Slavery was an inherent part of pre-modern society,
but that it had different forms at different times and in different places.
In medieval Islamic societies,
two aspects of slavery stand out.
Enslaved women as concubines enrichments Harems and slave soldiers,
Mamluks, in the ruler's army.
Harems: Myth & Reality
It is very hard to describe the Harem objectively.
Our knowledge of the medieval Harem is limited.
Most of what we know about Harems dates to a later period and
even those sources are almost all produced by
outsiders and do not stem from within the Harem itself.
These sources are hardly objective either.
It is also difficult because our imagery of Harems
has been shaped by centuries of orientalist portrayal,
these stereotypes are not easily replaced by a more balanced view.
Already in ancient Athens and Byzantium for instance,
we find examples of Harems in the sense of women living
secluded lives and only venturing out of the house when escorted by men.
The Harem of the Caleb with hundreds of concubines belonging to
one man is an extreme outcome of this and was obviously exceptional.
Haram in fact means forbidden.
We should in the first place,
consider the Harem as an architectural trade of Middle Eastern houses.
The Harem is the part of the house that is
forbidden for men and occupied solely by women.
Note that that does not automatically mean women could not leave these areas.
In many cases, they could;
in some cases, they couldn't.
Moreover, this luxury of having separate rooms for women would only be for the rich.
The most extreme example was the Harem of the Caliph,
which was indeed very large.
From the ninth century onwards,
Caliphs no longer marry,
but had concubines instead.
Islamic law allows sexual relations in marriage or concubinage,
but not all women living in the Harem were sexually available to the owner of the house.
His mother, aunt, sisters,
and daughters might well live in these women's quarters and
Islamic law certainly does not allow sexual relationships with these close relatives.
Sometimes, these women would in turn have
their own female slaves to attend to housekeeping and child rearing.
So, we should not picture the Harem as some ongoing orgy of half-naked women,
whose only purpose in life was intercourse with the master of the house.
Even though this is exactly the picture we get from Orientalist depictions.
We might assume these Harem concubines to be helpless, powerless creatures,
but the Harem women of powerful figures like
the Caliph could gain quite some political power themselves,
especially the favored mistress of the Caliph,
the mother of the Caliph,
or the mother of the heir to the throne could,
because of their proximity to the ruler with significant power, but in the end,
they remain slaves and we hear the sad stories of
the favorite companions of the Caliph being sold at his death.
We have accounts of women who started off as concubines,
were freed by their master,
and either married him or someone else.
In Islam, children follow the status of the father and thus,
the children born from a concubinage relationship are free.
The mother gained a status of [.......] ,
which meant she automatically gained her freedom at the death of her master.
This is another example that manumission was
an inherent part of slavery in Islamic societies.
Slavery as a lifetime status that was inherited generation upon
generation as we know it from transatlantic slave trade was by no means to norm.
When comparing the judicial position of
free Muslim women with those of free women in adjacent societies,
it was quite favorable.
Women even married once,
held independent ownership of inherited or
gained property as well as over their own dowry.
This might not seem spectacular,
but note that British married women only acquired the right to own property in 1882.
Women could also make binding legal contracts on
most issues without the approval of a male guardian.
In fact, we find female merchants and entrepreneurs who acquired substantial fortunes.
Although the law recognized rights for women,
social reality might of course have been very different.
Published on: 11th August 2016
Political Intercession at the Court of Caliph al-Muqtadir Maaike van Berkel REMMS (Revue des Mondes Muselmans et de la Mediterranee), vol 140, pp. 181 - 190
What best describes the caliphal palace complex?
Caliphs surrounded themselves with a wide variety of advisers, servants, military staff and administrative officials. It was a bureaucratic machinery with a strong hierarchy.
2.
Question 2Van Berkel describes the picture of the caliph that arises from different sources. Which description fits best?
We are presented with two conflicting images: One of the caliph as an approachable accessible ruler, who concerns himself even with the humblest of his subjects. The other of the caliph as a majestic inaccessible figure surrounded by staff and ceremony and who can only be approached by his immediate entourage.
3.
Question 3Why were harem women ideal intercessors to solve conflicts at court?
They were one the one hand well-connected but on the other hand too marginal to become a competitor for political power themselves.
Mamluks and court struggle
In 9th century Baghdad,
the competition between soldiers and secretaries
flared up high and preoccupied much of the time,
resources, and energy at the Caliphal court.
This constant tension ultimately contributed to the downfall of the Abbasid's Caliphate.
The tension between the two factions was exacerbated because of
the revolutionary decision of the caliphs in
the early ninth century to rely on slaves as soldiers.
These were acquired for their military skills.
Horsemen from the Caucasus and inventory from Africa.
They then receive more specialized training after
they entered in
the militia of their master to whom they were unfailingly loyal.
Initially, the slave soldiers formed
a super effective and powerful tool in the hands of the caliph.
They received high rewards for their loyal surface,
and held on elite status.
They were known as Mamluks.
But over time, the Mamluks became more of a liability.
An institution that had been introduced to secure the caliphate,
contributed to its downfall.
The Mamluks were outsiders.
Often, they did not
speak Arabic or Persian,
and their loyalty was to their master alone.
This distance from the local population was initially seen as
an advantage as they could be effectively
used against the inhabitants of Baghdad.
Soon however, this became more and more of a problem.
The locals complained of
rowdy arrogant bands of slave soldiers roaming the streets of Baghdad.
In 836, the caliph,
Al-Mu'tasim decided to build a new city,
North of Baghdad to house his court and his Mamluk army.
The building of this new city, Samara,
in the middle of nowhere was expensive enough but
the elite soldiers demanded more and more material rewards for their services.
This added to the financial downward spiral.
At the same time,
the continuous strive between the secretaries and
the army commanders was
starting to show its devastating effects.
Judges, viziers, chamber lanes, and army commanders,
all tried to build teams of supporters at court,
in the harem and in the hallways of the palace,
requiring huge amounts of money for bribes and buying loyalty.
At each dismissal, incoming
functionaries demanded enormous sums from their predecessors,
which they used to pay off
they had made to their supporters.
Eventually, the system run itself into the ground.
Agricultural infrastructure, and civil security,
and services were neglected as the court were involved in an accelerating cycle of
appointments and dismissals which required phenomenal sums and all their attention.
The competition might have left us nice poetry and amusing literary accounts,
but it is in this competition for power and resources at court
that the Abbasid Caliphate lost its economic basis and thereby,
the infrastructure to exist.
What made the Mamluk army possible and when did it change?
Slaves were brought from different regions during the Abbasid Caliphate.
But it were the Turkey slave soldiers from Central Asia,
and later on the Caucusus,
who
acquired a dominant position in society.
In an attempt to build a strong specialized and loyal army,
Muslim rulers turn to slaves.
Young boys from a privileged background somewhere from royal descent,
were bought as slaves.
Typically, they were around 12 years old,
they had to be non-muslim and usually they
had already obtained some initial military training.
Arriving at their master's court,
they would first receive an Islamic education.
Even if they did not necessarily lead pious lives later on,
stressing how they were led from darkness into light was
believed to enhance their feeling of gratitude towards their patron.
A thorough military training including fighting on
horseback then formed the core of their education.
The relation that the Mamluks built up with their patron and peers
during their education is best described in terms of a family bond.
It was believed that investing in this bond at
an early age was crucial in creating a loyal nobility.
A novice Mamluk and his patron related to each other like father and son.
Mamluks spoke Turkish together,
which added to the feeling of solidarity.
They also tended to marry concubines brought
in as slaves from the same region that they had come from.
Thus, the entire military elite operated in Turkish,
despite the fact that they served an Arabic speaking empire.
Their high-level training and
privileged status and the cultivation of their Turkish identity,
made them devoted soldiers that could be used
effectively even against local Muslim populations.
But it was exactly this arrogant distance that also
created problems with the locals and their patrons.
The valuable slave soldiers demanded
more and more privileges in the form of money and political power.
In 847, the caliph in Baghdad,
Al-Mutawakkil was killed by his Mamluks,
after which chaos ensued with different caliphs succeeding each other as
military and other factions promoted their candidates and almost destroyed the caliphate.
In Egypt, Mamluk soldiers took power in a similar coup.
However, with a very different outcome.
Dissatisfied with their ineffective and corrupt ruler,
Mamluks placed one of their own officers on the throne.
Revolutionary as it was,
the system of Mamluk one generation rulership that hereby came into operation,
created one of the most successful empires in terms of military dominance,
economic boom, and cultural flourishing.
Starting from 1250, the Mamluks sultanate ruled for almost 300 years,
over the area that is now Syria and Egypt,
and extending into the Hejaz to include control over Mecca and Medina.
Only those bought as slaves could join the ruling elite,
and the whole system was catered to create
an isolated nobility that was replaced after each generation.
Children of Mamluks were, in principle,
excluded from rulership, which regularly costs tension.
 |
Réception d'une délégation vénitienne par le gouverneur mamelouk de Damas Date de création/fabrication : Début du XVIe siècle (1500 - 1540) |
It is difficult to point at one reason for the sultanate's downfall,
but some problems that plagued the Mamluk system in Baghdad played a role here as well.
The main concerns of the Mamluk sultans
were the Crusaders and the advancing Mongols.
While forming an existential threat,
the enemy forces
also jeopardized trade.
Trade routes were the veins of the Mamluk Empire.
Cairo owed much of its
wealth to international luxury trade.
A steady supply of slaves sustained the Mamluk system.
There were internal problems as well.
The third Mamluk sultan Qalawun appointed his son on the throne as successor,
thus moving away from the one generation nobility ideal.
Not surprisingly, some
Mamluk armies felt that they had
a more legitimate claim to the throne and murdered the new Sultan.
The tension between hereditary rule and the Mamluk system continued to be an issue.
Stemming from a pagan and slave background,
the legitimacy of the Mamluk ruler might not
always
have been so obvious to his Muslim subjects.
That is why Mamluk rulers took great trouble to
present themselves as the defenders of Islam.
This was done by celebrating
their military victories against the enemies of orthodox Islam,
the Crusaders, and bringing a halt to the Mongol advance.
Another way of boosting their legitimacy was by sponsoring
pious activities through the construction of mosques
and other religious buildings.
Some of these Mamluk heritage with clear Turkic influence can still be admired in Cairo.
The costs of maintaining the Mamluk system were enormous.
The elite slaves were expensive in
acquisition and their training and upkeep were costly as well.
The batters and program of public works also put a strain on the treasury.
The final blow came from an unexpected corner.
European ships advance to such an extent that they
could sail around the cape appeared in the Indian Ocean,
where Mamluk traders had held the monopoly on the Indian spice trade.
The Mamluks ask the rising political power, the Ottoman's,
for help only to invite a takeover by the upcoming Turkish dynasty.
This meant the end of one of the greatest empires of its time.
