested to have been included in economic life in Al-Quds (Jerusalem), as there are many primary pieces of evidence that suggest women to have been able to gain economic independence. One of which is explored by Huda Lutfi in her writings on the Haram Documents within the section of documents of the deathbed testimonies of Muslim women that discusses what they left behind. There were many women who had barely anything to their name. We see a woman leave behind only her few belongings like a “hand cloth, a waterbag, a torn woollen cloak...and a small bowl”.[14] From which we can deduce that she was a working woman as a water carrier, though she did not acquire any wealth from that job. Her marriage status is not mentioned, so one can conclude that her job was her sole income, and she had to work a menial job so she can support herself.

This is in comparison to another woman found in legal documents (Iqrars) who was written

about as a way of receiving help. The woman, Fatima, likely requested this deed as a way of

legally making claims about her husband, in case of future claims. The husband, who had died left her with nothing, not a “remainder of a bride price, no (expense of) clothing or

maintenance, and no alimony, and absolutely nothing from the matrimonial rights in the past”, he had left his children with nothing to fall back on after his death.[15] This then became the responsibility of the waqf revenues to give the wife and orphans an allowance to live. A waqf was the “alienation of income-producing property in perpetuity to benefit, ... a religious or pious cause”, in this case it was aide to Fatima and her family.[16] It can be viewed that even after death, Fatima’s husband still has to be the one who looks out for her and their children, as although she came from a middle-class background and a good family, she still had to rely on a man to help her financially. This was not just a one-off event, but rather Lutfi revealed that since “two out of the five women mentioned in the documents received allowances from waqf revenues we learn something about waqf administrations in the city of Al-Quds”, that perhaps within the city of Al-Quds that women were able to receive help from others so they can survive, rather than being left out alone.[17] However, from the deathbed testimonies it can be seen that this aide was not provided for all people, but rather a select few. Regardless, the sheer existence of the waqf as a way for one to receive help may suggest that women were able to participate in economic life, but their roles were so limited it was easier to accept outside help.

The use of waqfs as a way to gain financial independence was not just something people in Al- Quds did but rather was popular all over the Islamic world. The waqf system was not just a way for people to have an allowance after death but could just be a charitable donation for use by the public. It is suggested that in Cairo that women also took part in leaving waqfs almost as much as men did. Mary Ann Fay wrote that the “ministry's index lists 496 waqfs ... The number of male donors of waqfs was 393, and the number of female donors was 126”, which reveals that women had property and land and other things they could leave to a waqf, which is in direct contrast to Leslie Peirce’s claims that women must not have owned property as there are no records of it.[18] The creation and popularisation of the waqfs in Cairo may have been as a response to the troubling economic problems people were having at the time. In a time of much political challenge many people did not trust the system to take care of their things, so the waqf was a way to keep things and bestow them however one may please. Fay suggested that women, like men, “undoubtedly saw the institution of the waqf as a way to protect and pass on the property during a particularly tumultuous period in Egyptian history”.[19] In short it indicates that many women under Islamic rule did participate in economic practices, and they were at times part of elites of upper classes able to exploit the system.

So far, it can be assumed that for the most part of Islamic society that women were excluded

from economic life, or incredibly limited. It is important to acknowledge however that although there was a Muslim society where Sharia law governed the lands, it is known that not only Muslim people lived in these societies, but there were also large Jewish and Christian communities. Within these communities they at times had their own rules and regulations that followed their particular beliefs. S. D. Goitein has researched the Jewish businesswomen in the eleventh century Cairo. He mentioned that many Muslims worked for Jewish merchants, and many Jewish people were able to acquire much wealth. Goitein retold a story of a woman named Wuhsha who lived a free life, she was a broker who had a child from an affair and her life was very curious compared to those other women of her time. It is revealed that after her death Wuhsha had a fortune, some she dedicated to give to others, but Goitein noted that the “sums dedicated to charitable and religious purposes were unusually high and certainly intended to atone for Wuhsha's only too patent sins”, from which we can take away that even as a woman Wuhsha was able to acquire substantial amount of wealth she could donate to others.[20] It reveals that since she did not conform to societal expectations, she was able to live a financially stable life. Though perhaps from living frugally as she had lived in an “apartment house... which for a woman of her financial capacity, this was extremely uncommon”.[21] Even after her death she assured that with her money and her word, her son was to have a “religious education ... She did not intend to make a scholar of him, but she wanted him to know what was appropriate for a Jewish man”.[22] Cementing the idea that there was opportunity for a small number of women to participate in economic life and have economic freedom, perhaps if they were not religiously obligated to follow Islamic teachings and societal expectations.

We must also explore what the boundaries that limited women from participating in economic life were, and from who. Although the Qur’an had made it that women could work and inherit, cultural views and skewed takes on religion had dominated society for many. This was the case in fourteenth-century Cairo in which religious scholar and theologian Ibn al-Hajj often made claims and revelations on how Islamic society was supposed to work. Many of these revelations were sexist and limited a woman’s place in society, as he suggested that women were “ordered to stay home and were forbidden to walk the markets, to visit tombs or relatives or saints, and to go to public baths; shoemakers were forbidden to make shoes for women”, from which we can assume that it would be difficult to get a job and to support oneself if one cannot even leave the house.[23] Ibn al-Hajj also suggested that women were allowed to go out into public only for a necessity but when they do, they must “go in long unattractive garments”, which again gives no freedom for women to explore occupations or experiences that may give them opportunity to participate in economic

life.[24] Ibn al-Hajj did not just limit women’s place, he also placed some responsibility on men as for “sexual matters [he] placed an onus on the man, not the woman, for the female was viewed as a passive body that needed to be sexually satisfied by the man”, which changed the way couples viewed each other in a marriage and a woman’s responsibility toward her husband.[25] Though, it did little to stop the restrictive oppression of women outside the home, it solidified the belief that a woman’s place is in her home and she has no right to participate in economic life through work.

In conclusion, there seemed to have been a difficult relationship for women and having an

economic life. This changes over the years and even depends on where in the Islamic world

you look at. Had I only explored the life of Muslim people in medieval Aintab, I too may have

come to the simplistic conclusion as Peirce does, that women must not have been included in

economic life merely because there is no court evidence showing they owned property. If you

look at the record in Al-Quds, the sheer volume of women who owned waqfs suggest that

women did participate in economic life as they did own property. The idea of economic life is

so broad and is very much multifarious. So, one cannot make a blanketing claim that women

were or were not excluded from economic life, it very much depends on the aspect of economic life. If one looks at the lives of women and their abilities to have a job, one may conclude that women were not excluded from economic life, as many poor women needed to have jobs to support themselves, and for the most part across the Islamic world this was accepted. Though if you look at the idea of women and receiving inheritance as a way of being excluded from economic life then you may find that across the Islamic world this was a popular practice but changed from the start of the period to the end. Thus, one cannot make a complete concluding statement on whether women were excluded from participating in economic life in medieval Islamic society as there are many parameters one must consider. However, for the most part it can be seen that women were mainly excluded from economic practices because of societies expectation and position of women, that predates Islam.

Notes

[1] The Qur’an, 4:8, Talal Itani (trans.), Saheeh International (ed.), (Jeddah: Abdul Qasim Publishing House, 1997).

[2] Leslie Peirce, Morality Tales: Law and Gender in the Ottoman Court of Aintab (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003), p. 210.

[3] Peirce, Morality Tales, p. 222.

[4] Piece, Morality Tales, p. 215.

[5] Aintab (Gaziantep) Sicili, or Aintab court register, Ahmet Akgündüz, Seriye Sicilleri: Mahiyeti, Toplu Katalogu, ve Seçme Hükümler (Istanbul: Türk Dünyası Arastırmaları Vakfı, 1998), 2:213d. referenced in Peirce, Morality Tales, p. 217.

[6] Pierce, Morality Tales, p. 209.

[7] The Qur’an, 4:32.

[8] Peirce, Morality Tales, p.221.

[9] David 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. 24.

[10] Powers, “Law and Custom in the Maghrib”, p. 25.

[11] Powers, “Law and Custom in the Maghrib”, p. 25

[12] Powers, “Law and Custom in the Maghrib”, p. 27.

[13] Powers, “Law and Custom in the Maghrib”, p. 24.

[14] Huda Lutfi, Al-Quds al-Mamlukiyya: A History of Mamluk Jerusalem Based on the Haram Documents (Berlin: Klaus Schwarz Verlag, 1985), p. 49.

[15] Huda Lutfi, “A Study of Six Fourteenth Century Iqrārs from Al-Quds Relating to Muslim Women”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 26/3 (1983), p. 259.

[16] 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. 35.

[17] Lutfi,” A Study of Six Fourteenth Century Iqrārs from Al-Quds Relating to Muslim Women”, p. 289.

[18] Fay, “Women and Waqf”, p. 38.

[19] Fay, “Women and Waqf”, p. 36.

[20] S. D. Goitein, “A Jewish Businesswoman of the Eleventh Century”, The Jewish Quarterly Review, 57 (1967), p. 233.

[21] Goitein, “A Jewish Businesswoman of the Eleventh Century”, p. 238.

[22] Goitein, “A Jewish Businesswoman of the Eleventh Century”, p. 234.

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

[24] Lutfi, “Manners and Customs of the Fourteenth-Century Cairene Women”, p. 103.

[25] Lutfi, “Manners and Customs of the Fourteenth-Century Cairene Women”, p. 107.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Qur’an, Talal Itani (trans.) and Saheeh International (ed.). Jeddah: Abdul Qasim Publishing

House, 1997

Secondary Sources

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

Goitein, S. D. “A Jewish Businesswoman of the Eleventh Century”. The Jewish Quarterly

Review. 57. 1967

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

Documents. Berlin: Klaus Schwarz Verlag, 1985

Lutfi, Huda. “A Study of Six Fourteenth Century Iqrārs from Al-Quds Relating to Muslim

Women”. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient. 26/3. 1983

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

Anarchy Versus Male Sharʼi Order in Muslim Prescriptive Treatises”. In Nikki R. Keddie

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

Gender. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991

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

University of California Press, 2003

Powers, 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