Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Allison Mitchell
HI201
14 December 2016
The Myth of Mamluk Women: The Political, Economic, and Social Lives of Women in Egypt
from the Thirteenth Century to Napoleons Invasion and the Contradictions of Western
Perception
documented her time in the Ottoman Empire with a series of letters to her family and friends
back in England. Montagu was frequently invited to attend the baths or visit the homes of
Muslim women, places from which male travelers were strictly forbidden, and witnessed the
various freedoms these women enjoyed. Providing a far more insightful description of Ottoman
women, Lady Mary Wortley Montagu compared their daily activities to those of European ladies,
which were far more restricted considering English women were not truly allowed to own
property and were legally under their husbands control (Fay 129). Disputing all pervious
conclusions reached by Western men, Montagu went so far as to state, Turkish ladies . . . are
perhaps freer than any ladies in the universe, and are the only women in the world that lead a life
of uninterrupted pleasure exempt from cares; their whole time being spent in visiting, bathing, or
the agreeable amusement of spending money, and inventing new fashions (Montagu). These
same freedoms were afforded to the Mamluk women of Egypt, which had been loosely governed
by the Ottomans since the early sixteenth century. Despite the contradictory claims of Western
Mitchell 2
men, Mamluk women were incredibly socially, politically and economically active, and it was
these freedoms that allowed women to adapt to Napoleons rule of Egypt from 1798 to 1801.
It only makes sense to begin with a brief history and explanation of Mamluk society, and
appropriately, that story begins with a woman. Shajarat al-Durr first appears in historical texts
from 1239 as a slave in Caliph Mustasims harem (Duncan). A year later, Sultan Aiyub,
considered the last sultan of the Ayyubid dynasty, would take her for his harem and make her his
wife after she bears a child (Duncan). Her story is one many Mamluk women might have found
familiar, as the basis of Mamluk society relied on the taking of slave soldiers and concubines, the
intricacies of which will be addressed later in this essay. Shajarat, who was described as a
mamlukah inmate of Turkish or Armenian origins, is considered to be the first Mamluk sultana
of Egypt (Duncan). She is perhaps most remembered for her victory against King Louis IX,
ending the Sixth Crusade. During Mamluks first encounter with the French and following her
husbands death, Shajarat coordinated an attack that would lead to the capture of the French king
all while concealing Aiyubs death to maintain power (Duncan). After Aiyubs death was
revealed, the Mamluks kept Shajarat in power to legitimize their rule, due to her connections to
both the Ayyubids and the Mamluks. Unfortunately, she was eventually forced to remarry and
abdicate the throne, but was ultimately executed for murdering her new husband (Duncan). The
Mamluks went on to rule Egypt until Sultan Selim of the Ottoman Empire conquered the
territory in 1517.
Although the Ottomans were the formal rulers of Egypt, the Mamluks never fully
relinquished power. Even to conquer Egypt, Selim needed the assistance of the Mamluk military.
Mary Ann Fay states in Unveiling the Harem: Elite Women and the Paradox of Seclusion in
Eighteenth Century Cairo, Ottoman conquest should not be seen as a war of Ottomans against
Mitchell 3
Mamluks because the Ottoman forces under Sultan Selim made an alliance with a Mamluk
faction headed by Khair Bey, the Mamluk governor of Syria who went over to the Ottomans.
(47). As a result of their alliance with the Ottomans, the Mamluks continued to have influence as
the elite class of Egypt. After the Ottoman conquest, the Mamluks were formally removed from
the highest levels of government, however Mamluk political power eventually reemerged as a
result of the Ottomans need for the Mamluk military to suppress revolts (Fay 45-48). Through
manipulation and exploitation, the Mamluks reacquired most of the influential positions in the
Ottoman administration (Fay 49). Although the Ottomans were generally regarded as the rulers
of Egypt, its was the Mamluk beys who fueled the military was well as collected taxes (Fay 54-
55). Controlling the two most influential institutions of a society, the Mamluks were the de facto
rulers of Egypt for over half of the time it was under Ottoman control.
The form of slavery that Mamluk control heavily relied on is not one that is similar to
slavery in Europe or the Americas. According to Mary Ann Fay in Unveiling the Harem: Elite
Women and the Paradox of Seclusion in Eighteenth Century Cairo, The Mamluk system of
Egypt was an heir to the practice of enslaving non-Muslims and, after a period of training,
manumitting them after conversion to Islam (46). Slaves, typically taken from Georgia or the
Caucuses, were integrated into Mamluk households. Men were usually given military training,
while women, depending on their race, were either taken as concubines or domestic servants
(Hatem 257-258). However, slavery was not permanent or hereditary. After a period of time,
usually for marriage or because a concubine has a child, slaves formally convert to Islam and are
freed. Just as female slaves were segregated by race, Mamluk slavery itself was a system that
kept the Mamluks separate from the rest of the Egyptian population (Fay 59). Mamluks, typically
of Georgian or Caucasian heritage, used slavery to preserve this lineage and differentiate
Mitchell 4
themselves from native Egyptians. Mamluks also relied on slavery to expand their households
and determine succession. Fay states, When power was consolidated in one household around
the middle of the eighteenth century, succession went to the household heads favorite mamluk,
who was often raised in the household of his master, and not to a freeborn biological son (56).
As a result, slaves were often more successful and end up with higher statuses than those who are
freeborn. Slavery in the Mamluk society was a way of preserving their way of life and militant
men were allowed by Islamic Law to take concubines, as well as have up to four wives at any
given time (Hatem 257). Concubines, although they were slaves, did have rights and
expectations of the master. It was general practice, although not required by law, that concubines
who bore a child for the master would be freed and become his wife (Hatem 258). It was this
obligation that began the royal life of sultana Shajarat al-Durr. Although her story is unique, her
beginnings were not, and most Mamluk women were former concubines. Concubinage, for many
women, was the beginning of their political career. Mervat F. Hatem concludes in The Politics
of Sexuality and Gender in Segregated Patriarchal Systems: The Case of Eighteenth and
Nineteenth Century Egypt that for the Mamluks, sexuality was political because it was directly
linked to elevating ones status and gaining rights (258). Slave ownership was not something that
was limited to men, wealthy women could purchase female slaves of their own (Fay 63). These
slaves were usually domestic servants that would wait on the women in the harem. The wives of
influential households however, would purchase female slaves to marry them to men of other
houses (Fay 63). This not only increased their status in their own house, but it created alliances
Mitchell 5
between powerful households. Women were responsible for for much of the networking that was
Perhaps the most well known symbol of the supposed oppression of Muslim women is
the harem. The harem, both the wives and concubines of a man and the name for the place of the
house where they reside, is an incredibly misunderstood part of Islamic culture. According to
Fay, in the historical harem, as opposed to the Western view of the harem, sexual arrangements
could be said to rest on what is denied rather than what is available. In other words, the social
order as represented by the harem and veiling denied women the right to sexual autonomy while
the master/ husband denied other men access to the women in his household (41). The concept
of the harem was not designed solely to place limitations on women, but to prevent men from
making a woman impure. This belief is obviously problematic in its own right, but it is far
different from the comparisons to imprisonment made by traveling Western men who described
women as excluded from social and political activities. This belief contradicts other writings
about the political processes of the Mamluk system, which mostly take place in the home. As a
result of power being concentrated in households, separate private and public lives did not exist.
Fay states, Because family life and politics took place within the house/household, the concept
of separate spheres the private world of the family and the public world of politics did not
apply (96). Comments made by Westerners that Muslim women were secluded were simply
hypocritical, because Muslim women enjoyed many freedoms that European women did not.
Mamluk women, unlike European women, were legally considered people and not the property
of their husbands (Fay 35). Women were allowed to own property as well, and they used this
property to increase their own wealth and status (Fay 35). Despite Muslim women being
Mitchell 6
economically, politically, and socially active, European travelers concluded that women were
Westerners often used the harem as proof of the moral superiority of the West, rather than
just the existence of cultural difference. According to Fay, If the harem represented the
polygamy, easy divorce, and the consequent degradation and oppression of women, then the
West could congratulate itself for not having any harems (24). The West, although its treatment
of women was not any better than the Mamluks, looked to the existence of the harem as
validation of their cultural dominance. Yet, in their writings, Western men continued to describe
women as decorative objects whose primary purpose was to satisfy mens sexual desires (Fey
25). Criticizing the Mamluks treatment of women, yet continuing to use oppressive language to
describe Mamluk women, ultimately turned them into both the problem and victim of what the
West thought of as Eastern inferiority. The hypocrisy of the West manifests itself in the
horrendous treatment of Mamluk women by Napoleons troops during the French invasion of
Truly motivated by economic competition with the largest colonizer in the world, Great
Britain, the French invaded Egypt in the late eighteenth century under the guise of the liberation
of slaves and women. Liberation from slavery or seemingly oppressive regimes has long been an
excuse for Western nations to invade other civilizations. For example, King Leopold of Belgium
would use this strategy to infamously colonize the Congo in the twentieth century (Hochschild
129). In a proclamation to his troops on embarking for Egypt Napoleon states, The Mameluke
beys, who favor exclusively English commerce, whose extortions oppress our merchants, and
who tyrannize over the unfortunate inhabitants of the Nile, a few days after our arrival will no
Mitchell 7
longer exist.The people amongst whom we are about to mix differ from us in the treatment of
women; but in all countries he who violates is a monster (Bonaparte). However, Napoleons
condemnation of slavery and the mistreatment of women did not stop the French soldiers from
After French victories in Alexandria and Cairo, the thousands of Frenchmen in Egypt
with little to do led to a rapid increase in concubine purchases as well as prostitution. French
officers looked to the harems of the Mamluk men who had died in battle. In Napoleons Egypt:
Invading the Middle East, Juan Cole states, Adm. Jean-Baptiste Perre wrote back to a friend in
France, The beys have left us some pretty Armenian and Georgian wenches, whom we have
confiscated to the profit of the nation (176). Although the French previously championed
themselves as the liberators of slaves and women, they continued to take concubines, as well as
compare them to the spoils of war. Ordinary French soldiers, unable to afford slaves, fueled the
growth of prostitution (Cole 189). These same brothels would be attacked by the French for
supposedly contributing to the spread of the plague among the troops. Some Frenchmen justified
their actions by claiming that Mamluk concubines were better treated than domestic slaves, for
reasons previously mentioned in this essay (Cole 178). Yet obviously, this was just another case
of Westerners looking for validation. Once the French began participating in the previously
condemned practices of the Mamluks, the severity of the problem was questioned.
While the purchasing of concubines continued in Napoleons Egypt, free women were
criticized no matter what way of life, Mamluk or French, they chose to accept. Upon arriving in
Alexandria, Joseph-Marie Moiret, a French Captain, wrote passionately about his disdain for the
common women and their immodesty. He was confused that the common women, making an
effort to appear wealthy, veiled their faces but did not have enough money to buy other clothes
Mitchell 8
that would ensure their modesty (Cole 28). Although many French soldiers were provoked an
increase in sex slavery and prostitution, they labeled Egyptian and Mamluk women as immodest,
keeping with the Western perception of Ottoman as both sexual objects and sexually oppressed.
While Frenchman Joseph-Marie Moiret had his own thoughts on womens veiling, women who
married French husbands and unveiled because of it were criticized by Egyptian men (Hatem
265). These tensions between men and Egyptian and Mamluk women led to a backlash against
women in Egypt that continued after the French left. Women, emboldened by the French, would
be seen walking around unveiled with European men, riding horses and being more obviously
socially active (Cole, 188). Men felt like they were losing control, that the balance of power was
tipping out of their favor. However, womens played a much larger role in Napoleons Egypt than
that of concubines. The wives of the beys played almost as large of a role in the opposition to
As previously stated, Mamluk women were allowed to own property and accumulate
wealth separate from their husbands. Unlike European women, the dowries given by the father or
owner of a woman upon marriage were not given to her husband, they were given to her (Fey
63). Women who then married into large and connected families were then able to invest this
money and create even more wealth for themselves and their heirs. They usually bought and sold
property or made investments in religious enterprises like mosques or schools (Fey 63). Men also
benefitted from the property rights afforded to women. Due to the militant nature of the
Mamluks, the male heads of powerful houses would often die in battle at a young age. Husbands
would often transfer all their wealth to their wives to protect their money and property from
being taken if the opposing side wins the battle (Hatem 260). Not only would women keep the
families wealth from turning into war spoils, they were some of the only continuing members of
Mitchell 9
the family. Again, because of the mens early deaths, the women were symbols of legitimacy and
stability (Fey 113). It was often up to the women to rebuild the family, marry new husbands and
forge new connections with other families. Although these rights were typical in Mamluk Egypt
and were afforded to all Muslim for centuries, the political and economic activities of women
were not included in the narratives of Western travelers, perhaps because they were weaved into
the intricacies of Mamluk society and took place through a series of family connections.
However, the myth of secluded harem women has continued despite their activity becoming
The frequents warring of the Mamluk beys prepared the militant class for their stand
against Napoleon. Just as husbands transferred their property to their wives to protect it from
being taken by the opposing beys, they gave their land and most of their money to their wives to
protect it from the French, who were quickly running out of money (Cole 80). While the beys
fled to the countryside to prepare their assault, their wives and concubines remained in the city,
maintaining stability and acting as the primary channels of communication between the beys
(Cole 80). Powerful women even negotiated political agreements between their husbands and
and the French army (Hatem 266). However, remaining in the cities with vast amounts of wealth
made the wives of powerful beys targets of the French military. Not only did the French demand
payment of taxes from the wives based on the value of their homes, they demanded all their
property, including this like jewelry, be registered (Cole 80). After the women registered all their
belongings, the French had a list of all the wealthiest women in Cairo, and often targeted them
because of their husbands actions. Cole describes one of these instances involving the wife of
Murad Bey. He states, When a squadron chief named Rapp was stabbed in the streets of Cairo,
the French began to fear that warlords were still hiding out in the capital. Suspicion fell on the
Mitchell 10
mansion of Murad Bey. Bonaparte sent Beauharnais, his stepson, to pay a warning visit to Nefise
Hanim (Cole 81). It was during these stand offs between the French military and the wives of
the beys, the French often made the wealthiest wives pay additional imposts to ensure the
protection of their families (Hatem 266). Although the wives were targeted because of their
wealth, their money also allowed them to pay off the French on various other occasions to
protect their livelihoods. Despite their overtly political activity, the myth of seclusion of harem
Contrastingly to all conclusions reached by male Western travelers, Mamluk women were
incredibly socially, economically, and politically active from the Mamluk sultanate through
Napoleons invasion of Egypt. They enjoyed many rights that women did not have in European
countries and used these rights to acquire wealth and intervene in politics. During the French
invasion women were often in charge of mobilizing resistance as well as burdened with
negotiating the safety of their families. However, these activists were left out of Western
historical accounts and what began as a misrepresentation of Mamluk women as secluded and
oppressed has morphed into the stereotype of Muslim women that continues today. Conservative
media outlets frequently report on the restrictions placed on women in primarily Muslim
countries. For example, an article written for Fox News by Cal Thomas was dramatically titled,
The Fate of Afghanistans Women and expressed the consequences of U.S. troops withdrawing
from the country. Ironically, women have more representation in government in Afghanistan,
Iraq, and Pakistan than in the United States (Proportion of Seats Held by Women in National
Parliaments). This political tactic clearly stems from the need of Westerners to confirm their
moral superiority by condemning the way of life of the Ottomans, even though Mamluk women
were afforded rights European women were not. Even more hypocritically, recent hate speech by
Mitchell 11
conservative lawmakers has led to a backlash against those who practice Islam, most of which is
taken out on women who chose to wear hijabs, niqabs, burqas, chadors, or khimars. Making
national headlines in early December 2016, eighteen year old Yasmin Seweid was called a
terrorist on a New York subway while men tried to rip off her hijab (Yasmin Seweid Safe after
Being Reported Missing). A sudden shift from the depiction of Muslim women as victims of
male oppression, they have become the targets of Western xenophobia and racism. Perhaps while
fighting for the equality of women all over the world, Westerners should evaluate the status of
women in their own nations and recognize the colonialist undertones in their rhetoric.
Mitchell 12
Works Cited
Bonaparte, Napoleon. Proclamation to the Troops on Embarking for Egypt. June 1798.
Cole, Juan. Napoleon's Egypt: Invading the Middle East. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
PDF.
Fay, Mary Ann. Unveiling the Harem: Elite Women and the Paradox of Seclusion in Eighteenth-
Hatem, Mervat. The Politics of Sexuality and Gender in Segregated Patriarchal Systems: The
Montagu, Mary Wortley. The Letters and Works of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu. Ed. James
Wharncliffe. Vol. 1. London: George Bell & Sons, 1887. Women in World
"Proportion of Seats Held by Women in National Parliaments (%)." Proportion of Seats Held by
"Yasmin Seweid Safe after Being Reported Missing." CBSNews. CBS Interactive, n.d. Web. 12
Dec. 2016.