ARTICLES ,  FEMINISM ,   ISLAM

POSTED BY ZARAFARIS ⋅ AUGUST 3, 2013 ⋅ 28 COMMENTSFILED UNDER  CALIPHATE, COVERTURE, FEMINISM, HISTORY, ISLAM, MIDDLE EAST, MUSLIM WORLD, OTTOMAN, OTTOMAN CALIPHATE,OTTOMAN EMPIRE, TURKEY, WOMEN IN ISLAM

Ottoman Women During the Advent of Western Feminismby Zara Huda Faris

“As to women, as many, if not more than men, are to be seen in the streets [i.e. going about their daily activities, etc] […] I think I never saw a country where women may enjoy so much liberty, and free from all reproach, as in Turkey [...] The Turks in their conduct towards our sex are an example to all other nations; [...] and I repeat it, sir, I think no women have so much liberty, safe from apprehension, as the Turkish – and I think them in their manner of living, capable of being the happiest creatures breathing.”

- Lady Elizabeth Craven, A Journey Through the Crimea to Constantinople, 1789[i]

Lady Elizabeth Craven, 18th century travel writer, playwright and author, made these observations about the women of the Ottoman Caliphate (an Islamic state) in 1789, beforethe advent of feminism in Europe and three years before Mary Wollstonecraft would publish A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792), the 300-page appeal that would become the foundation stone and herald of modern feminism.The observations of Lady Elizabeth Craven and others, along with records of court proceedings, financial dealings and political documents, reveal that women of the Ottoman Caliphate actually experienced greater liberty and protection than their post-enlightenment Western counterparts, and notably without the need for feminism. Yet, today, feminists strive to convince Muslim women of the exact opposite: that Muslim women have always suffered because of Islam and, in a strange twist of thought, advocate feminism as the solution to the problems of the Muslim world.This article looks at the condition of women living under an Islamic Caliphate that continued to exist until as recently as 1924 – theOttoman Caliphate – and compares their circumstances with the Western circumstances that gave rise to feminism in the West. As we will see, the very recent historical precedent of the Ottoman Caliphate demonstrates that women of the Muslim world historically never needed feminism in order to guarantee their rights – rather, they simply needed the full implementation of their own belief system – Islam.Muslim country v. Islamic state

Before turning to the comparison, it is important to note the fundamental difference between a Muslim country and an Islamic state. The Ottoman Caliphate was an Islamic state – i.e. the shari’ah (the sacred law of Islam) ruled supreme as the only source of law – for over 600 years and until its cessation in the early 20th century. This shari’ah provided the Ottomans with their legal framework for governing public and private aspects of daily life, including personal, political, social and economic activities, both civil and criminal. This shari’ahalso enabled the Ottoman Caliphate to include and protect women of Africa, Europe and Asia – which included Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Anatolian, Greek, North African, West Asian, and women of the Balkan Peninsula.The Muslim countries of today, however, such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Turkey and much of the Middle East, are secularand not Islamic – i.e. the constitutions of these countries posit that Islam may be just one of many post-colonialist sources of the law. Otherwise, these countries are secular, corrupt, and tyrannical and cannot be looked upon for an example of Islam in practice. In fact, the ordinary men and women of these Muslim countries would be liberated by the establishing of an Islamic state in their lands.Legal Status

In the West, women lost their own legal identity (and their names) upon marriage, at which point they could neither sue nor be sued, and their husbands would have to sue or be sued on their behalf.

In England, and most English speaking colonies, the doctrine of coverture identified women according to their marital status. A married woman did not have her own legal identity separate from that of her husband – upon marriage, hers was subsumed by her husband’s identity, and she was known as a feme covert (i.e. a married woman or, literally, a “covered” woman). This legal concept prevailed in the West from around the 12th century until the mid to late 19th century (i.e. almost alongside the entire period of the Ottoman Empire).“By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs every thing…”- William Blackstone, 18th century English jurist and judge, explaining coverture[ii]

Coverture was a double edged sword, hindering the lives of all women and men together – denying the free will of wives also denied their accountability. For example, a married woman could not file lawsuits in her own name, and her husband would have to do so on her behalf, but this also meant that if someone wanted to take civil action against the wife, her husband would have to be sued in her stead. This devolving of accountability from the woman to her husband was even the subject of satire in English literature. In Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist, a Mr Bumble was informed that “the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction“, to which Mr Bumble replied “If the law supposes that […] the law is a ass—a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor;

and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience.“[iii]

Coverture was only in relation to civil, not criminal, action; as we know, England and the American colonies were still reeling from burning women at the stake for criminal offences of treason and witchery – even as late as 1784![iv] Although coverture was only in relation to civil law, it is interesting to note that, as recently as 1972, two US states allowed a wife accused in criminal court to offer as a legal defence that she was obeying her husband’s orders![v]

Meanwhile, women of the Ottoman Caliphate had legal standing regardless of marital status, the like of which caused even non-Muslim Ottoman women to prefer Islamic courts to their own courts.

The Women of the Ottoman Caliphate, like men, upon reaching puberty, were considered individual subjects of the state, having their own separate legal identity, in accordance with Islamic law. They retained this legal status regardless of whether they married or remained single.[vi] Muslim women also retain their own surnames upon marriage, as a reminder of their own identity and their own accountability.

Along with men, women were granted extensive legal rights, including the right to register complaints and claim their rights before the local Islamic judge (in Arabic, the Qadi), and they could do so independently. They did not need an accompanying male relative, in fact they could take legal action against their own husbands or male relatives if need be. Ottoman women of all social

levels, from the countryside and the cities, frequently used the Islamic court system to defend their interests and, in most cases, judges upheld women’s legal and property rights.[vii]

In fact, Islamic Qadi courts were perceived to be so favourable in treating issues of concern to women, that even non-Muslim Ottoman women frequently preferred to take recourse in these Islamic Qadi courts despite the fact that, under the protection of the Ottoman Caliphate, each religious community had access to its own religious or cultural proceedings, as each religious community enjoyed cultural and legal autonomy, managing its own internal affairs, under the leadership of its own religious hierarchy.[viii]

Economic Activity

In the West, women did not have control over their own property upon marriage; their husbands were responsible for their upkeep and were forced to pay off their debts.

The doctrine of coverture meant that, because the husband and wife were ‘one person’, the wife did not have control over her own property and her husband could use and dispose of her property without her permission (unless otherwise agreed before marriage).As such, a wife could also not execute contracts. In the 19th century, in circumstances where a wife could dispose of her property (for example, if this was permitted by her husband), then a ‘privy examination’ would have to be

conducted where she had to be separately examined by a judge (without her husband present), to determine whether her husband was pressuring her into signing the document. This was seen as a means of protecting married women’s property.

On the other hand, because they were seen to be the same person in the eyes of the law, the husband was also legally bound to provide for his wife, as much as himself. It also meant that if a woman entered the marriage already with debt, or she incurred debt for them, her husband was the debtor and obliged to pay off the debt – not the wife.In Britain, this persisted at least until the Married Women’s Property Act of 1870, which altered the law so that a wife could own, buy and sell, sue and be sued, and be liable for her own debts.Meanwhile, women of the Ottoman Caliphate had always been economically independent and active and, in some industries, so much so that guilds had to seek state intervention against women’s monopolies.

“The Turkish wife has been called a slave and a chattel. She is neither. Indeed, her legal status is preferable to that of the majority of wives in Europe, and until enactments of a comparatively recent date, the English was far more of a chattel than the Turkish wife, who has always had absolute control of her property. The law allows her the free use and disposal of anything she may possess at the time of her marriage, or that she may inherit afterwards. She may distribute it during her life or she may bequeath it to

whom she chooses. In the eyes of the law she is a free agent. She may act independently of her husband, may sue in the courts or may be proceeded against, without regard to him. In these respects she enjoys greater freedom than her Chrisitan sisters.”

Z. Duckett Ferriman, 1911Amongst the Islamic rights delivered to women under the Ottoman Caliphate was the Islamic right to inherit, acquire, control and dispose of property according to their own will, without requiring consent from fathers or husbands. In other words, Ottoman women were legally entitled to manage their own wealth, and they very much did so.In fact, women played a fundamental role in the Ottoman economy, including being landholders, holders of military fiefs, borrowers, lenders, private tax collectors, and partners in business. Ottoman women from various backgrounds were commonly trading and dealing in marketplaces.[ix]

It is documented that ‘upper class’ Ottoman women (who were more likely to be ‘cloistered’ behind screens) did not commonly deal directly with men, and were perceived by foreign observers as being ‘forced’ to use male employees and agents to act on their behalf. This prompted some observers to comment on this with strange sympathy, as if these ‘upper class’ women were somehow being oppressed, despite the fact that they were powerful business owners who are documented to have owned many of the shops in the market in the first place.[x] How unfortunate these women must have been

to have employees running their businesses for them! Also, these ‘upper class’ women wielded further influence through the patronage of fundamental architectural projects.

Women of the Ottoman Caliphate were also involved in crafts, silk and cotton spinning. In Mosul, cotton-thread making was an industry that was by and large carried out on a part time basis in the home. At one point, this industry was actually monopolized by women, to the extent that cotton-weaving guilds were forced to seek state intervention against this monopoly![xi]Ottoman women also played a fundamental role in the distribution of wealth and, during the 18th century, Ottoman women of  all classes established 20-30% of all charitable foundations/trusts (in Arabic waqf  pl. awqaf). Schools, hospitals, caravansaries, baths, fountains, soup kitchens, hostels and mosques were financed throughout the empire by women from their own personal resources, for the benefit of the public.[xii]

Political Involvement

In Britain, universal suffrage for men and women was not achieved until 1928.

In Britain, only very wealthy men could vote, which excluded the vast majority of men, and excluded women altogether! It was not until 1918 that all men over the age of 21 and women over the age of 30 could vote, and it was not until 1928 that all men and women over the age of 21 could vote.

Meanwhile, men and women of the Ottoman Caliphate were required to be politically active.

Under the Ottoman Caliphate, women had the same right as men to directly petition the Divan – the council where viziers debated the politics of the state, and men and women both had a right to pledge allegiance (equivalent of the vote) to the Ottoman Caliph.The social segregation of women from men was most common among the upper class families, whilst women of lower classes were generally more free to circulate, partly because of their heavy involvement in economic activities.[xiii] As such, it was commonly believed by European foreigners that such upper class women must have been oppressed and restricted. In reality, the late 16th century of the Ottoman Caliphate was actually known as the “sultanate of the women”, when the mothers of the sultans and other royal women became increasingly powerful and influential from behind the veils and screens of the harem. Although the harem was not, and is not, an Islamic concept, the sultanate of the women does demonstrate emphatically that just because women are behind screens or veils, this does not mean their role in society is restricted.Social Life

In the West, neither men nor women had the right to divorce, and if they were wealthy enough to get a legal separation, remarrying meant the death penalty.

Divorce was not legal under English law until the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857. Prior to 1857, a form of

legal separation could be achieved only through a complex annulment process or through the passing of a Private Act of Parliament (which entailed lengthy public debates about the couple’s intimate life in the House of Commons). Both of these measures were highly costly procedures, and so this legal separation was restricted to the very wealthy.Not only this, but husbands and wives who had so separated were prohibited from remarrying – ‘bigamy’ was first prohibited and prosecutable by the church and then, in 1604, bigamy was made a legal felony and was punishable with the death penalty![xiv]Meanwhile, in the Ottoman Caliphate, polygamy was rare and divorce, whilst a last resort, was initiated by both men and women.

 “Turks rule countries and their wives rule them. Turkish women go around and enjoy themselves much more than any others. Polygamy is absent. They must have tried it but then given it up because it leads to much trouble and expense.”- Saomon Schweigger, German Protestant minister who travelled to the Ottoman Empire at the end of the 16th century.Marriages were mostly arranged by parents and families, emphasizing the importance of family in Ottoman society. Women of the Ottoman Caliphate had the right to refuse a match, and prenuptial contracts were not uncommon. Polygamy was permitted, in accordance with Islamic law, but in practise was actually quite rare, with over 95% of men having only one wife.[xv]Ottoman jurists “viewed married couples as enjoying reciprocal, as opposed to symmetrical rights”.[xvi] For

example, a married woman of the Ottoman Caliphate was duty bound to obey the husband she consented to marry – as long as he did not ask her to do something bad or haram - the legal status and political and economic activity of women clearly demonstrates, however, that Muslim men were not overbearing or oppressive to their wives. Furthermore, because men are, in the eyes of the law, financially responsible for women and children, divorce procedures are different for men than they are from women, although both are allowed to seek divorce. In practice, women of the Ottoman Caliphate had a great deal of flexibility in ending unwanted marriages. In 18th century Istanbul, for example, separations, annulments and divorces initiated by women were frequent enough to even create concern amongst social observers. Being a union of two families as opposed to just two people, divorce was distressing regardless of who initiated it, but divorce was nevertheless an option for either the husband or the wife.[xvii]Legitimate causes for divorce from either party included incompatibility, financial problems that led to altercations between spouses, ill treatment including physical abuse, adultery, failure of either party to keep to the basic expectations of marriage, especially not doing the work the family needed from either husband or wife. In some cases, divorce was initiated by the wife if she was not satisfied with the house to which her husband had taken her, or by the husband if his wife did not produce sons.[xviii]After divorce, both men and women were free to marry again. For non-Muslim Ottoman women whose religions or traditions did not normally permit divorce, conversion to

Islam was a common path to liberation from unhappy marriages.Do Muslim women need feminism?

As we can see, the women of the Ottoman Caliphate had no need for feminism in order to obtain the rights ordained for them by their Creator. Not only did the Ottoman Caliphate implement and protect the rights of Muslim men and women, but it also accommodated the vast and various groups of non-Muslim women living under its protection. It should be emphasized that this justice and prosperity amongst men and women long preceded the advent of feminism in the West, and continued until very recently (the early 20th century). Unlike women of the ‘post-enlightenment’ West, Muslim women never needed the patch-work and gender-biased solution of feminism in order to seek justice and obtain their rights, which were guaranteed under the Islamic Caliphate. It would seem that Western women invented feminism out of desperation, because they did not have Islam. So the question we must ask ourselves is, given that Muslim women had always found Islam sufficient for their rights, why would they ever need feminism?

[i] Elizabeth Craven (Baroness), A Journey Through the Crimea to Constantinople: In a Series of Letters

from the Right Honourable Elizabeth Lady Craven to His Serene Highness The Margrave of

Brandebourg, Anspach, and Bareith, London.

[ii] William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Vol. 1, 1765, pages 442-445)

[iii] Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist, 1838, chapter 51

[iv] http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/burning.html

[v]The Law: Up from Coverture, Time Magazine, published Monday, March 20, 1972, accessed

athttp://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,942533,00.html

[vi] Jenie R. Ebeling, Lynda Garland, Guity Nashat, Eric R. Dursteler “West Asia” The Oxford

Encyclopedia of Women in World History. Ed Bonnie G. Smith. Oxford University Press, 2008. Brigham

Young University (BYU). 1 November 2010

[vii] Ebeling, Garland, Nashat, and Dursteler

[viii] Colin Imber, The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650: The Structure of Power, New York: Palgrave

Macmillan, 2002

[ix] Mehrdad Kia, Daily Life in The Ottoman Empire, Greenwood, 2011

[x] Kia, M.

[xi] Ebeling, Garland, Nashat, and Dursteler

[xii] Ibid.

[xiii] Ibid.

[xiv] Bernard Capp, Bigamous Marriage in Early Modern England, University of Warwick, 2009

[xv] Ebeling, Garland, Nashat, and Dursteler

[xvi] Kia, M.

[xvii] Ebeling, Garland, Nashat, and Dursteler

[xviii] Justin McCarthy, The Ottoman Turks: An Introductory History to 1923 (London, New York: Wesley

Longman Limited, 1997)Share this:

Twitter 190 Facebook 3K+ Tumblr StumbleUpon Reddit Email Print

Related

Feminism is Misogyny - as demonstrated by MP Sarah WollastonIn "Comment"TV Debate: Do Muslims Need Feminism?In "Debates"Upcoming event in London: 'The Beauty Within'In "Feminism"

« Radio Debate with Councillor Rania Khan on Feminism Coming   Soon Feminism is Misogyny – as demonstrated by MP Sarah   Wollaston  »

D I S C U S S I O N

28 thoughts on “Ottoman Women During the Advent of

Western Feminism”

1.

Reblogged this on Muslimah Directions  and commented:

“As to women, as many, if not more than men, are to be seen in the streets [i.e. going about their daily

activities, etc] […] I think I never saw a country where women may enjoy so much liberty, and free

from all reproach, as in Turkey [...] The Turks in their conduct towards our sex are an example to all

other nations; [...] and I repeat it, sir, I think no women have so much liberty, safe from apprehension,

as the Turkish – and I think them in their manner of living, capable of being the happiest creatures

breathing.”

- Lady Elizabeth Craven, A Journey Through the Crimea to Constantinople, 1789[i]

POSTED BY NAILA | AUGUST 3, 2013, 12:01 PMREPLY TO THIS COMMENT

2.

Hi Zara, as an atheist, I truly enjoy your posts. I enjoy them because (for me), they transcend religion.

Clearly you speak from a Muslim viewpoint, but your views transcend religion and are easily applied to

all. You are clearly an intelligent and gifted woman. I look forward to hearing more from you over time.

POSTED BY LORD HIGHBROW | AUGUST 3, 2013, 3:42 PMREPLY TO THIS COMMENT

3.

Is this merely a thought experiment, conducted without any regard to the reality of Muslim women’s

lives in many dozens of countries throughout the world now in 2013?

POSTED BY GERARD BELAIRRE | AUGUST 4, 2013, 1:30 AMREPLY TO THIS COMMENT

o

The muslim women in2013 are not living under Islamic state, rather all so called Muslim countries

have implemented the colonists laws after the freedom from physical colonisation

POSTED BY LUBNA | AUGUST 5, 2013, 6:32 AMREPLY TO THIS COMMENT

o

As already dealt with at the start of my article: “The Muslim countries of today, however, such as

Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Turkey and much of the Middle East, are secular and not

Islamic – i.e. the constitutions of these countries posit that Islam may be just one of many post-

colonialist sources of the law. Otherwise, these countries are secular, corrupt, and tyrannical and

cannot be looked upon for an example of Islam in practice. In fact, the ordinary men and women

of these Muslim countries would be liberated by the establishing of an Islamic state in their

lands.”

POSTED BY ZARAFARIS | AUGUST 16, 2013, 10:49 PMREPLY TO THIS COMMENT

o

Unfortunately, there’s no such thing as an Islamic state today. Saudi Arabia itself transgresses

many Islamic laws so we can’t even call that an Islamic country. Yes, majority of their population

are indeed Muslims, but they often ignore actual Islamic law to suit their own purpose.

POSTED BY MUSLIMAH | JANUARY 14, 2014, 5:49 AMREPLY TO THIS COMMENT

4.

“So the question we must ask ourselves is, given that Muslim women had always found sufficiency in

Islam, why would they ever need feminism now?”

Given that “always” includes the present, it is clear that Muslim women have *not* always found

sufficiency in Islam. This is exactly why they would need feminism now. And since the author never

defined “feminism”, let me do that so you know what I’m talking about:

feminism (from dictionary.com)

noun

1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

2. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for

women.

So feminism is exactly what Muslims had when Lady Craven visited Turkey in the 18th century, and

Feminism, be it Islamic or otherwise, is the only thing that will get Muslim women’s rights back – or

rather, any movement that gets Muslim women’s rights back will fit the definition of Feminism,

whether or not anyone involved uses the word.

POSTED BY INDUSTRIOUSMADMAN | AUGUST 4, 2013, 1:43 AMREPLY TO THIS COMMENT

o

feminism in the dictionary is very different from feminism on the streets. very

POSTED BY VINAYAK | AUGUST 4, 2013, 10:39 AMREPLY TO THIS COMMENT

o

Dear. Point over here is that Islam, as a whole, surpasses what any “ism” (capitalism,

communism, feminism) individually can provide. SO when Islamic Law be implemented, all will

get their rights and no special “ism” will be required to safegaurd any section of society. What to

talk of Muslims ladies, even rights of Non Muslim ladies will also be safegaurded.

POSTED BY USAMA | AUGUST 8, 2013, 5:23 AMREPLY TO THIS COMMENT

There you have it Usama!! Truth, Haqq <3. SHukran for posting Zara…a breath of fresh air!

POSTED BY YAQUTULLAH IBRAHEEM MUHAMMAD | JANUARY 24, 2014, 2:08 PM

o

1) Feminism is selfish, speaking only of rights and not duties (even in your definition); its bias

renders it repugnant to Islam, which is just and deals with both rights and duties.

2) Even if we just look at rights, feminism has no framework or criteria to decide, or even define,

what those rights should be. Muslim women did not have feminism when Lady Craven visited

Turkey in the 18th century – they had a clear criteria (Islam).

POSTED BY ZARAFARIS | AUGUST 17, 2013, 1:09 AMREPLY TO THIS COMMENT

5.

It’s a shame your post only talks about female Muslim women in the Ottoman Empire. Many non-

mulsimahs who were also residents of the Ottoman Empire at the time were slaves. Many of whom

were sexual slaves. All that was perfectly legal both with the state and with Allah (pbuh).

POSTED BY SYLVIA APROBERTS FRENCH | AUGUST 4, 2013, 4:57 AMREPLY TO THIS COMMENT

o

Sound evidences, please?????

POSTED BY ELMIRA | AUGUST 5, 2013, 1:08 AMREPLY TO THIS COMMENT

o

Allow me to compare that with Muslim women who are raped in course of war by the non-

Muslims. Even slaves in Islamic state have their rights, if the owner strictly follow the religion.

POSTED BY NAJABAKAR | AUGUST 5, 2013, 7:36 AMREPLY TO THIS COMMENT

o

And its a shame you reply is a baseless allegation without any evidence.

POSTED BY USAMA | AUGUST 8, 2013, 5:25 AMREPLY TO THIS COMMENT

o

Any reference in this article to ‘Ottoman women’ includes non-Muslim women. The article

explains in the introduction that ‘Ottoman women’ includes women of Africa, Europe and Asia –

which included Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Anatolian, Greek, North African, West Asian, and women

of the Balkan Peninsula.

As for slavery, it sounds as though you may be projecting your own understanding of slavery (i.e.

the West’s barbaric and inhumane history of forced hard labour and rape of slaves) and

imagining that any kind of servitude manifests in this way.

In reality, being a ‘slave’ (male or female) under the Ottoman Caliphate was probably a more

liberating and rewarding job than your average office job today!

Ottoman ‘slaves’ were treated as fostered family members, in accordance with the conditions

prescribed by Islam, and their care and protection was strictly regulated by the state. They not

only shared the same food and clothing as the families they lived with but female slaves also

received education and training in all the accomplishments and manners that a ‘free’ Ottoman

girl would know. The potential for honour and advancement was so advantageous, that many

females *voluntarily* chose to take up this role, particularly Circassian and Georgian women.

To be clear, their service was limited to domestic, non-sexual, service – Islam does not advocate

‘sexual slavery’. Islam simply mandates that if two *consenting* individuals wish to establish an

intimate physical relationship, and one of them is a female during the term of her service, the

man is required by law to grant and fulfill certain rights toward her (i.e. by default, without her

even needing a marriage contract to enforce her rights), particularly in providing security should

children result from the union – i.e. he is not allowed to take advantage of her servitude.

“Were I a man, and condemned to an existence of servitude, I would unhesitatingly choose that

of slavery in a Turkish family [...] The slave of the Osmanli is the child of his adoption; he

purchases with his gold a being to cherish, to protect, and to support [...] One forgets that the

smiling menial who hands you your coffee, or pours the rose-water from an urn of silver, has been

purchased at a price and you must look with admiration on the relative positions of the servant

and his lord – the one so eager and earnest in his services – the other so gentle and so

unexacting in his commands.” – Julia Pardoe, 1836

The term of a female slave was temporary (usually 7-9 years) and, upon emancipation, she would

receive from her ‘master’ a pension for life, and she could choose whether to continue living with

her master’s family or not, or even to be married. The education, cultivation and refinement that

she had developed as a result of her position typically made her a very attractive prospect for

male suitors of high positions. If she opted to get married, she was provided with a marriage

trousseau, etc.

I will write further on this in a separate post but will leave you with this for now:

“Slavery under the conditions above described can scarcely be called a misfortune. The [...] child

exchanges the hardships of barbarism for comfort, often for luxury and refinement; her duties are

light [...] In short, she steps from savagery into civilization.” – Ferriman

POSTED BY ZARAFARIS | AUGUST 17, 2013, 12:46 AMREPLY TO THIS COMMENT

“The term of a female slave was temporary (usually 7-9 years) and, upon emancipation, she

would receive from her ‘master’ a pension for life, and she could choose whether to

continue living with her master’s family or not, or even to be married.”

Can you provide evidences for the points you made regarding the status of female slaves

under the shari’ah s some of your assertions I have never heard of in the deen before.

POSTED BY HAMZA SMITH-MARSHALL | OCTOBER 11, 2013, 1:37 AM

The above are references to historical practices, so are found in the books detailing the

history of the Ottoman Caliphate (see the texts referenced at the end of the main article).

POSTED BY ZARAFARIS | OCTOBER 11, 2013, 8:09 AM

Subhanallah Zara. May Allah increase u r knowledge n make u a source of true

enlightenment abt Islam to our Western brothers/sisters ( in humanity ) and Inshaallah bring

their closer to truth/Islam.

POSTED BY YAWAR MOHAMMED KHAN KHAN | MARCH 23, 2014, 1:57 PM

6.

Reblogged this on Miss Aimi Syazana's Blog.POSTED BY AIMI SYAZANA | AUGUST 4, 2013, 1:10 PMREPLY TO THIS COMMENT

7.

Hat dies auf grenzgängerbeatz rebloggt.POSTED BY ERENGUEVERCIN | AUGUST 10, 2013, 3:48 PMREPLY TO THIS COMMENT

8.

Reblogged this on words.POSTED BY MLLE. SANI. | AUGUST 24, 2013, 4:27 AMREPLY TO THIS COMMENT

9.

Like times infinity. SubhanAllah, this *needed* to be said.

POSTED BY KAUSAR AZAM | JANUARY 13, 2014, 10:49 PMREPLY TO THIS COMMENT

10.

How times have changed in large swathes of the ‘Muslim’ world, such a shame.

POSTED BY FARRUKH | JANUARY 14, 2014, 9:45 AMREPLY TO THIS COMMENT

11.

In many countries, women are not allowed to come to pray in the mosque. This is a wrong trend where

Muslims women rights are taken in many countries. Prophet Mohmmed (pbuh) warned also not to

prevent women from coming to the masjid. Such a flagrant violation of women’s rights is sure to

provoke a bitter response from the feminist revolution. We have already witnessed that a women gave

the Juma Khutbah (sermon) from the Mimbar (pulpit) of the Masjid in NY city few years ago.

POSTED BY SUHAIL AHMAD | FEBRUARY 5, 2014, 2:22 PMREPLY TO THIS COMMENT

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

1. PINGBACK: OTTOMAN WOMEN DURING THE ADVENT OF WESTERN FEMINISM | THE MUSLIM DEBATE INITIATIVE BLOG - AUGUST 3, 2013

2. PINGBACK: OTTOMAN WOMEN DURING THE ADVENT OF WESTERN FEMINISM | DEFIANCE - SEPTEMBER 8, 20133. PINGBACK: OTTOMAN WOMEN DURING THE ADVENT OF WESTERN FEMINISM « MUSLIM CONVERSATIONS - MARCH 23, 2014

http://zarafaris.com/2013/08/03/ottoman-women-during-the-advent-of-european-feminism/

http://www.emunion.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=268:ottoman-women-during-the-advent-of-western-feminism&catid=52:front-news&Itemid=61