Mitchell 1

Allison Mitchell

Professor Owen Miller

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

During her husbands ambassadorship to Turkey, Lady Mary Wortley Montagu

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

superiority, as well as the racial hierarchy in Egypt.

As previously mentioned, the enslavement of women led to domestic servitude or

concubinage. Concubines, by definition slaves, were common in Mamluk households. Mamluk

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

necessary for increasing the influence if their families.

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

more oppressed than Western women.

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

unbridled sexuality of Oriental men expressed in sexual intercourse outside of marriage,

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

Egypt beginning in 1798.

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

purchasing concubines during the three year occupation.

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

Napoleon as their husbands.

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

more overt during Napoleons rule in Egpyt.

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

women has persisted.

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-

century Cairo. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse UP, 2012. PDF.

Hatem, Mervat. The Politics of Sexuality and Gender in Segregated Patriarchal Systems: The

Case of Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Egypt. Feminist Studies, vol. 12,

no. 2, 1986, pp. 251274. www.jstor.org/stable/3177968.

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

History. Center for History and New Media. Web.

"Proportion of Seats Held by Women in National Parliaments (%)." Proportion of Seats Held by

Women in National Parliaments (%) | Data. Inter Parliamentary Union, 1 Nov.

2016. Web. 12 Dec. 2016.

"Yasmin Seweid Safe after Being Reported Missing." CBSNews. CBS Interactive, n.d. Web. 12

Dec. 2016.