Arab women before and after islam opening the door of pre islamic arabian history arab humanists الع

(http://www.arabhumanists.org/) Arab women before and after Islam: Opening the door of pre-Islamic Arabian history Posted on May 9, 2016 (http://www.arabhumanists.org/arab-women-pre-islam/)

(http://www.arabhumanists.org/arab-women-pre-islam/)

By S. B. Zaki “Islamic civilization developed a construct of history that labeled the pre-Islamic period the Age of Ignorance and projected Islam as the sole source of all that was civilized – and used that construct so effectively in its rewriting of history that the peoples of Middle East lost all knowledge of the past civilizations of the region.

Obviously, that construct was ideologically serviceable, successfully concealing, among other things, the fact that in some cultures of the Middle East women had been considerably better off before the rise of Islam than afterward” (Ahmed, 1992; p. 37).

In the quote provided above, Leila Ahmed, a Harvard Divinity School scholar of Islam, highlights the reasons for the filtered version of the history of women of pre-Islamic Arabia. If you try Googling ‘Status of Women in Islam’, unsurprisingly you will be offered millions of results. A more difficult task is to find out how women have been discussed in Islamic literature over the last 14 centuries (by men, to be precise). A pattern emerges. The words ‘Status of Women in Islam’ do not appear until the early 20 th century. Before that, Islamic scholars wrote on the ‘Duties of a Muslim Woman’ or ‘Roles of Muslim Women.’

These early scholars, writers and historians nonetheless, did often show through historical examples that Muslim women must not act like the women from ‘pre-Islamic time’ (pre-Islamic Age of Ignorance). For example, when a few years after Prophet Muhammad’s death, a young Muslim woman began sleeping with her male slave stating that “I thought that ownership by the right hand made lawful to me what it makes lawful to men”, Umar Ibn Khattab, who judged the ‘matter’, sternly rebuked her and announced that she had acted “in Ignorance” (i.e., like women did in pre-Islamic time) and deliberately misinterpreted the message of the Quran. In other words, Quran does not make lawful to women what it makes lawful to men; their rights are not the same. He then banned her from ever marrying a free man (Musannaf of `Abd al-Razzaq al-Sanani in Ali, 2010). This incident was recorded and used by early scholars to show that pre-Islamic women were wrong in exercising their sexual independence and freedom and that the Islamic model of patriarchal marriage and sex was licit and superior.

Fast-forward about eleven centuries, many parts of the world that were once colonised by Muslims (which shaped the Muslim narratives about women in

Islam in those centuries) were being colonised by Europeans who scorned Muslims for their backwardness and seclusion of women. This was a time when Muslim scholars had to urgently show to the world that Islam actually “raised the status of women.” There was a shift from a more authoritative and pompous scholarly tone discussing Muslim women like al Ghazali’s, that dictated to Muslim women how they should behave and obey their husbands, and the more accusatory tone of the later scholars who made excuses for Islam’s treatment of women by claiming that women of pre-Islamic time were “mere chattel” and Quran was revealed for a Muslim woman to “rescue her from the gloomy injustice of Pre-Islamic darkness.[1] (http://www.iupui.edu/~msaiupui /qaradawistatus.html)” These latter politically shaped narratives are the ones we are still reading and using. To show that Islam bettered the lives of Muslim women, a parallel history had to be created of women in pre-Islamic time where women: “were treated like slaves or property. Their personal consent concerning anything related to their well-being was considered unimportant and unnecessary to such an extent that they were never even treated as a party to a marriage contract. They had no independence, could not own property and were not allowed to inherit. In times of war, women were treated as part of the loot. Simply put, their plight was unspeakable…The practice of killing female children was rampant. The pagan Arabs used to bury alive their daughters with the fear that these girls will grow up and will get married to some men who will be called their sons-in-law.[2] (http://www.alahazrat.net/islam/women-before-islam.php)” These narratives did not only cover the “plight of women” in Arabia before Islam, but justified the invasions of lands by Muslims by extending it to “all nations of the World[3] (http://www.inter-islam.org/RightsDuties/fempreislam.htm)” which necessitated that the new Islamic law be accepted as the most just system since the “advent of Islam brought profound changes to the Arabian society in general and to women in particular[4].” In doing so, these Muslim histories do exactly what contemporary war politicians do – justify their mission by stating that “Islam liberated women[5] (http://www.mwlusa.org/topics /history/herstory.html).”

History of pre-Islamic Arabian women More recently, several Muslim women have begun to research the lives of women in pre-Islamic Arabia. This is by no means an easy task since as when Muslims spread from Medina they categorically destroyed the old ways of life: temples, pagan poetry written on animal skins, idols of gods and goddesses etc, and Islamic history has practically no records written by women. What little we know are reports in Islamic texts, which are narrated to establish the new order, and a few archeological finds. The result is that we have pamphlets, web links and books that preach women that “Islam truly liberated women” while there is no justification for the existence of women like Khadija bint Khuwalid, Hind bint Utbah, Asma Bint Marwan, Lubna bint Hajar, Arwa umm Jamil amongst others, if the general condition of Arab women was not more than mere chattel.

Reading all the sources now available, one can see that, in the absence of a single law before Islam, lives of men and women in Arabia depended on which tribe they belonged to. Islam did lay down comprehensive law and while some women may have enjoyed more rights under Islamic law, it is certainly true that the rights of others were severely curtailed. The resultant picture that emerges is that of a deeply patriarchal form of religious law rather than one that could have been more balanced, just and equal. Like Leila Ahmed writes us in her book (1991, p. 60): “That women felt Islam to be a somewhat depressing religion is suggested by a remark of Muhammad’s great-granddaughter Sukaina, who, when asked why she was so merry and her sister Fatima so solemn, replied that it was because she had been named after her pre-Islamic great-grandmother, whereas her sister has been named after her Islamic grandmother.”

Furthermore, it can be argued that the ‘status’ of all women in Islam is not equal either. Islamic jurisprudence supports classism and Quran differentiates between free and enslaved women as will be seen below.

There are several ways in which Islam could have established gender equality based on the practice already available in pre-Islamic time. That women in pre-Islamic time were used to being treated equally with men can be inferred from Hind bint Utbah’s feisty comment to Muhammad, “By God, you ask us something that you didn’t ask men. In any case, we shall grant it to you![6] (http://islamicencyclopedia.org/public/index/surahTafsir/surah_id/60)” when the latter asked Hind to take his oath of allegiance which is different for women. Muslim scholars point out that some “distinguished women converted to Islam prior to their husbands, a demonstration of Islam’s recognition of their capacity for independent action[7] (http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com /article/opr/t125/e2510).” However, what this demonstrates is the independence of pre-Islamic women who would have never been able to convert independently without their male kin if their independent status was not already established.

Marriage Hoyland gives several examples to illustrate that while Islamic law establishes ‘descent through the male line’, pre-Islamic Arabia also recognized ‘matrilineal arrangements’ which allowed women to choose who they wished to marry and have children with (2003, p.129-131). Muslims claim that ‘Islam gave women the right to choose their husband’, but there are instances where Muslim girls were married off by their guardians/fathers, examples of which include: Aisha being married off to Muhammad as a child (presumably without her knowledge), al-Musayyab ibn Najaba giving his newborn daughter’s hand in marriage to his cousin’s son, Muhammad arranging his cousin, Zainab bint Jahsh’s (apparently against her will prompting the revelation of 33:36, see tafsir of al Jalalayn [8] (http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=33&tAyahNo=36&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2)) marriage to his adopted Zayd ibn Harithah. Thus we see that if male guardians generally married off women in pre-Islamic time, the practice did not stop with the coming of Islam.

We also see Islamic law making it necessary for a woman (whether virgin or previously married) to have a male guardian give her away in marriage, for example we learn that when Muhammad married Umm Salamah she was an ‘older widow’ but what we hardly read is that she was “married to the Prophet” by her son, Salamah (Ibn Hisham, 2010, p. 793). On the other hand, the pre-Islamic forms of unions, some of which gave authority to women in a marriage, were replaced by patriarchal order by Islam (see Ahmed, 1986, p. 667) scraping off marriages that assisted women like: uxorilocal marriage (according to Ahmed, Muhammad’s own mother had contracted this form of marriage with Abdullah ibn Abdul Muttalib), pre-Islamic form of mutah marriage (which according to Robertson in Kinship And Marriage in Early Arabia may have been the type contracted between Khadija and Muhammad since he remained monogamous), and even polyandry practiced by women belonging to matrilineal tribes. In the words of Fatima Mernissi (2011), polyandry, which was banned by Islam, was degrading to men not women: “Group sex marriages, where the woman could entertain relations either with a group of less than ten men or consume a limitless number of partners, degraded men to animal-like anonymity. Fatherhood, which implied that the woman limited her sexual desire to consuming only her husband’s body was a rare privilege, since children belonged to the mother’s tribe in general.”

Anonymity of the father meant a man’s role was that of a mere sperm donor and a temporary sexual object. Since the woman gave birth to a child and raised them, she took central stage position. According to Robertson (1907), polyandry as practiced in the pre-Islamic world is generally represented by Muslim writers as fornication however, he says, “where the children are not bastards, and the mothers are not disgraced or punished for their unchastity, this term is

plainly in- appropriate.”

Divorce Another area where Islam changed power balance between men and women is divorce. While generally men held the right to divorce women in pre-Islamic time, there are also records that indicate that women dismissed their husbands with an equal right: ‘The women in the pre-Islamic time, or some of them, had the right to dismiss their husbands, and the form of dismissal was this. If they lived in a tent they turned it round, so that if the door faced east it now faced west, and when the man saw this he knew that he was dismissed and did not enter.’”(Isfahani in Hoyland, p.

130).

The above report dismisses the claim that it was Islam that gave women the right to divorce, which is also factually untrue since a Muslim woman cannot divorce her husband, but has to ask to be divorced by him. An option of equality would have been to make ‘divorce through arbitration’ the law for both men and women. Instead men have the full right to dismiss a wife independently even through oral pronouncement, while a woman has to ‘ask’ her husband for divorce through third party intercession (called Khul): “Islam further restricted women’s divorce rights by leaving it only to the husband to decide on divorce. Although the practice of foregoing one’s mahr for a divorce continues to exist in Muslim countries up to now, it no longer guarantees the wife a divorce: the husband has the right to refuse a divorce even if the wife is prepared to forego her mahr. Only very limited circumstances (such as disappearance of a husband over four years, or extreme physical deformities leading to sexual impotence) entitle a wife to ask an Islamic judge for a divorce. The final decision is left to the judge, however.[9] (https://libcom.org/library/rise-islamwhat-did-happen-women-azar-tabari)” This disparity has never been clearer than in modern time when Muslim men can divorce via text messages[10] (http://www.sistersinislam.org.my /news.php?item.157.27), while Muslim women have to wait for years to obtain a divorce[11] (http://www.arabamericannews.com/news/news/id_7475) making it clear that changing the direction of the opening of a tent was unquestionably empowering for a pre-Islamic woman!

Bridal Price Islam also continued the practice of ‘bridal price’ (called Mahr or Sadaq) making Islamic marriage a ‘marriage of authority.’ Mahr or Sadaq is explained in Islam (as was understood before Islam as well) as the price a man pays a woman to have sex with her (amusingly called ‘thaman al bud’a’ – ‘the vulva’s price’, by Imam Shafi; see Ali, 2006, p. 4). However, before Islam, some women were able to contract marriages with men who were obligated to live in the woman’s house. The offspring produced in such a marriage would remain with the woman and her family and the husband did not receive inheritance from the wife upon her death. Some early biographers of Muhammad claim that Khadija paid four thousand dinars to Muhammad upon their marriage which makes scholars like Robertson and Leila Ahmed to speculate that the pre-Islamic type of marriage between the two obligated Muhammad to live in Khadija’s house and remain monogamous as long as she was alive (he also received nothing in inheritance upon her death). After Islam, men were no longer required to be monogamous and allowed up to four wives and as many concubines as they can afford. Women, on the other hand, were banned from practicing polyandry. Muslim scholars explain that Islam allows men four wives (ignoring the countless concubines!) making it the only religious system in the world to restrict limitless polygyny for the first time. This we know is not true. Over five hundred years before Islam, Hinduism had already laid down the law according to which the upper caste, Brâhmanas were allowed to four wives (Baudhayana Prasna I, Adhyay 8, Kandikka 16[12] (http://hinduwebsite.com/sacredscripts/hinduism/dharma /baudh1.asp#1.16)).

Thus, there were other religious systems before Islam that restricted polygyny and similar models must have been available for Muslims to adopt including an equally satisfying monogamous model that could have been established as the preferred model for both sexes by ending the practice of ‘thaman al bud’a’ which reduces the significance of a woman to that of purchased goods. This is not pointed out in modern Islamic discourses, which have started to call Mahr/Sadaq a ‘sweet gift’ rather than “vulva’s price.” Mahr is interchangeably used with Sadaq in Islamic discourses although the former was paid, in pre-Islamic time, to the male guardian of the bride, while the latter was given to the bride. After Islam, although it remains as the payment that gives a man “the right to enjoy the women’s private parts” (Sahih Bukhari – Volume 7, Book 62, Number 81), Mahr or Sadaq is directly given to the bride and becomes her property. However, because a man buys a woman’s vulva through Mahr (Quran, 4:24), she must remain monogamous and faithful to her husband; if she is not, he can take the Mahr back (Quran, 4:19). If he no longer wants her, he may divorce her and let her keep the Mahr since he has already ‘gone into’ what he paid for (Quran, 4:20-21). If a woman wants a divorce, she returns the Mahr so she can be “released/freed” (“tasrīḥun” – Quran, 2:229). This is a clear model of patriarchal marriage of authority where the woman’s vulva is purchased and she must request to be “released”, which Islam established as the standardized model bringing it from pre-Islamic time while abolishing all other models, some of which placed women at an equal footing or in a more favourable position.

Social roles pre-Islamic women played Being wives and mothers was not the only roles women played in pre-Islamic time. Women commissioned inscriptions, made offerings to their gods in their own right, acted as administrative officers, took up their deceased husbands’ overloardship, and constructed public buildings and tombs (Hoyland, p. 132; also see Al Fassi, 2001, p. 48-55) leading historians to claim that the last activity indicates a ‘considerable degree of financial independence (Ibid).’ Ahmed also explains that, “Jahilia women were priests, soothsayers, prophets, participants in warfare, and nurses on the battlefield. They were fearlessly outspoken, defiant critics of men; authors of satirical verse aimed at formidable male opponents; keepers, in some unclear capacity, of the keys of the holiest shrine in Mecca; rebels and leaders of rebellions that included men; and individuals who initiated and terminated marriages at will, protested the limits Islam imposed on that freedom, and mingled freely with the men of their society until Islam banned such interaction” (1992, p. 62).

Furthermore, Muslims claim that in pre-Islamic time during “times of war, women were treated as part of the loot. Simply put, their plight was unspeakable[13] (http://www.alahazrat.net/islam/women-before-islam.php).” But that very well continued into Islam: Narrated Buraida: The prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus ([one fifth] of the booty) and I hated Ali, and Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, “Don’t you see this (i.e. Ali)?” When we reached the prophet I mentioned that to him. He said, “O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?” I said, “Yes” He said, “Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumus.” (Sahih Bukhari 5:59:637). Also see Sahih Bukhari 7:62:137; Sahih Bukhari 5:59:512; Sahih Bukhari 5:59:459.)

Inheritance Similarly, “Muslim writers on the subject of inheritance often state that Islam instituted inheritance and property rights for women, something that they were presumably deprived of in pre-Islamic Arabia. This is simply false and in contradiction to many statements in the Muslim hadith itself[14] (https://libcom.org

/library/rise-islam-what-did-happen-women-azar-tabari#footnoteref25_pki1y9w)” for we read about the wealth Khadija had inherited and owned. We even read about Sulafa and Hubba – two women who were entrusted with being the Keepers of the Key of Kaaba, something that never happened after Mecca was attacked and Muslims subsequently occupied Kaaba – women never became the successors who could become the Keepers of the Key. We now know (through the study of none other than a Meccan Muslim woman) that “women were able to inherit and also to bequeath inheritance to whom so ever they wish (sic). The fact that women were those who bestow rights to their close relatives demonstrates their legal power of ownership and inheritance” (Al Fassi, 2001, p. 55).

Veil In modern Muslim circles, we also see assertions that veil is liberation from sexual attention, that it is a feminist choice that ‘dignifies a woman’ because before Islam women used to roam around naked. This is not entirely true. Classism existed in the pre-Islamic Arabian society. The upper class, free women would cover their bodies, even faces, because their “sexuality and reproductive capability belonged to one man” (Ahmed, 1992, p. 12) – this continued into Islam.

Women belonging to the working class and those who were slaves did not cover themselves; in fact, slaves were not allowed to cover their bodies and were punished if they tried to behave like free women – this too continued into Islam: Umar hit the slave women from the family of Anas ibn Malik, when he saw them covered and said, “Uncover your head, and do not resemble the free women.” – Abd al-Razzaq al-Sanani (d. 211 AH/826 CE) in Al-Musannaf Based on such incidents “jurists in the following centuries allowed Muslim slave women to pray without a head covering, and walk topless in public. The slave woman’s awrah — the legally delineated area that must be covered in order to avoid sin — became the same as the man, from the navel to the knees.[15] (https://selfscholar.wordpress.com/2012/11/12/reflections-on-the-hijab-in-islamic-law/)” Renowned historian, Ronald Segal’s book, ‘Islam’s Black Slaves’, gives specific details of how throughout Muslim history classism has existed with free women and slaves treated differently just like in pre-Islamic times (2001, p.

13-65).

Infanticide Female infanticide in pre-Islamic times is another point Muslims use to claim that women were “rescued from the gloomy injustice of Pre-Islamic darkness.” It is certainly true that Quran categorically bans infanticide and ended the practice very quickly, at least in Arabia (Quran, 6:151: 17:31). However, the practice was never widespread anyway and Quran clearly bans the infanticide of boys and girls, not just girls. Tribes that practiced infanticide did not discriminate between sons and daughters. Some tribes killed their children as a way to appease their gods. Muhammad’s grandfather, Abdul Muttalib, had sworn to his highest god, Allah, that he would sacrifice a son if he had ten. He was then required to sacrifice Abdullah (Muhammad’s father) whose name was cast by divination arrows but was saved by a female soothsayer’s consultation (Ibn Ishaq, p.66-68). Poorer tribes would kill their children from fear of poverty. There was one tribe, Tamim, in which some men would kill their daughters as they were always warring with other tribes and were afraid that their daughters would be captured and turned into concubines. However, while Quran prohibits killing children and refers to the fear and sadness associated with the birth of a daughter (16:58-59), it never banned capture of women in wars and their subsequent enslavement and concubinage. Strangely, renowned Muslim scholars like Ibn Khaldun and Ibn Sina justified capture of Africans as slaves commenting that “the Negro nations are, as a rule, submissive to slavery” since they have characteristics that “are quite similar to those of dumb animals” (Ibn Khaldun cited in Segal, 2001: 49). Similarly, al Idrisi is cited as commenting on a desirability of Nubian concubines: “Their women are of surpassing beauty. They are circumcised and fragrant-smelling…Of all the black women, they are the best for pleasures of the bed” (Ibid, p.50). Thus, we see that while degradation of women as enslaved concubines could have been banned by Islam, which was a fear out of which the Tamim tribe would kill their daughters, it not only continued the practice but was justified by the early Muslim scholars.

Conclusion Two arguments are being made in this essay: 1] the condition of women in pre-Islamic Arabia depended on which tribe they belonged to – not all women were mistreated, in fact some were far more empowered before Islam than afterward…these reports all exist in Muslim sources; 2] Islam did not choose the more women-empowering pre-existing cultural mores to lay down laws regarding women. It appears that the Islamic laws related to women, while striving for some form of compassion for women, are consistently formed in ways to benefit men, and the focus of many of these laws has been to satisfy the almost obsessive interest of Islam in paternity. Muslim gender equality activists argue that early male scholars deliberately misinterpreted the Quran, but their entire premise is based on the belief that Islam universally improved the situation of women who lived in the gloomy, unjust, pre-Islamic darkness. Without this naïve supposition (that we have seen is a false belief), their entire argument crumbles to dust. Some Muslims have already begun to realise this: “I have become only further convinced that if Muslim women are to come fully to terms with cases in which the Qur’anic text lends itself to meanings that are detrimental to them, we must begin to confront those meanings more honestly, without resorting to apologetic explanations for them, or engaging in interpretive manipulations to force egalitarian meanings from the text. Furthermore, I have also come to believe firmly that we must begin to radically reimagine the nature of the Qur’an’s revelation and divinity.” – Hidayatullah (2014, p. viii).

As more and more historians reconsider the condition of pre-Islamic women, it will become exceedingly difficult for Muslim scholars to defend the supposed gender egalitarianism in Islam without radically reimagining the nature of the Qur’an’s revelation and divinity.

References Ahmed, L. ( 1986). Women and the Advent of Islam. Signs, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 665-691. University of Chicago Press Ahmed, L. (1992). Women and gender in Islam. New Haven and London: Yale University press Al-Fassi, H.A. (2007). Women in Pre-Islamic Arabia, British Archaeological Reports (BAR) Archaeopress, Oxford Ali, K. (2010). Marriage and Slavery in Early Islam. Cambridge: Harvard University Press Ibn Ishaq. (2010). Sirat Rasul Allah – The Life of Muhammad. Translated by A. Guillaume. Karachi: Oxford University Press Hidayatullah, A. A. (2014). Feminist Edges of the Qur’an. New York: Oxford University Press Hoyland, R. G. (2001) Arabia and the Arabs – from the bronze age to the coming of Islam. London and New York: Routledge Mernissi, F. (2011). Beyond the Veil: Male-Female Dynamics in Muslim Society. London: Saqi Robertson, S. W. (1907). Kinship And Marriage In Early Arabia. London: Adam and Charles Black Segal, R. (2002). Islam’s Black Slaves: The Other Black Diaspora. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux

23

Like

10K

Tweet

Share this:

 (http://www.arabhumanists.org/arab-women-pre-islam/?share=twitter&nb=1)

 (http://www.arabhumanists.org/arab-women-pre-islam/?share=facebook&nb=1)

 (http://www.arabhumanists.org/arab-women-pre-islam/?share=google-plus-1&nb=1)

Related

As an Arab, the Middle East's reaction to Orlando left me speechless… (http://www.arabhumanists.org/arabreaction-orlando/)

An ancient voice of reason: Abul Alaa Al-Ma'arri (http://www.arabhumanists.org /ancient-voice-reason-almaarri/)

Learning to Pray: A Reflection (http://www.arabhumanists.org/learningto-pray-a-reflection/)

Comments (28) (http://www.arabhumanists.org/arab-women-pre-islam/#comments)

A R A B I A N H I S T O R Y ( H T T P : // W W W . A R A B H U M A N I S T S . O R G / TA G /A R A B I A N - H I S T O R Y/ ) H I S T O R Y ( H T T P : // W W W . A R A B H U M A N I S T S . O R G / TA G / H I S T O R Y/ )

F E M I N I S M ( H T T P : // W W W . A R A B H U M A N I S T S . O R G / TA G / F E M I N I S M / )

J A H I L I YA ( H T T P : // W W W . A R A B H U M A N I S T S . O R G / TA G / J A H I L I YA / )

P R E - I S L A M I C A R A B I A ( H T T P : // W W W . A R A B H U M A N I S T S . O R G / TA G / P R E - I S L A M I C - A R A B I A / ) W O M E N ' S R I G H T S ( H T T P : // W W W . A R A B H U M A N I S T S . O R G / TA G / W O M E N S - R I G H T S / )

28 COMMENT

VIKTOR JULIAN

REPLY (HTTP://WWW.ARABHUMANISTS.ORG/ARAB-WOMEN-PRE-ISLAM/?REPLYTOCOM=2#RESPOND)

(http://www.arabhumanists.org/arab-women-pre-islam/#comment-2)

Great and well written article. Looking forward to read more.

LIM SHI JUN

REPLY (HTTP://WWW.ARABHUMANISTS.ORG/ARAB-WOMEN-PRE-ISLAM/?REPLYTOCOM=10#RESPOND)

(http://www.arabhumanists.org/arab-women-pre-islam/#comment-10)

While it is true that historical facts on the status on women in Arab before Islam can hardly be found, this article combines culture with actual restrictions in Islam, while quoting examples devoided of the wisdom behind, grossly misrepresenting the image of Islam.

Islam does impose certain rules on the role of women in Islam, for reasons, and the rules are very few compared to the scope of flexibility allowed.

Several historians tend to confused every actions of the companions during the prophet’s time and during the four caliph’s era, including actions not prevented by our prophet (thus, indicating permissibility) means it is an imposed practice in Islam. Far from that, Islam does not impose strict rules on how women should behave, but left it to the culture as long as it does not go against Islam. This is supported by a narration where Umar Al-Khattab mentioned, that in Makkah, the men have power over the women, and in Madinah, it was the other way round, and after hijrah, the makkan women adopted this practice from the medinan women, and the prophet did not forbid that. Several examples and rules quoted were either incomplete or the wisdom behind them were purposely left out.

While I do appreciate his inclusion of reference, showing certain level of professionalism; his study is seriously lacking fair comparison and in depth study for the Islam’s side.

MOHAMMAD BASIR UL HAQ SINHA

REPLY (HTTP://WWW.ARABHUMANISTS.ORG/ARAB-WOMEN-PRE-ISLAM/?REPLYTOCOM=120#RESPOND)

(http://www.arabhumanists.org/arab-women-pre-islam/#comment-120)

I find this article much more propagandized than academically honest review of historical events

FAT I M A

REPLY (HTTP://WWW.ARABHUMANISTS.ORG/ARAB-WOMEN-PRE-ISLAM/?REPLYTOCOM=5672#RESPOND)

(http://www.arabhumanists.org/arab-women-pre-islam/#comment-5672)

What kind of propaganda is it pushing, exactly?

U M A R M U K H TA R B I N M O H D N O O R (http://www.arabhumanists.org/arab-women-pre-islam/#comment-5839)

it was so biased. First by claiming source of authority has been tempered by men, but apparently still use the men-written sources to justify points.

It also exclude Islam as a continuity of the revealed religion, along with Judaism and Christianity. This is absurd, because by reading the narrative after the coming of Muhammadan law, will discard the fact that well established in Islam, like matrilineal kinship of Isa bin Maryam, or Jesus the son of Marie.

The writer criticized the power of guardian to marry of his daughter without justly mention as well in Islam there is the concept of kafa’ah where the women can nullify the marriage that was performed without her consent. Plus, the writer is clearly illiterate about Islamic personal law about the concept of consent and fasakh (nullification of marriage from the judge), khul’ (nullification of marriage issued from the woman).

The literature review is so inadequate and that is more to propaganda than an honorable piece of academic writing.

BARBARA

REPLY (HTTP://WWW.ARABHUMANISTS.ORG/ARAB-WOMEN-PRE-ISLAM/?REPLYTOCOM=3#RESPOND)

(http://www.arabhumanists.org/arab-women-pre-islam/#comment-3)

An excellent and eye-opening review.

IAN RILEY

REPLY (HTTP://WWW.ARABHUMANISTS.ORG/ARAB-WOMEN-PRE-ISLAM/?REPLYTOCOM=4#RESPOND)

(http://www.arabhumanists.org/arab-women-pre-islam/#comment-4)

Excellent article.

A V S ( H T T P : // Y U Y U T S U B L O G . W O R D P R E S S . C O M )

REPLY (HTTP://WWW.ARABHUMANISTS.ORG/ARAB-WOMEN-PRE-ISLAM/?REPLYTOCOM=5#RESPOND)

(http://www.arabhumanists.org/arab-women-pre-islam/#comment-5)

Excellent and well laid out research, that too on a subject so few scholars have the courage to cover. Well done. And please, do more Q U R ’ A N 3 : W A S M U H A M M E D A F E M I N I S T ? – H U M A N I S T J ( H T T P S : // H U M A N I S T J . W O R D P R E S S . C O M / 2 0 1 6 / 0 1 / 2 9 / Q U R A N - 3 - W A S - M U H A M M E D A - F E M I N I S T/ )

REPLY (HTTP://WWW.ARABHUMANISTS.ORG/ARAB-WOMEN-PRE-ISLAM/?REPLYTOCOM=6#RESPOND)

(http://www.arabhumanists.org/arab-women-pre-islam/#comment-6)

[…] chapter may well have been a big advance in women’s rights. [Update: This academic article on Arab Women Before & After Islam indicates that, while women’s status and rights varied according to their tribe, it is […]

ARAB WOMEN BEFORE AND AFTER ISLAM: OPENING THE DOOR OF PRE-ISLAMIC ARABIAN HISTORY | ABDULLAH SAMEER – MY JOURNEY F R O M I S L A M ( H T T P : // A B D U L L A H S A M E E R . C O M / B L O G / A R A B - W O M E N - B E F O R E - A N D - A F T E R - I S L A M - O P E N I N G - T H E - D O O R - O F - P R E - I S L A M I C A R A B I A N - H I S TO RY/ )

REPLY (HTTP://WWW.ARABHUMANISTS.ORG/ARAB-WOMEN-PRE-ISLAM/?REPLYTOCOM=7#RESPOND)

(http://www.arabhumanists.org/arab-women-pre-islam/#comment-7)

[…] Arab women before and after Islam: Opening the door of pre-Islamic Arabian history […]

ALEX DEAN

REPLY (HTTP://WWW.ARABHUMANISTS.ORG/ARAB-WOMEN-PRE-ISLAM/?REPLYTOCOM=8#RESPOND)

(http://www.arabhumanists.org/arab-women-pre-islam/#comment-8)

A major issue with dealing with this topic is the lack of any reliable evidence in detail of how society was organized in Pre-Islamic Arabia. Where is the evidence? And using dubious sources like Bukhari (his so-called Sahih collection of hadiith literature may be regarded as reliable by the majority of Muslims – the very people that are the subject of criticism of this article – yet he can be severely criticized for a less than honest approach to sifting more then several hundred thousand accounts and sayings of the Islamic Prophet in a critical manner to judge their authenticity, an onerous task that would have taken one person several lifetimes!) as supporting arguments show just one of the the weaknesses of this author in critically examining the sources or quoting without questioning those who cite such nonsense. Much of hadiith literature is full of holes! Moreover, mentioning a few successful women of the Pre-Islamic era as further evidence of the greater freedom enjoyed by women at that time than in the Islamic era again speaks of extremely poor judgment. They could equally be regarded as those belonging to privileged families and clans, as the article itself admits. There were female business women in the Islamic period too and the reference to Sukaina being happy (while her sister Fatima not) just because she was named after her Pre-Islamic ancestor is an apocryphal story. A women who as a girl witnessed the slaughter of her family and merciless killing of her father at Karbala was never this kind of person. Much Sunni Umayyad propaganda like this was spread to give some kind of normalcy to her life which remained scoured by what she witnessed in 680 AD / 61 AH. The point is we just don’t know enough of the Pre-Islamic period regardless of whether the presumed “evidence” was later destroyed or hardly existed in the first place. Pre-Islamic Arabia was a man’s world, not that of women. Besides a counter argument can be made that the poorer status of women in the Muslim world is a result of the reversal of the egalitarian ideas that Islam introduced following the death of the Prophet of Islam when the elders and chiefs of the Quraish, his arch enemy, assumed power by proxy after supporting the accession of the first caliph.

There is much more evidence of this counter revolution than the feeble thesis presented here. The Quraish elders still loyal to their Pre-Islamic past triumphed and mangled as much as they could of the new movement to regain lost authority. The act of secluding women away from the society at large was a hallmark of the early Umayyads who paid lip service to the new religion but remained pagan at heart.

S. MIR

REPLY (HTTP://WWW.ARABHUMANISTS.ORG/ARAB-WOMEN-PRE-ISLAM/?REPLYTOCOM=9#RESPOND)

(http://www.arabhumanists.org/arab-women-pre-islam/#comment-9)

All you have said here is bullshit that you’ve probably gathered sitting in a free house and nice wage packet somewhere in the US. I feel sorry for you, you’re just another goone trying to make Islam look bad it’s unfortunate your name is an Islamic one. We need muslim women to give the prospective on Islam not people who’s names are just Arabic but are hypocrites at heart. It also makes me realize how it was possible to have hypocrites in Medina at the time of the Prophet (saw) when the truth stared right at them. You have just made it easier for me to understand that by knowing the truth but still fabricating lies

A M AT U L L A H

REPLY (HTTP://WWW.ARABHUMANISTS.ORG/ARAB-WOMEN-PRE-ISLAM/?REPLYTOCOM=11#RESPOND)

(http://www.arabhumanists.org/arab-women-pre-islam/#comment-11)

Absolutely no comment at all in this article that women were also in the battlefield as Muslims, just as in Jaahil Arab society.

Also the teensy snippet of a quote by Hind does not tell the full story – she was complaining about having to swear that she would not associate partners with Allah (stop worshipping idols) and she falsely claimed that men were not asked to swear to that. But the oath for swearing allegiance to Muhammad included “ashhadu la ilaha illa Allah”, I bear witness there is no god except Allah, which means they were swearing an oath that they could also not worship idols.

Many many more issues with this “article”, including the complete omission of many famous female scholars in Islam, including Hafsa bint Sireen, A’isha herself, Umm ad Darda, Sitt ar Rakb, Hafsa bint Umar, Fatima al Fihri, and Rabia Basri, to name just a very few out of the thousands.

MAHVESH

REPLY (HTTP://WWW.ARABHUMANISTS.ORG/ARAB-WOMEN-PRE-ISLAM/?REPLYTOCOM=17#RESPOND)

(http://www.arabhumanists.org/arab-women-pre-islam/#comment-17)

The author raised some interesting points about women in the pre Islamic era. Unfortunately, s/he made some statements that are obviously incorrect. Eg: The Quran does not make it clear that it is banning female infanticide. It makes that entirely clear. “And when the female child asks for what sin it was buried” is one of the translated verses if my memory serves.

Khula requires the husband’s permission. This is not true. Not in the Quran and not even in Pakistan’s legal system which focuses more on scholarly tradition than the Quran itself. Islamic tradition has even been forced to allow widows and divorcees to choose their own husbands due to the Prophet (pbuh) ‘s sunnah. It denies this to women marrying for the first time.

The Quran clearly instructs men to not to force slave women into concubinage so that’s another false argument by the author.

Why is the author insisting on Meher being regarded as “buying the right of entry to a woman’s vulva”? The Meher (a) views marriage as a seal of a contract between a man and a woman. (B) provides the woman protection if the man divorces her eg by giving her property. (C) is returned by her if she breaks the marriage contract. Doesn’t that translate to the woman being treated as a functioning adult?

Why would Brahmin practices regarding monogamy in India affect the practices of an Arabic tribe in Mecca before the 8th century which is when the Arabian empire entered India?

Muta marriage is basically a legalised form of prostitution for which there is no sanction in either Quran or sunnah. Is the author actually arguing that a precursor to mutah was liberating for women?

Did the Muslim civilisation actually destroy all evidence of previous civilisations in Arabia? Well, how come Petra is being destroyed today? Why does the Kaaba exist in Mecca or the wailing wall in Jerusalem or even the site of Sodom and Gomorrah?

And if the author is right about Islam utterly destroying previous civilisations, then where is s/he getting his/her information from?

Does s/he know that one condition of a ten year truce between Muslims and Non Muslim Mecca included the return of Meccan women who fled to the Muslims in order to convert but not that of Muslim women who returned to Mecca having renounced Islam. Which women are being granted greater freedom here? The non-Muslim converts?

For an article that is so careful about not making sweeping statements regarding pre Islamic Arabian women, it treats the vast and varied Islamic civilisation very cavalierly. In its early phases, this civilisation produced thousands of female scholars and teachers. The first civil war in Islam was led, on one side, by a woman. The same oppressed H. Ayesha (ra) whose guardian gave her in marriage. One of the first copies of the Quran was written by a Muslim woman, the Prophet’s (PBUH) wife. The first university in the world was set up and financed by a Muslim woman. The astrolabe was invented by a Muslim woman. I could go on and on.

But I think I have made my point: if the author is as ignorant about pre-Islamic civilization as he is about Islamic civilization then reading his/her article is a complete waste of time. I would do my own research on both civilisations and make an objective comparison instead of accepting the opinion of a person who has revealed his/her own ignorance in his/her very sweeping generalisations about Islam.

KHALID BIN UMAR

REPLY (HTTP://WWW.ARABHUMANISTS.ORG/ARAB-WOMEN-PRE-ISLAM/?REPLYTOCOM=21#RESPOND)

(http://www.arabhumanists.org/arab-women-pre-islam/#comment-21)

I agree with Mahvesh – The author deliberately used (rather misused ) texts to misguide the readers.. He has purposely left a hundred examples from the lives of women of Islamic era in order to validate his point.A complete one sided story that speaks of the authors dishonesty.

This article is made for the so called “pseudo intellectuals” who actually want to run away ……..

SAU R AV D U B E Y

REPLY (HTTP://WWW.ARABHUMANISTS.ORG/ARAB-WOMEN-PRE-ISLAM/?REPLYTOCOM=25#RESPOND)

(http://www.arabhumanists.org/arab-women-pre-islam/#comment-25)

Hinduism was widespread even before islam was born pegan culture was vastly influenced by hinduism due to trade practice from india, many of the idols and rituals they practiced were influenced by hinduism, circling the cube is an opposite of practice performed by hindus called parikrama and no wonder muslims who are on huj were the white cloth as hindus used to drap themselves as buddhist do now. And the stone on caba which resembles the shiv ling and yoni placed on kabha, which was popular among the pegan culture

J O H N E T T A ( H T T P : // G A M S J S K I . C O M )

REPLY (HTTP://WWW.ARABHUMANISTS.ORG/ARAB-WOMEN-PRE-ISLAM/?REPLYTOCOM=358#RESPOND)

(http://www.arabhumanists.org/arab-women-pre-islam/#comment-358)

Sveiki Rasa,16 metų keleivė gali skristi viena su kelionės dokumentu (pasu arba tapatybės kortele), jai bus reikalingas notariÅ¡kai patvirtintas bent vieno iÅ¡ tėvų arba legalių globėjų raÃ…¡ÂtiÅ¡kas leidimas lietuvių kalba.

H T T P : // L A P I L U L E D U W E E K E N D . M E N / ( H T T P : // L A P I L U L E D U W E E K E N D . M E N / ) REPLY (HTTP://WWW.ARABHUMANISTS.ORG/ARAB-WOMEN-PRE-ISLAM/?REPLYTOCOM=4507#RESPOND)

(http://www.arabhumanists.org/arab-women-pre-islam/#comment-4507)

I’ll try to put this to good use immediately.

MUDDASSAR IQBAL

REPLY (HTTP://WWW.ARABHUMANISTS.ORG/ARAB-WOMEN-PRE-ISLAM/?REPLYTOCOM=29#RESPOND)

(http://www.arabhumanists.org/arab-women-pre-islam/#comment-29)

Hi, while the loopholes you pointed out in the article seem valid and open for discussion, debate and further research; the tone used by the proponents of the message presented in the article and the opponents , as you are, is utterly different. The proponents use a mild, objective and soft tone while the opponents are really harsh, unforgiving and truculent. This is not the spirit of Islam. Answer argument with argument, not with complains, sentiments and accusations. Just a suggestion you know after all, all that is important to prove the truthfulness of one’s religion is through exemplary behavior (Uswah-e-Hasna). Anyway it was a perspicacious analysis.

N A S I R K H A N ( H T T P : // P E A C E % 2 0 A N D % 2 0 J U S T I C E % 2 0 P O S T ) REPLY (HTTP://WWW.ARABHUMANISTS.ORG/ARAB-WOMEN-PRE-ISLAM/?REPLYTOCOM=18#RESPOND)

(http://www.arabhumanists.org/arab-women-pre-islam/#comment-18)

Thanks to S. B. Zaki for writing a much-needed article on the theme as he rightly points out has largely been ignored. The so-called blanket term ‘age of ignorance’ before the rise of Islam is a misnomer; in fact, the most sinister age of ignorance followed the rise and expansion of Islam. That ignorance has pervaded the Islamic people since then. It controls the minds and hearts of the vast majority of Muslim people everywhere. The light of knowledge and reason cannot penetrate the thick layers of inherited ignorance in Muslims.

R M ( H T T P : // W W W . O N L I N E S H I A S T U D I E S . C O M )

REPLY (HTTP://WWW.ARABHUMANISTS.ORG/ARAB-WOMEN-PRE-ISLAM/?REPLYTOCOM=19#RESPOND)

(http://www.arabhumanists.org/arab-women-pre-islam/#comment-19)

Many of the problems that are highlighted here are problems within what became Sunni Islam, and are likewise problematic from a Shi’i perspective: e.g. the many problems that the rulings and behaviour of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab caused, along with his notoriously hostile attitude to women, which often when against the model set by Prophet Muhammad.

S H E I L A N E W M A N ( H T T P S : // C A N D O B E T T E R . N E T / S Y R I A ) REPLY (HTTP://WWW.ARABHUMANISTS.ORG/ARAB-WOMEN-PRE-ISLAM/?REPLYTOCOM=20#RESPOND)

(http://www.arabhumanists.org/arab-women-pre-islam/#comment-20)

I like this anthropological approach. This article comes at a time when I was exploring how women came to lose their land-rights under Islam.

I’ve previously theorised on changes to women’s land and inheritance rights in British law, from 1066. Under Norman (Viking tradition) Britain became a frontier territory where land could only devolve to (male) knights in arms who would defend it. Women could not inherit but their husbands could inherit male wealth through them. (See Newman, Demography Territory Law: Land-tenure and the origins of capitalism in Britain, Countershock Press, 2014.)

One hypothesis I thought up is that global warming, after the last glacius maximus 10,000 years ago, gradually led to reduced land availability, rise of agriculture, increased populations on less land and mass migrations/invasions. Religions, which once personified tribes, each with its local gods, were used politically to unify several tribes under one god and to banish all the local gods in new nations.

A way of getting men to fight in wars to take over new territory, was to promise them land. As well as taking land from the conquered, you could take women’s land and give it to men. This seems to have been the effect of the Prophet’s new religious laws. They unified many tribes, banished the local gods, and redistributed women’s land to men, plus they made daughters commodities that could attract money to the family, all to be managed, of course, by the men.

It also seems to me that, since western colonial interference destabilised peoples, their governments and wrecked economies in the Middle East, religion and religious institutions have become more important in organising society. Demographic changes due to war and dispossession have created massive internal jostlings for power and have emphasised differences within Islamic religion focusing on textual interpretations.

TOM DUNDEE

REPLY (HTTP://WWW.ARABHUMANISTS.ORG/ARAB-WOMEN-PRE-ISLAM/?REPLYTOCOM=4806#RESPOND)

(http://www.arabhumanists.org/arab-women-pre-islam/#comment-4806)

Shelia Newman, You have done nothing but defend and excuse Islamic practices and present lies about the West to equate it to Islamic society. I am not going to address every issue in your writing, just a couple unless I get on a roll. “western colonial interference destabilised peoples” Most of today’s Islamic lands were taken from the Christian West. Two serious attempts to conquer all of Europe were turned back at Tours in 732 and Vienna in 1683. A second invasion of Western Europe was prevented at Lepanto in 1573. Spain and Portugal returned the favor and seized some Islamic lands in Africa right after they have driven the Moslems from the Iberian Peninsula.

The wholesale seizing of Islamic lands began following the Napoleonic Wars in 1815. This was done to end the Islamic practice of slave raids as far north as Norway, northern Scotland, and northern and western Ireland. At which point they also set about ending the whole slave trade in Africa. Arabs controlled the slave trade i African Blacks well before the time of Mohammad and after Mohammad, Moslem Arabs controlled the slave trade in African Blacks. If the West destabilized Islamic countries it was only because of the weakness of Arab societies. Spain, Portugal weren’t destabilized by Islamic conquest. The nations of the Balkan Peninsula, Hungary, Austria, Rommania, Bulgaria were not destabilized by centuries of conquest and occupation by Moslems. I could go on with this topic, but I will stop here unless you reply.

Women were allowed to own land in the nations of the British Isles in their own right. As a rule, a woman could not be forced to get married so a man would have the property in question. There were retainers that could be sent into battle by a woman property owner. If there were only daughters, the title of nobility went to the oldest daughter, but the lands were divided equally among all the daughters. Elizabeth I is a prime example of women inheriting property and title, Queen of England. Elizabeth I being the longest reigning monarch in England until Elizabeth II came along. Again, I will stop here with this topic.

S H E I L A N E W M A N ( H T T P S : // C A N D O B E T T E R . N E T / S H E I L A N E W M A N ) REPLY (HTTP://WWW.ARABHUMANISTS.ORG/ARAB-WOMEN-PRE-ISLAM/?REPLYTOCOM=4830#RESPOND)

(http://www.arabhumanists.org/arab-women-pre-islam/#comment-4830)

Hi Tom, I would not agree that I have ‘done nothing but defend and excuse Islamic practices’, nor that I have presented lies. What I have done is give an explanation for the abrogation of women’s rights to land in more than one culture and that explanation is that it is something (totally unfair to women) that often happens in conquests. 11th Century England was the product of total conquest where knights were awarded land.

Mohammed famously also conducted conquests. Shakespeare’s Hamlet brilliantly demonstrates the impact of male primogeniture laws (and, written in Elizabeth 1’s time, includes disapproval of female monarchs). Ask me about that if you are interested.

I don’t approve of women being done out of landrights by anyone, and I would hate to live under Islamic law, but the fact is that in England (which was once known as Britain) since 1066 women were not allowed to inherit land, although they could get it in exceptional circumstances. It is true that gavelkind subsisted in England after 1066 in some counties mostly South of London near the coast. Theory on the reason for this is slim. Let me know any you may have heard of. I have footnoted below the main part of this post some quotes about the repeal of British male primogeniture law in 1925 [1].

I have so far written two books on the significance of male and female land-rights. (See Sheila Newman or S.M. Newman, Demography Territory Law (series). I mention this because women used to own their own land and even their own villages in many cultures and possibly in all cultures once, just as many females of other species inherit territory. But to describe this and document it in a quick post is too complex – hence mentioning my book titles, especially the second one in the series – Land-tenure and the origins of capitalism in Britain – which is all about this. Before Roman times women (as in pre-Islamic times) probably did have equal inheritance rights. When the Romans came they enslaved almost all the Britons, but under Roman law, Roman women born to citizens could inherit land – but they were not allowed to ‘manage it’. That power went to men. (And it remained so in Europe until the 20th century with an eleven day exception after 1789 revolutionary code.) Roman law persisted below the Rhine River in Western Europe in those countries that had been under the Roman Empire and so, on the other side of the channel, women could always inherit land, with some exceptions including Normandie in France (mentioned below). (But, as above, they usually were not allowed to manage their property if there was a male around. Good reason not to marry.)

Usually the inheritance practices of royal families are little or no indication of those practised by the rest of the people, which are usually customary and localised, unless there are laws prescribing these. Unusually, in Britain (or England, as it became), the rules for inheritance were prescribed by William the Conqueror (exceptionately) to almost everyone (except parts of southern coastal England which may have retained Gavelkind for a while as I have said). Britain was seen as a frontier, requiring defense by male knights (soldiers awarded nobility by the king.) William the Conqueror came from Viking France (Normandy) where male primogentiture was practised among the nobles, but not among commoners. It only became dominant in nobles and among commoners in England because of England’s frontier status. Even noble male primogeniture in Normandy was abolished with the advent of Napoleonic law in the 19th century, which nationalised inheritance law and

maintained and extended extant female lines of inheritance for women.

With regard to Queen Elizabeth, (the exception who proved the rules) Henry VIII famously tried to have a male child so that his kingdom would be secured according to male primogeniture. He said that in the event that his son died, his blood must prevail at any cost and this is part of the arcane process that brought Elizabeth 1 to the throne after the death of his son Edward and Jane Gray the 9 Days Queen who ascended the throne (as the first female sovereign since 1066) according to Edward’s will. As we know, had she married, she would have lost all her power to govern. How she came to the throne is a fascinating subject in itself which I have not got to the bottom of, but it is well-known that much was written against Elizabeth rising to the throne (see Shakespeare’s Hamlet) and that many people counted on her marrying and thus passing her authority on to a bloke.

With regard to slavery and conquest, the East and the West were fighting over the spice trade routes for centuries. These were also routes of slavery. When they lost access to these routes, the Europeans sought a sea-route to India, found one to Africa and incidentally discovered the Americas. The European slave-trade and gold were the main sources of European wealth from about the 15th century until the rise of coal and then oil. (My book, Demography territory law: Land-tenure and the origins of capitalism in Britain, theorises on the rise of capitalism in Britain depending on the availability of landless labour due to male primogeniture there, plus the confluence of coal near iron. ) In England there were slaves as well as serfs and also in the monasteries. Savery was not repealed until 1833 in Britain. Somewhat relevant to Islamic attitudes were those of the Catholic church on slavery, which even though disapproved of in the 16th century was thought okay for non-Christians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_slavery (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_slavery). Here is a history of Christian ideas on slavery: http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/gaa_slavery.htm (http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/gaa_slavery.htm) The Ottoman Empire practice of enslaving Christians, converting them to Islam, and inducting them into an elite army and administration force and selecting them to be the Sultan’s queen sounds like the ultimate multicultural displacement. It takes my breath away in its terms of total transformation of territory and peoples and the creation of an almost uncrackable empire, as Machiavelli noted.

I do not condone slavery where it persists under in the name of Islam. All the more so because I consider that women are in a terrible situation under Islamic law, always inferior to that of men and sometimes no better off than formal slaves even if they live in wealthy families.

Where Islam condones formal slavery (i.e. non-citizenship and chattel status) this seems to be based on the importance of slavery in Mohammed’s conquests by the accounts I have read of those. The only people who defend slavery are those who benefit from it and they are usually wealthy, powerful people. The enslavement of women in states where women do not have the same rights as men benefits a lot of men. I’m very glad I was born in the 20th century in Australia in a country where the church is separate from the state and atheism and agnosticism are socially well-accepted. If I had to choose another place or time it would be a polynesian or micronesian society pre colonisation where women had their own villages and the natural ecology was intact over perhaps 60,000 years.

NOTES ON THE REPEAL OF PRIMOGENITURE LAW IN ENGLAND IN 1925 [1] “In England, primogeniture was mandatory for inheritance of land. Until the Statute of Wills was passed in 1540, a will could only control the inheritance of personal property. Real estate (land) passed to the eldest male descendant by operation of law. The statute added a provision that a landowner could “devise” land by the use of a new device called a “testament”. Source: “Primogeniture”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primogeniture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primogeniture) The rule of primogeniture in England was not changed until the Administration of Estates Act. See Unger, J., 1943, Dec. The Inheritance Act and the Family. The Modern Law Review. Vol.6. Issue 4. First published online 18 Jan 2011. p.22: “Finally, the origin of the modem system of intestate succession established under the Administration of Estates Act, 1925, may be cited in support of the contention that the power of testation was not regarded in English law as hostile to the family. (…)The change effected in 1925 consisted in the adoption of a uniform system of intestate succession which revealed the decline in the economic importance of realty and in the social importance of marriage settlements of land, as the feudal rules of descent of realty had been adapted to the needs of mamage settlements by the ingenuity of conveyancers. The change also consisted in improvement of the rules of succession, consisting, as regards realty, in the abolition of primogeniture, and as regards personalty, in modifications of the system enacted in the Statutes of Distribution which were required by changes in the structiire of the family.”

Falsey, Marie, 1985. Comments: Spousal Disinheritance: The New York Solution – A Critique of forced share legislation. Western New England Law Review, Vol. 7 (1984-1985) Issue 4 (1985), Note 5. http://assets.wne.edu (http://assets.wne.edu) /160/48_comm_Spousal_.pdf, “Parliament abolished the law of primogeniture centuries later with the administration of Estates Act, 1925, IS & 16 Geor. 5, ch. 23, § 45.”

MALLIKARJUNA SHARMA

REPLY (HTTP://WWW.ARABHUMANISTS.ORG/ARAB-WOMEN-PRE-ISLAM/?REPLYTOCOM=231#RESPOND)

(http://www.arabhumanists.org/arab-women-pre-islam/#comment-231)

Khadija who married Muhammad and sheltered and groomed him has to be viewed as representative of pre-Islamic culture and symbol of women’s rights and achievements in pre-Islamic culture though she might have supported Muhammad’s hallucinations and encouraged him to propound a new religion. It is for the Muslims to think and say whether the later – Islamic women – had that much independence and initiative of these pre-islamic women illustrated by the example of Khadija. Have any woman leaders or fighters of the stature of Khadija emerged during Islamic expansions and empire building?

ARAB WOMEN BEFORE AND AFTER ISLAM: OPENING THE DOOR OF PRE-ISLAMIC ARABIAN HISTORY – HIDDENSTORIESBLOG ( H T T P S : // W H A T A L I F E 2 2 B L O G . W O R D P R E S S . C O M / 2 0 1 6 / 0 7 / 2 7 / A R A B - W O M E N - B E F O R E - A N D - A F T E R - I S L A M - O P E N I N G - T H E - D O O R - O F - P R E I S L A M I C - A R A B I A N - H I S TO RY/ )

REPLY (HTTP://WWW.ARABHUMANISTS.ORG/ARAB-WOMEN-PRE-ISLAM/?REPLYTOCOM=1921#RESPOND)

(http://www.arabhumanists.org/arab-women-pre-islam/#comment-1921)

[…] Arab women before and after Islam: Opening the door of pre-Islamic Arabian history […]

TOM DUNDEE

REPLY (HTTP://WWW.ARABHUMANISTS.ORG/ARAB-WOMEN-PRE-ISLAM/?REPLYTOCOM=4807#RESPOND)

(http://www.arabhumanists.org/arab-women-pre-islam/#comment-4807)

Awrah is used in the narrative and is loosely translated as “walking vulva”. This is crude term that can apply to all women in the Islamic world. An unaccompanied woman or a scantily clad women can be forced to have sex with a man or a whole group of women. I don’t use the term rape because in Islamic law, there is no such thing unless a woman has 4 male witnesses that testify against the man who forced the sex.

If a woman is raped, it is considered to be her fault and the males of the family are expected to (honor) kill her to restore the family’s honor. Often the rapist can join in the honor killing if he is a relative. It is considered to be the female’s fault no matter how young she is, the youngest I have read about is 4 years old. “a man’s honor lies between the legs of a woman” is the rationale presented to justify the killing a woman who has sex outside of marriage.

This is a level of ‘protection’ that does a lot of damage to women and in many cases proves to be fatal.

GARRETH

REPLY (HTTP://WWW.ARABHUMANISTS.ORG/ARAB-WOMEN-PRE-ISLAM/?REPLYTOCOM=5373#RESPOND)

(http://www.arabhumanists.org/arab-women-pre-islam/#comment-5373)

great article, something i will definitely be sharing

L E AV E A R E P LY

POST REPLY

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

LEARNING TO PRAY: A REFLECTION  (HTTP://WWW.ARABHUMANISTS.ORG/LEARNING-TO-PRAY-A-REFLECTION/)

English (http://www.arabhumanists.org/arab-women-pre-islam/) ‫( اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ‬http://www.arabhumanists.org/ar/)

FACEBOOK

Arab Humanists ‫…ﻟﻌﺮب‬ 1,665 likes

Like Page

Share

Arab Humanists ‫ب‬ ‫ﺴﺎﺎﻧﻧﻮﻮﻳﻳﻮﻮنن ااﻟﻟﻌﻌﺮﺮب‬ ‫ااﻹﻹﻧﻧﺴ‬ 2 days ago

(https://facebook.com/236197313435681) Arab Humanists ‫( اﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻮﻳﻮن اﻟﻌﺮب‬http://facebook.com/236197313435681) shared a link.

Third Gender Figures in the Ancient Near East (http://www.ancient.eu/article/941/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=zapier& utm_campaign=FB-AHE) ancient.eu In the ancient Near East, there was a social standard by which men were ideally expected to behave. In the 21st century CE, expectations still exist, albeit in different forms. Normative masculinity through...

View on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/236197313435681_356947218027356) · Share

Arab Humanists ‫ب‬ ‫ﺴﺎﺎﻧﻧﻮﻮﻳﻳﻮﻮنن ااﻟﻟﻌﻌﺮﺮب‬ ‫ااﻹﻹﻧﻧﺴ‬ 3 days ago

(https://facebook.com/236197313435681) Re-sharing one of our earliest posts on women in pre-Islamic Arabia

TWITTER

Tweets by @ArabHumanist Arab Humanists @ArabHumanist Re-sharing one of our earliest posts on women in pre-Islamic Arabia fb.me/59RRaRCbf 13 Sep

Arab Humanists @ArabHumanist "Thank God, only I understand it" twitter.com/nourhannsn/sta‌ 11 Sep

Arab Humanists @ArabHumanist Embed

View on Twitter

RECENT COMMENTS

Umar Mukhtar Bin Mohd Noor on Arab women before and after Islam: Opening the door of pre-Islamic Arabian history (http://www.arabhumanists.org/arabwomen-pre-islam/#comment-5839) Fatima on Arab women before and after Islam: Opening the door of pre-Islamic Arabian history (http://www.arabhumanists.org/arab-women-pre-islam /#comment-5672) Garreth on Arab women before and after Islam: Opening the door of pre-Islamic Arabian history (http://www.arabhumanists.org/arab-women-pre-islam /#comment-5373) Sheila Newman (https://candobetter.net/SheilaNewman) on Arab women before and after Islam: Opening the door of pre-Islamic Arabian history (http://www.arabhumanists.org/arab-women-pre-islam/#comment-4830) Tom Dundee on Arab women before and after Islam: Opening the door of pre-Islamic Arabian history (http://www.arabhumanists.org/arab-women-pre-islam /#comment-4807)

Arabhumanists.org Š 2016 Theme by Colorlib (http://colorlib.com/) Powered by WordPress (http://wordpress.org/)