There is a difference between the religion of Islam and religiousness. The religion of Islam is represented via a holy book from God. On its basis, God will judge everyone on Judgment Day. As for the religiousness, it is the way Muslims deal with the religion. Their way encompasses behavior and ideologies. Moreover, it is only natural that their social, geographical, psychological and historical environment influences their religiousness, and for that reason, behaviors and beliefs of every people and every civilization affect religiousness. Thus, we find differences between the Egyptian, the Iranian and the nomadic Muslims, and as long as we consider this religiousness as human in origin, thus capable of error and correction then there is no problem. But the problem arises when certain sanctities are added to it, such as the sanctity of the sayings of the prophet (as the Sunnis do) or the sanctity to the relatives of the prophet ( as the Shiites do) or sanctity to saints ( as the Sufis do). The crucial problem is that the Muslims have embraced the religion with these added sanctities along with it. The predominant religiousness does not allow for argumentations or discussions concerning these sanctities, they are not to be criticized but only approached with adoration and exaltation.  That is precisely what happens when dealing with (Bukhari) and (Shafii) [for the Sunnis], or dealing with (Ga’far E- Ssadiq) or( Mousa El kazim) [for the Shiites], or dealing with (Al Ghazali) and (Sayyid El Badawi) [for the Sufis]. These people were considered infallible by Muslims even though the Quran says that only God and the words of Archangel Gabriel to Mohammad are infallible. This dangerous problem was common practice during the Middle Ages, where religious professionalism prevailed and human activities were wrapped in religion, meaning the commonly prevailing religion falsely attributed to Islam. For that reason wars were religious, ideological persecutions were religious, and all the social dealings had their conditions based on religious opinions. Naturally, the role of professionals such as priests, sheikhs and the rabbis became more magnified and sanctified as well. There were also the learned and well-versed men here and there who were able to gain personal or ideological sanctity. Such was the way in the Middle Ages for the Muslim countries and for the West. At the end, the community would accept certain social religious traditions especially if it served the benefit of a particular party or of a major social element.

 The case of women in Islam:

 Any legislation in the Quran, cannot be biased towards men, because men and women are both the human creation of God. It is only the dominant man during the Middle Ages who controlled the type of religiousness, and who dominated women through this type of religiousness, in other words his dominance prevailed due to that type of religiousness which sets women at a lower level. Women became in need for an interpretation that redeemed their human and social rights, and this is our goal in this paper, to shed the lights on her right to rule an Islamic state. A research paper with such a title that lifts the right of women to the top of political power would undoubtedly raise many questions, especially in our era where the strict Hanbali ideology dominates. It has wrapped women in an all-covering veil (niqab) and has restricted them within the house walls. It has filled their minds with the mythical ideas stemming from the religiousness of the Middle Ages. Our approach intends to elucidate those questions especially that we made it clear from the beginning that there is a difference between the religion, derived from the Quran, and the religiousness, which is the ideology and the practices of the Muslims. This paper clarifies the right of women to rule a Muslim state. First through the Quran, being the source for the religion of Islam and what the prophet Mohammad followed during his life, also  through women’s historical struggle towards political power, and how close they came to achieving it while conforming to the laws of political struggle during the Middle Ages. Looking at the Quranic reality, be it the legislation and the stories in it, and looking at historical reality, whether in the battlefields or within the castles’ walls, the religious opinions that stemmed from ancestral beliefs should be ashamed of itself. These beliefs were only the outcome of social, political and psychological conditions that led to the oppression of the thinkers and opinion bearers. In turn, those oppressed people could only turn against women in order to express their frustration and anger, and the norm is that when men are oppressed in time of tyranny and their ambitions are suppressed, their anger is turned against their women. They will use religion to exercise more power over women, since it is the only power they have left. However, that will be the subject of another research paper.

 Chapter one

The Quran and the right of women to rule an Islamic state:

To start with, we say that Islam is a religion and a state, not to envisage as the fundamentalists nor as the secularists see it. Meaning that it is neither a separation of religion and state nor a theocracy built on the image of the religiousness of the Middle Ages as according to the Sunnis or to the Shiites. We say that the Islamic state is a civil state built on direct democracy whose goal is not to ensure heaven’s gate, because such is a personal issue, rather it’s goal is to ensure justice and to secure equal rights to all citizens, including their freedom of faith and thought. Citizens are also allowed their share in the country’s wealth, in political participation and in social security. The society as a whole would benefit from power and wealth as opposed to only one privileged person or group or a class.

 The difference between an Islamic state and the state as it was in the Middle Ages:

The general notion about women holding political power is characterized by what we inherited from the mode of political power during the middle ages. At that time the Caliph, the sultan or the king had dictatorship over the land and its inhabitants. Thus was the way in the Islamic East or in the Christian West, and it has still somewhat survived until today. If the intellectuals and the thinkers of that time were hardly able to withstand the tyranny of the rulers then how could they ever withstand a woman’s tyranny? Yet, the Islamic state under the Prophet’s reign followed the system of the state council as opposed to the tyrannical ruling known to Muslims since the Umayyads took over. Therefore, we should become familiar with the true political system of an Islamic state as it is stated in the Quran in order to see the possibility for women to hold political power

 Equality between men and women in the Quranic legislation.

 1- In order to understand the Quran and its legislation we must first understand the Quranic terms as they are explained in the Quran and by the Quran itself. The Arabic language, as all other languages, is like a living creature that evolves and changes. As the language evolved with time and place there appeared specialized expressions reserved for the thinkers, the Sufis and the philosophers and even the Quran has its own terms and expressions, this is a subject that needs much explanation, but we will restrict ourselves with what concerns our subject for now

 2-Let us have a quick look at some of the Quranic facts that ensure the equality among men and women.

 (a). When the Quran refers to the spouse does it mean the husband or the wife? (check the word ‘spouse’ in the Quranic reference book —AL MU’GAM AL MUFAHRAS).

(b) The term for parents — (al walidayyn) or (abawakum)- refers to men and women unless the Quranic passage clarifies that it is addressed to men only. When the Quran orders the believers to pray and fast it is known and understood that it is addressing both sexes. Thus, when the Quran speaks of the necessity of a state council, as a major component for the Islamic state, it is speaking to men and women alike.

 The state council in the Islamic state and the role of women in it.

 1-Democracy is only a system in which the people elect representatives to carry on the political tasks, but the state council in the Quran is a religious obligation (it has become extinct) that sets the basis for the family, for the build up of the society and its political and military organizations. This is also a long topic, but will summarize it as such:

 (a). Muslims were ordered to follow the (shura) —state council or mutual consultation- as a religious obligation while they were in Mecca before the formation of the Islamic state. We find descriptions of the Muslims’ community during that period in chapter 42, Al-Shura (verses 36-39). In this passage, as in many others, Muslims were ordered to pray and pay the zakah; this is the only passage where the (shura) is placed between the obligations of prayer and zakah. The intended meaning is that (shura) is an obligation as important as prayer, and since prayer is irreplaceable so is( shura). Thus, it is an obligation for every Muslim, men, women, at home, in the workplace, in the street and in the society, in politics, in economy and all aspects of life

 (b). The Muslims applied the shura system in Mecca then they applied it in Medina. The mosque was the centre for the council, prayer and government, it was the place where all Muslims gathered, men and women, whenever something came up and a shura was needed, a caller would call upon everyone and the shura would take place. The members of the shura were all the men and women enjoying direct democracy and exchanging opinions. In the beginning, the old inhabitants of Medina were unfamiliar with that system so many of them would be absent from those meetings without excuse, others would excuse themselves and leave, and still others would just discreetly leave the meetings. For these particular reasons the verses of chapter Al-Nour (63, 64) were revealed to the prophet forbidding such behavior, stressing its religious obligation and warning against God’s anger with whoever does not abide. It is important to mention that it was a religious obligation for women to pray in mosques. The Quran spoke of the duty of I’tekaaf (retirement, seclusion, and isolation) at the mosque during the nights of Ramadan, and it forbade any physical relations with the spouse during that phase (Al-Baqarah 187). That proves that women shared with men all the duties and the activities even those related to the mosques..

 (c). For the obligation of shura to be applied to the Prophet himself God said [“It is part of the Mercy of Allah that thou dost deal gently with them. Wert thou severe or harsh-hearted, they would have broken away from about thee: so pass over (their faults), and ask for (Allah’s) forgiveness for them; and consult them in the affairs. Then, when thou hast taken a decision, put thy trust in Allah. For Allah loves those who put their trust (in Him),"] (3:159). Meaning that God made you, O Mohammad, lenient and understanding or else they would have walked away from you, and if they had left you, you would not have had a community nor would you have been a leader. It is only because of them that you have power; you get your power from them. Thus, the community is the source of power. Contrary to the beliefs of a theocratic system where they think that, the power comes from God, as in the image of the ‘divine rights of kings’, but you Mohammad, get your political power from them, so forgive them and ask for God’s forgiveness when they wrong you, and consult with them because the issues concern them. When it is time to act upon the consulted decisions then put your trust in God and rely on Him. We find that the Prophet, the one who is divinely inspired, is ordered to commit to a state council, and as a leader, he got his political power from his people. For if such was the case with the Prophet then whoever refuses to abide by these rules is thus setting himself above the prophet, and in that case he would be claiming divinity to himself. The Quran uses the example of the Pharaoh of Moses whose tyranny led him to believe in his own divinity, which in turn led to his downfall. The Quran uses this Pharaoh as an example for other tyrants, but unfortunately, the lesson is not learnt, because the drunkenness of power takes over the mind.

 2-The Quran has created an even balance between shura and ‘Uli Al-Amr’, meaning experts in a specific field, it does not mean ‘rulers’ as it is sometimes explained as such. These experts should be obeyed in the same manner we obey God and his prophet. Thus, we have to obey fairness and justice, because the entire Quranic legislation in its laws and details aims at creating fairness and justice. Whatever the Quran did not mention is therefore, left to the shura, and the experienced experts. Those have to abide by the Quranic principles of facilitation, no intimidation, keeping within the balance in the middle…and keeping fairness and justice. The experts have two duties: to apply the Quranic laws and to create and apply new laws while keeping the Quranic goals mentioned earlier. It is only natural that the experts’ laws along with their applications would change according to changes in social circumstances. Thus following the shura and the experts, laws makes it possible to be in accordance with the Quran in all times and places.

 3- Islamic shura makes the people and not the ruler the centre of power. The ruler is only an employee who acts upon the people’s decisions. If he fulfils his duty then that is what is asked of him, if he fails then he should be removed from office, and if he transgresses then he should be punished, the same as any government employee. Therefore, the ruler can equally be a man or a woman as long as they are qualified to serve the community. Once their serving time is over they become regular citizens who ( eat and walk the markets) just as the prophet and his successors did.

4- The Quranic legislation does not prevent the woman from being the head of the state as long as she is competent and sticking to the shura system that keeps the power in the community’s hands. But, if the community is weak and it allows the ruler to hold the power to himself and to his army, to regard the community as though it was a group of cattle that he owns and exploits, slaughter whomever he chooses; that would be the system of the shepherd and the herd that was applied in the Middle Ages and the same logic from which came the decree that the ruler has the right to sacrifice one third of the community for the sake of the other two thirds!!

 The state’s presidency and the guardianship of men:

We face two objections that we need to address;

1-It is said that, the Quranic legislation allows the man to be the guardian in a marriage. So could it be that a woman could become a president? We also say that a marriage is a contract that allows women to have divorce rights, and the guardianship of the man is meant in terms of financial responsibility towards the wife (Al-Nisa:34),but if he fails to do so then he has no guardianship over her.

2-Ironically, whoever objects to “our” guardianship explanation, would thus be imagining the president as a tyrant, and we have already seen that the image of the ruler in the Islamic state is the exact opposite, that it is the community which is the guardian over the ruler, it is the community, which pays the ruler’s salary for serving it according to a clear contract. In that case, we can say that women may even be more qualified to obey and serve the powerful community.

 The state’s presidency:

It is said that, the Quranic legislation renders a woman’s testimony worth half a man’s testimony, also her share of inheritance is half the man’s. So how can this view agree with the image of her as a president?

 1-The fact that the testimony of two women is worth the testimony of one man, is limited only to the testimony in financial debts (Al-Baqara:282). That goes back to the custom, in accordance with the Quran as well, that two witnesses in the market would be as good as an official stamp, and since those business deals were mostly done among men, and they still are, it became a man’s issue and the role of women was minimal. However this half share of testimony does not apply to her testimony regarding any other case, be it a punishment case or any other her testimony is equal to the man’s.

 2-In the case of inheritance a woman gets half of what the man gets, if she is a daughter or a sister she inherits the father or the mother or the brother or the sister. Here the man, if he is the son or the brother, he has more financial responsibilities than his sister has. He is the one who pays the dowry and supports the family. As for the daughter or the sister, she is free of these responsibilities. It would be unfair that they get equal shares if their responsibilities are not the same; it follows that when the parents inherit a son they equally receive a sixth or a third. Thus it is a distribution of roles and responsibilities without neither belittling the woman nor making her second grade. Suffice it to say that God does not differentiate between men and women in reward nor in punishment (Al-Umran :195, Al-Nisa :124, Ghafer :40).

 Is the Islamic shura an idealistic legislation:

 We come to another objection, it may be said that the Islamic system of shura as it appeared in the Quran is closer to an imaginary utopia because when practically applied it barely existed in history, but what historically prevailed was tyranny, male dominance and the oppression of women. To that we say it is true, because the Islamic state that have applied the shura was only during the Prophet’s, Abu-Bakr’s, Omar’s, the early years of Othman’s  and during Ali’s reign. After that, the shura system was abandoned and was replaced by tyranny, starting with the Umayyads, the Abbasid, the Mamluks, and the Ottomans…The fact remains that the system is applicable and it was applied when the world knew nothing but empires and tyrants. The system appeared in an era that refused it and yet it succeeded. The growing Islamic state was fighting two empires at the same time; the Persian Empire and the Byzantine Empire. It defeated one and sent the other one back home to Constantinople. The Islamic state expanded from Asia Minor to Syria, Egypt and North Africa. History has no parallel for such a massive expansion in such a short time. That encouraged the Umayyads later on to expand from China and India in the east to the South of France making the Mediterranean an Arabic Islamic lake. The reason for such victory goes back to the strength of the people. The Caliph Omar would be told "By God if we find any dishonesty in you we would attack you with our swords." Those people practiced the art of power through shura. Men and women shared this power equally. For the women were partakers in the migration from Mecca to Medina. They had pledged their allegiance to the Prophet as mentioned in the Quran (Al-Mumtahina 10:12). In addition, how can women migrate from Mecca to Medina leaving their parents and maybe their husbands in order to follow the true religion of God? It was possible because they had strong characters. They used to deal with the prophet directly bearing responsibilities for themselves, without the help of a husband or a guardian. We would like to compare here the difference between the position of women during the time of the Prophet and her position in the backward era where the law forbids her from travelling unless accompanied by her husband or a legal guardian, and this law is still operational until today in some countries. The application of legislative statements, whether the latter come from God or from humans, depends on man’s capability to apply them, the Quranic verses aim to build a strong humanitarian character but within the possible limits and nothing extraordinary. The Quranic recipe succeeded in developing the Arabs of the desert into a strong state that proved itself in the history of the Middle Ages, the ages of political tyranny. If it succeeded at that time, then the present is even better fitted for it; We are in the age of human rights and the revolutionary ease of communication which would allow for direct democracy, yet we are facing a major problem. Starting with the Umayyads to the Abbasids, political tyranny was a natural reaction to what the Middle Ages faced. It was a common practice to shelter crimes under the name of religion, so to secure any political or social practice it would relate it to the Prophet of Islam in the shape of a fabricated saying (Hadith) or story. At the same time the state councils that took place in the cities, in which Muslims were taught methods of arguments and discussion, adapted completely to teaching what would serve the politicians. The Friday sermons of the Prophet were completely ignored, and all that was taught was fake sayings and stories that legalized the ideologies of the Middle Ages among which was the oppression of women. It is truly a major problem…all this holy tradition….but how easy it is to lift up the notion of holiness by remembering that these were people liable to error. They made an effort for their time, and it is for us to make an effort for our time, and if we do not do so, then we would be sanctifying them, and that would contradict the Islamic doctrine of the oneness of God… so with the Quran, the problem and its danger ends. However the problems do not end, we have this last objection:

 The position of Quranic legislation as regarding dictatorial political systems.

 When the Quranic legislation speaks of the shura, it speaks of one particular system, but what does it say about the majority of tyrannical systems? Does the Quran acknowledge it or is it considered unlawful and must be changed?… That is where the issue of women comes in. We say that the reality of human existence in this world is but a divine test for humans, this test rests on the humans’ freedom of choice. Humans choose to follow the guided path or they get lost from it, and that is the beginning. Next, comes the will of God to confirm humans’ choice. Therefore, if they choose guidance, Gods increases their faith, and if they remain lost, then increases their feeling of loss. That is confirmed in the Quran (Al-Baqara :10, Muhammad :17, Mariam :76, Al-Ankabut :69). Then judgment comes at the end for what humans chose by their own free will, the same way this applies to the choice of religions, it applies to the political choices. If a ruler is a tyrant, who knows no justice but the people accept and fear him, God will accept him as a ruler as long as the people accept him as such. The Quran supports that by acknowledging unfair kings who claimed divinity, as in the story of Abraham and the king who claimed the power of resurrection (Al-Baqara :258) and in the story of Moses and also in the story of the pious believer with the king who seized boats by force (Al-Kahf :79), also the Pharaoh and others. Thus, as long as his people accept the tyrant, he remains their king, and when his day of judgment arrives, God will judge him for the wrong that he has done. If the people rebel against their tyrant, God gives them the right to do so. Change by use of ‘iron’ which God has sent "in which is (material for) mighty war as well as many benefits for mankind"(Al-Hadid :25). However this rebellious change only comes after  self-change takes place, especially after a people has been used to accepting to bending their heads to tyranny. It is a very difficult change but if a community succeeds in changing itself from submission to power, God’s will encourages it. God says "Verily never will Allah change the condition of a people until they change it themselves (with their souls)" (Al-Ra’d :11). If such awareness takes place among certain people, the lion-like ruler would become nothing but a lion made of paper or a corps that the winds may blow away, after that the people will rule themselves while the ruler becomes only a symbol that manages the people, that symbol could be a man or a woman. Have we forgotten our subject concerning women? No, we have been looking at the legislation in the Quran but let us stop and look at the stories in the Quran concerning the dictatorial leadership of women as in the story of the Queen of Sheba. The Quran does not object to the fact that a woman was ruling. She was provided with every requisite and had a great throne,but the objection was that she and her people worshiped the sun. For that reason king Solomon sent her a message inviting her to embrace Islam. He directed the message to her because she represented her people. That also shows that her reign was considered lawful. From the descriptions in the Quran, she was well revered by her chiefs as she was asking their advice in the matter of this message. They were all waiting for her decision believing in her and telling her that they would obey any decision she takes. She was wise enough not to answer to Solomon’s letter by raging war or by making it a personal matter but she thought of the well being of her people and how they would suffer from such a war. She was wise to say, "If kings enter a town they spoil it and humiliate the most respected ones in it." True because lands have only been spoiled but by tyrant mindless rulers that we still see around us. They would bow to stronger powers and oppress their own people. The Queen of Sheba proved her intelligence by sending Solomon a present just to buy herself more time to decide what to do. At the end she proves more intelligent when she embraced Islam and saved herself and her people in this life and in the hereafter and she said "O my Lord I have indeed wronged my soul: I do (now) submit (in Islam), with Solomon, to the Lord of the Worlds" (Al-Naml :44). In the Quranic stories, we find two major examples of tyrant rulers; one is a man that is Pharaoh and the other is a woman that is the Queen of Sheba, even though the story of Pharaoh was repeated several times, the story of the Queen of Sheba is only mentioned once. Similarities between Pharaoh and the Queen of Sheba They were both tyrant who enjoyed total power. We have already said that shura is the art of mastering power, so if the people enjoy the power the ruler becomes a hired person who performs their wishes. However, if the ruler takes all the power and the wealth to himself, he becomes a tyrant who only consults himself and his followers who are hypocrites and only want to please him and his ego. When the Pharaoh had total control over Egypt wealth and army he made a clear statement saying "O my people! Does not the dominion of Egypt belong to me, (witness) these streams flowing underneath me, what see ye not then?" (Al-Zukhruf :51). The pharaohic history confirms that the pharaohs had complete power over politics, wealth and military forces especially after they controlled the feudal lords along the riverbanks. They established a central power that would not function without the orders of the "president"!! Similarly, the Queen of Sheba was the autocratic holder of wealth and power. In the Quran, it says, "I found (there) a woman ruling over them, provided with every requisite; and she has a magnificent throne." (Al-Naml :23). Her chiefs confirmed her autonomous power by saying "we are endued with strength, and given to vehement war: but the command is with thee; so consider what thou wilt command." (Al-Naml :33) God considers Pharaoh to be representing the Egyptians just as the Queen of Sheba was representing her people. The Pharaoh was sent two prophets from God, Moses and his brother Aaron, they were asked to "speak to him mildly; perchance he may take warning or fear (Allah)" (Taha :44) And in a similar way the Queen of Sheba was sent a message from the prophet Solomon since she represented her people. Although there are great similarities between these two rulers, yet their reactions were completely different, and so were the destinies of their people. Moses and Aaron’s main mission was to deliver the people of Israel from the Pharaohic persecution and to take Pharaoh’s permission to lead them out of Egypt. They were ordered to say, "Verily we are messengers sent by thy Lord; send forth, therefore, the Children of Israel with us, and afflict them not."(Taha :47) God had asked his prophet to ask in a gentle and peaceful fashion as they said "with a sign, indeed, have we come from thy Lord! And peace to all who follow guidance!" (Taha :47). Moses was endowed with miracles to convince Pharaoh that he was a true prophet. Pharaoh was perfectly capable of granting Moses’ wish and allowing the Hebrews whom he hated to leave. He had nothing to fear. On the one hand, his army was far too great to consider the Israelites a threat, and on the other hand, the persecution had weakened the Israelites to the extent that it took them after that forty years to gather to build up strength in order to enter Palestine. Pharaoh’s pride got in the way and he refused to let those weakened people go with the two prophets. As a result, Pharaoh and his army drowned in the sea, sent to punishment until judgment day. The reason for that, was the tyranny that leads rulers to assume divinity, as he said "I but point out to you that which I see (myself); Nor do I guide you but to the path of right" (Ghafer :29). And because of that tyranny the destruction reached Pharaoh’s historical signature "And we leveled to the ground the Great Works and fine buildings which pharaoh and his people erected (with such pride). We took the Children of Israel (with safety) across the sea."(Al-A’raf :137,138).In the Queen of Sheba’s situation , prophet Solomon was different, for Solomon was a prophet king appointed by God, and from this position he sent her a message inviting her to embrace Islam- and Islam, in its universal meaning is devoting your heart and soul to God and living in peace with others, and this is the meaning in all God’s messages- and Solomon’s message to the queen could have hurt her pride, but when she read the message she turned to her chiefs saying " Ye chiefs! Here is delivered to me a letter worthy of respect. It is from Solomon, and it is (as follows) : ‘In the name of Allah, Most Gracious Most Merciful: Be ye not arrogant against me, but come to me in submission (to the true religion).’ " (Al-Naml :30,31) So even though she has full authority, she discussed the matter openly with her chiefs and read the message to them and described it as ‘a letter worthy of respect.’ That was a clear sign from her so that they would not respond negatively and vote for retaliation; with the same calm politics, she was able to reach a successful conclusion while Pharaoh and his people were resting at the bottom of the sea with their illusory politics. Here is the difference between a tyrant man and a tyrant woman. There is no doubt that a tyrant woman has less animosity and belligerence than a tyrant man does.

 Chapter two:

Islamic heritage and the right of women to rule an Islamic state

 Quranic legislation is what should be done, and the Quranic stories are descriptions of what happened in history with the stress on the moral of the stories. That is what concerns the Quran as far as legislation and stories. We have presented the right of women to rule as far as legislation is concerned (which is what should be), and we know that the Islamic state council, the shura, puts the power in the hands of the people and it makes the ruler an employee for the people.

The ruler could equally be a man or a woman as long as they are qualified and as long as the people are the real power holders, as it was illustrated in the Quranic stories. Pharaoh‘s tyranny led him to hunt two prophets along with their people until he died drowning, so he became an example for acting against God’s will. As for the Queen of Sheba who was also a tyrant but due to her feminine nature she consulted others, feared for her people, acted in a delicate way, and thus saved her people. This is what we learn from the Quranic legislation and stories. Turning to Islamic heritage with its own stories and its jurisprudence, we find that it has two sides; the jurists’ side, which is how they wanted it to be, and the realistic side, which is what history, recorded. It seems that the realistic side was the true influence on the jurists’ views. They were influenced by the circumstances of the age they lived in where the sultans dominated. And they dealt with it in total passiveness and submission. That reflected on their legal and personal opinions. If the jurist were a legislator, he would protect his legislation by relating it to a prophetic saying (a Hadith). Even though it was about two hundred years after the Prophet’s death, the jurist would prove the authenticity of the saying by listing the chain of people who passed it on going all the way to the Prophet’s companions until the Prophet’s mouth. The jurist in that era did not face any criticism or argument. No one would ask him to prove that the people mentioned in the chain, who had already been dead for years, did indeed tell these stories or those sayings. The chain of narrators does not fit with the Quran nor any scientific method of proof. For that reason, we deal with it as thoughts or a culture of its own time. Therefore, the Islamic heritage concerning history, stories about the Prophet and legislation is considered relative facts liable to mistake, truth and argumentation. These differ from the Quranic facts that are absolute truth. Thus we have total freedom to deal and argue with the stories and the legal opinions of the Islamic heritage. At the end, what we say is also liable to mistake, truth and argumentation. This is the real religious effort that Muslims need to do to exit their retarded civilization, which has lasted for too long. There are two ways that can lead women to political power, the same applies to men too. Either by participating in forming the state, through revolution, migration, war and struggle, or by inheriting the power. This is what happened in the history of women in and out of the Islamic state. Women were able to dominate the ruler himself through their feminine talents. Ironically, most of those who were able to reach political domination were slaves meant to please the Caliph (the king), they were of a lesser status then the free aristocratic wives, but they used their mental and feminine talents to hold all the political threads and to gain control. They used the tools of that age, its culture and its political methods to reach the top and to keep it. As it happened with men, those women also faced rising and falling, strength and humiliation.  When they fell, their punishment did not consider their femininity and delicacy. Such is the game of politics; there is no mercy for the defeated in the political culture of the Middle Ages. Let us look at the chronological order of the struggle of women to reach state presidency, as it is related in the Heritage, until it was accomplished in 1250 (648 (Hijra)) with (Shajarat Addur). As we concluded the previous chapter by comparing Pharaoh to Queen of Sheba, we shall conclude this chapter with a comparison between (Shajarat Addur) and the last Abbasid Caliph in Bagdad who had the misfortune to object to (Shajarat Addur’s) seat of power.

 1: Women’s struggle to establish a state:

 Normally the motion of human history on this planet is accomplished with two feet, one is the man’s and the other is the woman’s, but men took over the recording of history and women were thus hidden between the lines. Then the male jurist came who directed his anger and frustration against women and restricted them within the walls of a house. That made it more difficult for the historian to illustrate the role of women in history whether inside the royal home or outside in the battlefields or in the arena of revolution. In such a concise paper, we will content ourselves with a quick view over the escalating efforts done by women struggling to establish a state until they reached the power as a Sultana or a state ruler. In the Quran, we saw how the shura sets the power in the hands of the people men and women alike, and from there the ruler can be either a man or a woman. The Quran spoke about women who migrated with the Prophet and how they pledged their allegiance to him when they were seeking asylum in Medina. The written history of the Prophet confirms that, and some of these stories tell about the woman who preceded her father in faith as( Um Habiba) who preceded her father (Abu Sufyan) in embracing Islam. Also the sister of (Omar Ibn Al-Khattab) who converted before him and was tortured by him along with her husband (Sai’d Ben Zaid), and (Hawa’ Bint Yazid) the Medina inhabitant who converted before her husband (Aba Yazid), and (Um Selim Bint Melhan), the wife of (Malik Bin El-Neddr), the father of the companion (Anes Bin Hanbal). (Um Kalthoum Bint Uqbah Bin Ma’it) migrated as a young girl from Mecca to Medina, after the Prophet’s treaty of Hudaybiya, leaving her family behind. Her two brothers, (Al Walid and Emara), came to take her away but she refused. Some of these migrant women went to Ethiopia first before going to Medina, as mentioned in the writings of (Ibn Hesham). Imam Zahry said: "We do not know of any migrant women that rejected their faith after having converted." After migration, women had to pledged their allegiance to Muhammad as a Prophet and as a ruler, and to abide by his laws, the same way that men had to. Before the Prophet migrated himself, he made a deal with the people of Medina to host two groups of migrants from Mecca. The second group consisted of seventy-three men and two women (Um Emara) and (Asma’ Bent Omar). Women participated in establishing the state and in defending it. (Al Rabi’ Bint Mo’awiz) said: "We used to go on military expedition with the Prophet so we quenched their thirst, provided them with service, treated the wounded and returned the dead to Medina. " And women would also participate in attending the state council meetings at the mosque. We also have the saying of ( Fatma Bint Quays):" When my menstrual period passed I heard the call of prayer so I rushed to the mosque and prayed with the prophet of God. I stood in the row of women that is just behind the men’s."

1- Those are but little signs of the interaction of women with men in establishing the Islamic state during the age of the Prophet. The Umayyads transformed this civil state into an inherited power for their own benefit, which led the Muslims into civil wars. Aisha(The Prophet’s wife) was the one who led the first civil war known as the war of( Al Jamal). Aisha opposed the Caliph Othman Bin Affan, after he fell under the influence of his relatives the Umayyads. Her opposition supported by others led to a rebellion against him and finally to his death. After that, Ali took over and Aisha was still not pleased, so she led an armed attack against Ali known as the war of (Al Jamal). This bloody and sad story shows how involved Aisha was in political matters to the extent that she forgot that the Prophet’s women were exclusively ordered to remain in there homes. However, the women’s participation in political affairs was so natural that it was no surprise to have Aisha leads an army against a legal successor. The Umayyads benefited from all these wars though it was not easy to uproot what the Muslims were used to in the state council and its justice. Therefore, it cost Muslims hundreds of thousands of lives for the Umayyads to enjoy their new power. It then cost Muslims twice as much lives for the Umayyads to unify their state. They committed three great violations in order to ensure the first Caliph assign his son (Yazid Ben Mu’awiyah), his inherited throne. First, they killed Al Hussein, the grandson of the Prophet, and his family in Karbala, and then they attacked and plundered Al-Medina when its people rebelled against them. Then they had Mecca under siege and violated the sanctity of the Kaaba. Among those against the Umayyads were the Shiites in Iraq, the Copts in Egypt, and the Khawarej from the Arabs. Women participated in these revolutions even with the Khawarej. The latter are Arab nomads who do not consider women as worthy, which was typical of nomadic ideology. However, the arrival of Islam changed the face of women’s lives in the lands of Arabia. There appeared amazing examples of warfare participation that historians neglected to mention most of them and were just content to include general statements such as ‘The Khawarej women participated in wars and revolutions.’ This history was recorded way after it occurred and after it was orally transmitted. Only the form of poetry glorified it. For example, the poems about (Ghazalah the wife of Shabib Al Khariji), who revolted against the state of the Umayyads. Shabib had killed five of the chiefs of the Umayyads governor (Al Hajjaj Bin Yusuf). Then Shabib went to Kufa with his wife who had vowed to go to the mosque of Kufa and read the two longest chapters of the Quran. They arrived in Kufa accompanied by seventy men, when (Al Hajjaj) learned about it, he fled to his fortress and surrounded it with security. The poet (Al Kamel) ridiculed (Al Hajjaj) saying: A great lion but in warfare an ostrich, Running away from the smallest bird. Have you come out to look at (Ghazalah) in battle? or was your heart fleeing under a bird’s wing? She was described by historians as being of the highest ranks of chivalry and courage, that she fought in wars with her sword and her horse, when (Al Hjjaj) failed to face (Shabib) and his wife, he sent the Umayyad Caliph (Abd El Malik Bin Marawan) for  an army led by( Sufyan Bin Al Azd) to defeat (Shabib). The latter had withdrawn from the battlefield once his wife (Ghazaleh) and his mother (Jahiza), also a great fighter, had both been killed. As (Shabib) was leaving, he crossed the Dijla river and drowned.

2- The war fighting wife is the ultimate example of how interactive women were in that period whether for or against Islam, in all cases, Islam is what motivated them. It brought them out of the passive aristocracy they enjoyed in Quraish, when they embraced Islam, they got the enthusiasm to amend for the way they struggled against it. Let us look at the scattered pieces of information found between the lines of recorded history about (Um Hakim). Um Hakim appeared in Mecca during the time of the Prophet. Her uncle was (Abu Jahl -Abu Al Hakim Bin Hisham) who led (Beni Makhzoum) and Quraish in a war against the Prophet and his companions. (Um Hakim) was married to her cousin (Ikrima Bin Abu Jahl), she followed  the example of her family against Islam. Since then the Muslims were forced to migrate to Medina, and when the first war of Badr took place (Abu Jahl) led the forces of the unbelievers. He died and they lost the war. (Ikrima) and his wife (Um Hakim )began playing a major role of leadership along the sides of (Abu Sufyan) and his wife (Hind) in the next war of Uhud. Those were all avenging for the ones they lost during the previous war of Badr. The People of Quraish won the war and returned victorious to Mecca. (Ikrima) continued to lead with (Abu Sufyan) in the next war of Al Khandaq. When Quraish was forced to sign the peace treaty of Al Hudaybiya (Ikrima) was not very pleased to sign it. He purposely broke the agreement, which resulted in a raid by the Prophet against Quraish. While (Abu Sufyan) surrendered, (Ikrima) and his friend (Al Mabtur Safwan Bin Omayya) along with others decided to resist the attackers in the battle of Al Khandaq. The counter attack was of a suicidal nature.( Safwan and Ikrima) had no choice but to run away. One of the escapees told his wife; If you had witnessed the day of Al Khandaq, as (Safwan and Ikrima) ran away. (Ikrima) escaped from Mecca when Quraish surrendered and his wife (Um Hakim) converted to Islam. She pleaded with the Prophet to forgive her husband. He accepted and told her that he could come back to his family in peace and remain in his faith if he wished, which was the case with (Safwan Bin Omayya). But ( Ikrima) had fled to Yemen hoping to cross to Ethiopia from there. His wife decided to travel to him to tell him of the good news. She took with her one of her slaves who tried to rape her on the way, but she was able to defend herself and kill him. By that time, (Ikrima) had reached the sea and tried to board a ship, but the ship owner refused to let him embark telling him: "O servant of God do not embark on my ship until you believe in God alone. I fear to let you on it lest it would sink."( Ikrima) tried to bargain with him but the man said: "Only believers board my ship."( Ikrima) thought to himself ‘why then should I leave my people and my country if this is the same that Mohammad is asking for?’ thus he converted. Then his wife found him and they both returned to Mecca. He became a new person. The devotion with which they both had been fighting Islam was replaced by a strong zeal for Islam and the Prophet, their past seemed to be a burden that they felt they had to continuously amend for. (Ikrima) and his wife were at the head of the Muslims army sent by (Abu Bakr) against (Musaylima Al Kazzab) in (Al Yamama -Nagd),and after the victory of the war of Reddah, (Abu Bakr) sent him with (Khalid Bin Said Bin Al ‘As) to conquer Syria in the 13th (Hijra) year. Even though (Khalid) was not a competent warrior as (Ikrima) was, still (Abu Bakr) could not seem to fully trust (Ikrima), the son of (Abu Jahl), to lead the army on his own. (Khalid) was defeated due to his hastiness and fled in front of the walls of Damascus. Yet, (Ikrima) remained behind to defend his army with his wife, (Um Hakim), by his side fighting the Romans like a man. Throughout the battle, (Ikrima) was reciting praises of his beautiful wife who was firmly holding on to her sword. (Ikrima) then became known for his heroism and he led one of the four armies that united to face the Romans in a crucial battle. For that reason, (Abu Bakr) ordered the leader of Muslims in Iraq, (Khalid Ibn Al Waleed), to leave his army in charge of his viceroy and to get to Syria as fast as possible to strengthen the armies of the Muslims facing the Romans. He made it in a record time and just before it was too late. He united and reorganized the armies and distributed the leadership over consecutive days. He was to be in command in day one, but (Ikrima) and (Al Qa’qa’) were to

head the leading army. (Ikrima’s) wife (Um Hakim) was by his side making history. The great historian (Ibn Esshaq) mentioned that (Um Hakim) fought with her husband accompanied by other women from Quraish who fought "until they outran the men"!! In the midst of the blazing war, (Ikrima) was shouting to the Romans: "I fought against the Prophet of God in all places so how would I flee from you now". And when he saw his army weakening because of the outnumbering of the Romans, he yelled: “who would join me in a deadly deed?" So the bravest knights united with him. Among them was (Amr and his brother Al Harith Bin Hashim) and (Derar Bin Al Azwar) and four hundred others. They threw themselves in a suicidal attack on the Romans, which shook the Roman army and cost the lives of many Muslims. (Ikrima) and his son (Omar), went to (Khalid Ibn Al Waleed) bleeding to death. He put their heads on his lap and went on pouring water to clean their wounds, so (Ikrima) opened his eyes and said: " They claimed that we would not die martyrs but God tested us." and upon these words he died and so did his son. (Um Hakim) watched as her husband and son died in the decisive battle of (Al Yarmuk). Many battles followed after that aiming to clear Syria from the remaining Romans, and (Um Hakim) participated in all of them, after her required period of mourning was over, two of the Muslim chiefs proposed to marry her: (Yazid Bin Abu Sofyan) and (khalid Bin Said Bin Al ‘As). She accepted to marry the latter that paid her a dowry of four hundred dinars. She told him that she would marry him once the conquests are completed. However, just before the important battle of (Marj Al Safra’) he told her: "My soul is telling me that I will be hit in this battle." So, she yielded to him and accepted to have the wedding. (Khalid) prepared a great feast inviting his friends and the knights of the army. The Roman army had learned about it and surprised them with an attack. (Khalid) came running out of his tent dressing up as a group of roman soldiers gathered around him and killed him. (Um Hakim) hurried while still dressing and used a tent pole to fight the soldiers and killed seven of them. It turned into a bloody battle that ended with the extermination of the Romans in ( Marj Al Safra’). (Um Hakim) returned with wounded arms and a dead husband. She entered another period of mourning all spent in the Syrian wars. Once the war was victoriously over, she returned home preceded by her reputation and she married the Caliph (Omar Bin Al Khattab). Although this woman made history she was only mentioned between the lines.

 3-Women ruling from behind the curtain: It was not possible for women to rule from behind the curtain during the Umayyad period. The fast growing empire reached Syria in the north, China and India in the east and the frontiers of France in the west and along the European borders of the Mediterranean Sea. However, the political influence of women appeared during the Abbasid period, in which the empire was less in area than in the Umayyad period. The pace of this empire was much slower than in the previous one, which allowed women to get politically involved even if they belonged to the class of concubine slaves, and most of them were concubine slaves. Furthermore, most of the Abbasid caliphs were sons of concubine slaves, and most of them were descendants of (Al Khayzaran), mother of (Haroun Al Rasheed), who is the father of all the Abbasid caliphs that succeeded him. There is an anonymous woman who played an essential role in establishing the Abbasid state, she had her influence when the state was finally established, yet the style of history recording of the Abbasid period intimidated the historians who were content with just alluding to her in between the lines. Especially that her husband was (Abu Al Abbas Al Safah) the founder of the Abbasid dynasty. The historian (Al Mas’udi) ,who lived during the Abbasid period, was partially able to free himself from fear and to refer to the wife of the caliph (Abu Al Abbas Al Safah) in his book [MOUROUG AL ZAHAB]. She was the mother of (Salma Bint Yacoub Al Makhzoumiya) who married (Abd El Aziz) son of the Umayyad caliph (Al Walid Bin Abd Al Melik),and when he died she married the caliph (Hisham Bin Abd Al Melik). Then after he died, she inherited  a great wealth and remained single. At that time, she met (Abu Al Abbas), who was young and handsome, and she wished to marry him and they did. He was a poor but ambitious man leading with his brother a secret mission to overthrow the Umayyad dynasty. She financially supported him until the mission was accomplished and the Abbasid power was established. She had made him promise not to take other wives nor concubines slaves. Once he became the all powerful caliph, Al Mas’udi says : " she dominated him so that he would not take a decision without consulting with her and being influenced by her, and he would not approach any other woman but her, neither a free nor a slave."

4- Thus the brutal caliph, who eradicated the Umayyad, wiped out the country and killed God’s servants, would be transformed into a domestic cat between the hands of his wife (Um Salma). (Al Khayzaran) was the mother of the Abbasid successors since the period of the caliph (Al Mahdi) the third Abbasid caliph until the extinction of the Abbasid dynasty in Cairo with the Ottoman’s conquest of Egypt in 1517. She married the caliph (Al Mahdi) son of the caliph (Abu Ja’fer Al Mansour), and gave birth to (Al Hadi) then (Al Rasheed), who both became successors to the throne, and from the offspring of (Haroun Al Rasheed) came all the Abbasid caliphs. Thus, she is the mother of the Abbasid caliphs. She had great influence on the Abbasid succession. At that time, the empire was at its prime, and in order to preserve it as such, she did not refrain from killing her son, the caliph (Al Hadi). (Al Khayzaran) first arrived to the palace of the heir to the throne (Al Mahdi) son of the caliph ( Mansour). It was the custom that the female slaves would go from one master to another, from the time she was kidnapped from her parents by a gang until she was handed to slave traders. During this period, the slave learns the art of seduction, also acquires the knowledge of jurisprudence, literature, poetry, philosophy, wisdom, and the arts of singing, dancing and playing instruments. Added to this, is all the knowledge she acquires about life and the society form its lowest to its highest class. So if she reaches the palaces through sale, she would have fully developed her mental, personal and seductive capabilities. That was the case of (Al Khayrazan) when she entered the palace of prince (Al Mahdi),as he was customarily checking the slave offered  for sale, he said :"By God O slave, you are most desired, but your legs are rough", she replied saying about her legs :"O prince, when you are in great need of them you will not see them." Upon hearing those words, the prince decided to buy her and made her one of his concubines, even though he had married several other free women, (Al Khayzran) was able to sway him to marry her and thus end her status as slave. Through her influence, her children were favored among others to become the only heirs to the throne. Those were (Al Hadi) followed by (Al Rasheed). (Al Hadi) was not pleased with his mother’s political influence nor with the way envoys after envoys of people with demands rushed to her. (Al Khayzaran) realized she and her son had different approaches and she feared for herself once he becomes in control. For that reason, she was able to convince her husband to let her younger son, (Al Rasheed), inherit the throne first, and in Muharram 169 (Hijra), as the caliph insisted on having his wife’s wish realized, his son (Al Hadi) refused to vacate his seat to his younger brother, and he went against his father. The situation developed in an obscure way resulting in the death of the caliph and (Al Hadi) taking over, so the conflict began between him and his mother, (Al Khayzaran). (Al Hadi) was a strongly built young energetic man, quite jealous and severely firm. He made a deal with his mother allowing her four more months in office, according to Al Tabari. But he soon after began to criticize her saying :" Women are not allowed to oppose their king, it is enough for you to stick to prayer and praise of the Lord." As the envoys continued coming to her, she asked her son for a favor for (Abd Allah Bin Malik),but (Al Hadi) refused saying :" By God I would not do it for him." She answered:" and by God I would not ask you for anything again." He replied that it did not matter to him. She angrily got up to leave but he stopped her saying that he would not allow anyone to knock at her door for help again, that those would either be beaten or arrested. He ordered her to stay home and read the Quran. That was the end of (Al Khayzaran’s) influence during the reign of her son (Al Hadi). (Al Hadi) started planning to cut his brother’s right to the throne so that his son (Ga’far Bin Al Hadi) could be his successor. (Al Khayzaran) feared for her son (Al Rasheed) who was her only remaining hope to regain her political influence. She became convinced that (Al Hadi) was determined to kill her and his brother; He sent her a poisoned grilled duck that she was about to eat if her loyal slave had not warned her. They got a dog to eat it and he died instantly. After that, (Al Khayzaran) heard of a conspiracy against her son (Al Rashid). so she ordered some female-slaves to kill her son (Al Hadi)by suffocating him. She sent after (Yehya Bin Khalid Al Bermeki) to ratify the succession ceremony the same night that (Al Hadi) was killed.  During the reign of (Al Rasheed), and according to the historian (At Tabari), she, (Al Khayzaran) with the help of (Yehya Bin Khalid Al Bermeki) used to handle day to day affairs. She continued thus until she died in 173 (Hijra) year. (At Tabari) tells that during her funeral, her son (Al Rasheed) walked barefoot and crying.

5- Moving from (Al Khayrazan) to( Qabiha), the mother of the caliph (Al mo’taz Al Abbasi). During the reign of the latter, (Al Khayzaran) was the main supervisor using (Yehia Bin Qabiha) was the prettiest slave of the caliph (Al Motawakel Al Abbasi), who was so infatuated with her that he could not stay away from her. And she became even more important to him when she bore him a son, (Al Mo’taz) known in this period as (Bin Qabiha). The boy was so brilliant that his father, under the mother’s influence, wanted to make him the heir before his older brother (Al Muntasser). Which off course worsened the relationship between the two, and which encouraged (Al Muntasser) to conspire with the Turkish leaders and kill his father (Al Mutawakel),and since then, the swords of the Turks found their ways to the necks of the Abbasid caliphs. One of the victims was (Al Montasser) himself, then ( Al Musta’in) then (Al Mo’taz) and his mother (Qabiha). However, (Qabiha) was able to enjoy political power when her son (Al Mo’taz) ruled. However, her inept politics lead to the downfall of her son and to her humiliation. She went from being a concubine to a humiliated person before the Turkish leaders. Yet, during that period, she enjoyed being in the glory of the Abbasid rule during the reign of her husband (Al Mutwakel). Then she was probably responsible for the loss of such a great power. The historians spoke of (Al Mutawakel’s) infatuation with his wife (Qabiha) and the extravagant feast he made when her son (Al Mo’taz) completed his learning of the Quran. They said that (Al Mo’taz) became caliph at the age of nineteen in the year 251 (Hijra), that he was younger than the legal heir, that he was one of the richest caliphs and the most dominated by his mother. She had used the Turkish leaders to get rid of the previous caliph, (Al Musta’in), whom she had kept away from power. Then she planned for her son to get rid of his opponents among the Abbasid princes. She also made use of the conflicts between the Turks to exercise her power over them. She had gathered all the money and the jewelry and hid them in a secret place. There was great competition between the Turks and the Moroccan soldiers and the Sharkasi soldiers. She instigated the Moroccans against the Turks. In turn, the Turks accused the Moroccans of killing the caliph alienating them, which created trouble between the two groups ending with killing of the Moroccan leaders. She tried another trick when she convinced her son to withhold the salaries of his soldiers. At that time, she owned one million dinars in the year 252 (Hijra) which equals two years of the state’s income. Her wish came true when the soldiers revolted against (Wasif) the Turkish army chief and they killed him in the year 253 (Hijra) because of their delayed salaries. And so (Qabiha) and her son were relieved from( Wasif’s) power. The caliph (Al Mo’taz) gave (Wasif’s) position to his friend (Bagha) to create animosity between him and (Saleh) the son of (Wasif). At the same time( Qabiha) wanted to try the same trick again with (Bagha) by withholding the soldiers salaries to make them revolt against him,but (Bagha) understood the trick He took the opportunity of the caliph’s absence to attack (Qabiha’s) hidden treasures and mounted them on twenty mules, but the caliph’s soldiers were on guard because it was all an ambush for (Bagha) and so they killed him. The caliph ordered the burning of (Bagha’s) body and the arrest of his followers in the year 254 (Hijra). The only opponent remaining for (Al Mo’taz) and( Qabiha) was (Saleh Bin Wasif) the chief of the Turkish soldiers. (Qabiha) made a plan to destroy (Saleh Bin Wasif); She sent for (Moussa Bin Bagha) to come to Baghdad to take over his father’s position and at the same time she agreed with the vizier (Ahmed Bin Israel) not to give (Saleh Bin Wasif) the money he needs to pay the soldiers’ salaries hoping they would revolt against him and kill him,but (Saleh Bin Wasif) understood the plan and he attacked with his soldiers the caliph and his vizier so that the soldiers may be witnesses to whom is really cutting their salaries. Once they realized who the guilty party was, the soldiers seized the vizier, beat him in front of the caliph. They then took the vizier along with his companions and tortured him until he told them where the money was kept. The caliph was taken by fear and thus unable to protect his vizier,but (Qabiha) sent for (Bin Wasif) ordering him to release the vizier. (Bin Wasif) ignored her order and instead he gathered the soldiers around him and told them that (Qabiha) and her son the caliph are the ones keeping the salaries from them. So, an envoy from the soldiers went to the caliph asking him for their money. The caliph in turn asked his mother to send him fifty thousand dinars, but she refused hoping for (Moussa Bin Bagha) to arrive and advise her on how to destroy (Bin Wasif). The latter did not wait and had the caliph arrested, and then tortured by the Turks. They appointed (Al Mahdi) as caliph in his place in 255 (Hijra). At once (Qabiha) went into hiding, escaping through a secret passage that leads from her bedroom to the outside. They searched all over Baghdad for her. When (Saleh Bin Wasif )finally found her, he was able to obtain the millions of dinars that she had hid. It is said that he also raped her and tortured her then sent her to Mecca where she stayed until the caliph (Al Mu’tamad) brought her back to Samerra’ and she died in 264 (Hijra).

6 (Al Sayedah) was the official title given to the slave( Shaghab) who mothered the caliph (Al Moqtadar Billah), who inherited the Abbasid throne at the age of thirteen. He submitted to his mother who controlled the power of the throne until he was killed in 320 (Hijra). Thus, she ruled for about 25 years but her end was painful and sad. This slave was mentioned, under the name of (Na’em), between the lines of history recorded by Al Tabari. She was the slave of (Um Al Qassem daughter of Mohamad Bin Abdallah). The caliph (Al Mu’tadad) saw her, liked her and took her as a concubine. She bore him a child, (Ga’far) who later became a caliph under the name of (Al Moqtadar Billah). In the meantime, the caliph had become more interested in his other more beautiful concubines and ignored her. Since she could not compete with their beauty, she started creating trouble among the concubines whose number amounted to four thousand. The caliph kept punishing her and finally called her (Shaghab), meaning troublesome. She did not abstain from trickery and creating problems to the extent that she was the cause of a couple of slave’s death. One of them was the beautiful Egyptian bride, (Qatr El Nada) daughter of (Ahmad Ben Touloun), who died shortly after her arrival. Another was (Darira), who had won the caliph’s heart,and for whom he had built a swimming pool and faced the satires of the poet( Ibn Bassam). When (Darira) died the caliph’s grief was put into poetry. Another of (Shaghab’s) victims was the slave who mothered the caliph known as (Al Qahir Billah). When the mother died, (Shaghab) brought up the boy with her own. But when he became caliph he avenged for his mother’s death as we will see later. The caliph (Al Mu’tadad) had not taken notice of the quick deaths of his slave concubines especially those that bore him boys,but then he began to take heed and all the signs pointed to (Shaghab), but the evidences were not enough. He thought about cutting her nose then refrained for the sake of her son, (Al Muqtader Billah), and his son (Al Qahir), who were under her care. He was satisfied by secluding her in a house that felt like a prison. She had her son with her to take care of and to confine her pains and sadness with. The only other company she had was her slave friend,( Thaml), who would supply her with the current news and who would help her in her plots. (Shaghab) was planning for her son to inherit the throne after his father. She also made sure that her son was very dependent on her, unable to take any decision without her order. To secure his future position, she plotted with (Thaml) and with the help of (Al Ayman) to have the slave (Jijek) killed, who was the mother of the caliph’s oldest son. Her death was done in a subtle way that did not attract the caliph’s attention. The caliph was known for his severity. If someone upsets him, he would bury him alive ,and the irony is that with such a reputation he died suddenly in 289 (Hijra). His son (Ali) took over and was known as (Al Muktafi). (Shaghab) did not bother him because her son was still under age. Strangely enough, the day her boy reached puberty at the age of thirteen, the young caliph, (Al Muktafi) was poisoned and died. Ever since, her boy, (Al Muqtader) was on the throne and for twenty five years he ruled under her domination. The first thing she did was stop people from calling her (Shaghab) (troublesome) and she called herself (Al Sayeda-- the female master). The second thing was to collect all the jewelry that were given by the caliph to her competitive slave concubines, they were redistributed among the slaves who collaborated with (Shaghab) and helped in her plots. (Thaml) was the one who got the highest share of these jewelry. She also changed (Thaml’s) name to (Om Moussa Al Qahramana), and she became her private servant. (Shaghab) had the power to dismiss any vizier she disliked. Then she turned her hatred against the jurists and the authorities on religion. It was an unprecedented event in the history of Islam; In 306 (Hijra) (Thaml or Um Moussa) was made a jurist. To everyone’s surprise, she would sit in the meetings every Friday to listen to people’s complaints and cases. She would sit in the company of the jurists, the religious authorities, and the great officials and carry on with her decrees. That is the period referred to in the saying "no people could succeed when led by a woman." That was only one of the sayings among many that criticizes women being in power. Although this period was known for its highly esteemed jurists, they all kept their silence before (Thaml). The age of (Al Muqtadar) and his mother witnessed people like (Mohamad Bin Abi Dawoud Al Zahiri), (Ibn Sharih), (Al Ganid), (Abu Othman Al Hiri), (Al Nesa’i), (Al G-Jaba’i), (Ibn Al Jala’), )Abu Ya’li), (Al Astani), (Al Rowandi), (Al Tabari), (Al Zagag), (Al Akhfash Al Saghir), (Abu Bakr Al Sajtani), (Ibn Al Seraj), (Abu Owana), and (Al Baghwi). Just as the age of (Qabiha) and her son (Al Mu’taz) witnessed great people like (Al Bukhari), (Muslim), (Abi Dawoud), (Al Tarmazi), (Ibn Maga),( Al Mazni), (Ibn Abd El A’lah), (Al Zubier Ben Bakar), (Al Riashi), (Al Zahli), (Dawoud Al Zahiri), (Ibn Makhled), (Ibn Qutiba), (Abu Hatem Al Razi) and (Ibn Hanbal). Let us return to (Shaghab) and see how she avenged herself from her opponents. In 299 (Hijra) she sequestrated the money of (Fatma Al Qahramana) whose body was found drowned in the river Dijla. The same fate followed the slaves and servants of( Fatma).( Shaghab) and (Um Moussa) also persecuted some viziers. As in the case of the vizier( Bin Al Jaraj) who did not show much respect to (Um Moussa) so he was expelled and sequestrated. (Shaghab) did the same to the viziers (Hamed Bin Abbas) and (Ali Bin Issa). She used to handle the viziers like toys; setting them in office then expelling him, yet she had her good side too; She built a hospital on the bank of the river Dijla in 306 (Hijra), and personally funded and army to defend Baghdad from the Qaramita in 315 (Hijra). There were several conspiracies against (Shaghab) and her son. At one point the Turkish soldiers revolted. They imprisoned (Shaghab). They expelled the caliph and put his brother (Al Qahir) in his place,but then the conspiracy failed and (Al Muqtader) was back on the throne, forgiving his brother and letting him live. Another revolution led by the Turkish leader (Al Mo’nis Al Khadem), took place and (Al Muqtader) was killed in 320 (Hijra). His brother was once again the caliph. This time he tortured (Shaghab) with his own hands until she surrendered all her wealth to him. Yet he continued to torture her until she died.

7 Those are some examples of the women who ruled during the Abbasid period but from behind a curtain. Their political influence paralyzed the jurists so that whenever they could, to avenge themselves, they would issue legal advice that restricted the rights of women, and they would make up prophetic sayings that downplayed women completely. 3: Women taking control in person: The glory of the religious Abbasid empire prevented women from publicly being in office. They would be in power only while a man is on the throne representing religious power, as it was understood in the Middle Ages. The Eastern powers, such as the Seljuks and the Mongols, who dominated and annihilated the Abbasid Empire, did not have such restrictions on women. Those powers allowed women to rule either next to a sultan or on their own. Our first example is (Al Turnigan Um Al Nushran) the wife of (Taghrlik). She was known for her fairness, piety and generosity. The sultan would consult and obey her, as she was also known for being opinionated, steadfast and wise. She died in 452 (Hijra) in Jarjan. The sultan was struck with sadness and carried her coffin with him to Al Ray in Iran where he buried her. And before dying she made the sultan promise her that their daughter would be married to the Abbasid caliph, and she did.

8- That reminds us of the Mongol princess (Baghdad khatoun) who came centuries later, when the Mongols invaded Iraq and Iran and divided the land among themselves. Princess (Baghdad Khatoun), daughter of prince( Joban), was married. But the Mongol sultan( Al Naser Bosaid) was in love with her and he wanted her. So he fought prince (Joban), defeated him and took (Baghdad Khatoun) from him and married her. In order to please her, he gave her power in his kingdom, which included Iraq, Azerbaijan and part of Asia Minor. (Khatoun) exploited her authority and started by expelling (Ali Bashia), (Bosaid’s) uncle,(Bosaid) did not object to it, he even gave her full authority until he died. Then (Arbakun) took over and killed (Khatoun) in 736 (Hijra).

9- Let us go back to the Seljuks, in the fifth century after the Hijra, to see how women took the seat of the sultan, and to meet (Tarkan) daughter of (Taghrag Al Mulk) descendent of the Persian king (Afrasiap). It was said that she was a courageous army leader, who had ten thousand horsemen serving her. After her husband ( Malekshah) died, she began taking care of the country’s affairs, protecting its wealth, and securing the roads for the traders. She personally led the army during war and reigned until she died poisoned in 487 (Hijra).

10- A century later the Ayyubi princess (Safia Khatoun) was born. She lived from 581 to 630 (Hijra). When she came into power, she was called (‘Al Sahibah’), meaning the owner. She was also described as a solemn wise queen. She was the daughter of the king (Al Adel Al kabir Al Ayubi), and the wife of the king (Al Zahir Ghazi Bin Salah Al Din) from Allepo. She bore him (Al Aziz), who ruled( Halab=Allepo), and she was the grandmother of the king (Al Naser Al Ayubi) ruler of Syria. When her son (Al Aziz) died she took over the seat of power and ‘behaved like sultans do’. She revived the kingdom, ruling with justice, mercy, and honesty. She removed the unjust and unfair tax collectors from Allepo. She favored the poor and was very generous with them. When she died ‘Allepo closed its doors for three days out of grief’ for her, say the historians.

11- The case was different with the mother of the king (Al Naser Seif Al Islam Al Ayubi) ruler of Yemen (who was contemporaneous to Shajarat El Dor in Egypt). When her son the king died, she became in charge, and adjusted the affairs of (Zabeed). She sent for a prince from the house of the Ayyubids to co-rule with her. Then she found (Solayman Shah), who was a Sufi propagandist in Mecca, so she invited him to (Zabeed) and married him, but he turned out to be a harsh ruler who filled the country with injustice. Then he betrayed her and took another wife,he was then defeated by his cousins the Ayyubids, whom he had gone to war with. The king (Al Mas’oud Bin Al Kamel) took over Yemen and exiled him with his wife to Egypt.

12 That leads us to (Shajarat El Dor), the most famous sultana in Islamic history. She was a woman whose story began between the written lines of history but she soon made it to the headlines to occupy a unique place in Islamic history. She appeared in a crucial period; King Louis The ninth attacked Dumyat where he was defeated and imprisoned in Mansoura. She also witnessed the shift of power from the Ayyubids to the Mamluks, where she became the first sultana or even the first to rule among the Mamluks. She started as a concubine slave to the sultan (Al Saleh Ayub Al Ayyubi), and she ended her life humiliatingly in regards to women,but it is the game of politics that knows no mercy. She only drank from the same cup that she offered to others. The sultan (Al Saleh Ayub) was known for his dominating and revered nature. He knew when to keep silent and how to stay away from frivolity. It is difficult for a man with such characteristics to give in to love and romance. In addition, it would be difficult for one of his slaves to conquer his heart and to convince him to marry her and end her slavery. That is what (Shajarat El Dor) succeeded in doing. She entered his palace as a pretty turkish slave but was able to win his heart and get married to him. She bore him a child who died in an early age. Since he was called (Khalil) she became known as (Um Khalil). Her intelligence came through during a difficult time when the crusaders attacked Dumyat. The guarding army fled and king Louis the Ninth moved with his troops to the city of Al Mansoura, which was especially built to face the crusaders. At that time sultan, (Al Saleh Ayub) was very ill and the doctors had no hope to cure him. So (Shajarat Al Dor) made her husband sign thousands of blank official papers and she formed a committee to run the country and prepare an army for war. (Al Saleh Ayub) died, but she kept it a secret and continued to rule in his name. She also sent for his son (Turan Shah) to come to Egypt to take over the reign. She continued her efforts until she defeated Louis the Ninth, destroyed his army and imprisoned him in (Dar Ibn Lokman) in Mansoura. When (Turan Shah) arrived he found victory and the throne waiting for him, and instead of being grateful to (Shajarat El Dor) and the Mamluk marines who belonged to his father, he accused them of many errors and replaced them with his own soldiers. He asked his stepmother, (Shajarat El Dor), to present him with the wealth. As she feared his trickery, she had the Mamluk soldiers kill him, and that was the beginning of her wicked plots and also the beginning of her assertion of power. The chiefs of the Mamluks consented to her position as the sultana and she was given the right to sign the official papers. Her signature was ‘Um Khalil’. In the forums, she would be told, "May God keep the sultan of delicate protection and the preventative veil, the queen of Muslims, the mother of Khalil." Her first act was to negotiate with the French imprisoned king who freed himself by paying four hundred thousand dinars. She started her reign on a Thursday in Safar in 648 (Hijra). She wore an official dress that consisted of a silk veil embroidered in gold. The princes would kiss the floor before her, as the custom had it, yet from behind a veil. The Abbasid caliph, (Al Musta’sim Billah), denied her right to reign,and he sent to the Egyptians ridiculing them by saying "had you said that you did not have a man, we would have sent you one." When (Sahajarat El Dor) heard that she relinquished her position and married (Ezz El Din Aybek) making him the first sultan of the Mamluks, but in reality her yielding of the throne was only a ploy. She continued to rule but from behind the curtain. She only made (Ezz El Din Aybik) a ruler by name while she kept all the control in her hand. She had several suitors wanting to marry her before she made her decision; the first was the prince(Eqtay), leader of the Mamluk marines who was surrounded by the bravest of knights( Beibars), who later became the sultan, and the second was (Ezz El Din Aybak), chief of the Mamluks whose follower was (Qutz), who became another sultan later on. (Shajarat El Dor) preferred (Aybak) thinking that he was easier to lead than (Eqtay) and thus her influence would remain, but when she made her choice (Eqtay) was upset and turned against them. Therefore, they planned to destroy him. However, in the mean time (Eqtay) got tired of (El Dor’s) tactics. He left her and went back to his previous wife, mother of his son (Ali),and he sent for an Ayyubi princess to marry and have her replace (Shajarat El Dor). But when the latter learned about it, she became furious with jealousy, lost her mind and pretended to want to reconcile with him just to have him come back and then kill him. Forgetting that (Aybek’s) Mamluks would not allow for the murder of their master, and that the Mamluk marines of (Eqtay) would seize the opportunity to revenge the killing of their chief,so when the Mamluks learned of the killing of the sultan they took hold of (Shajarat El Dor) and delivered her to his other wife, the mother of (Ali). (Shagarat El Dor) died beaten to death with wooden slippers by the slaves of the mother of (Ali), and upon her orders. Her body was thrown away naked behind the walls of her fortress, she was carried in a basket and burried.

13- Thus, (Shagarat El Dor) defeated princes and sultans… and yet, she was only defeated by her heart…and by another woman. We conclude this chapter with a comparison between (Shajarat El Dor) and the Abbasid caliph (Al Mosta’sim Billah El Abbasi), who objected to her right to reign and because of whom she abdicated her throne. We saw how she protected the kingdom during difficult times; When the French army had penetrated the Delta while the sultan was ill,then he died, and she had to face the approaching army all alone as the sultan’s son was absent. Yet she proved her strength and controlled the situation leading to a victory. Even when the new sultan sat on the throne, she kept the power to herself and to the Mamluks, the (Ayyubi Mamluks). The sultan remained a puppet in their hands until the Ottoman conquests in 921H (or 1517 A.D.). Such were the deeds of the woman sultan who was just a slave before.

 What about the sultan who was brought up in a ruling family that lasted more than seven hundred years? The historian( Ibn Tabatba) was contemporaneous to the caliph (Al Mosta’sim), who brought about the end of Baghdad, the Abbasids and the Muslims themselves. The historian describes the caliph as: weak character, little bravery or courage, lacking in experience and mainly greedy. He spent most of his time listening to songs and being entertained. Very influence by his friends who were mere ignorant laymen. It has been said that (Ibn Tabataba) was Shiite and thus biased against the caliph (Al Mosta’sim) who was known for his Sunni inclination. Yet (Ibn Kathir), a well trusted Sunni historian, agrees with (Ibn Tabataba). (Ibn Kathir) says that the caliph’s only interest was getting rich. He even used the trust money that was set aside by (Al Naser Dawoud Al Ayyubi), which amounted to one hundred thousand dinars. That really made him a bad example of a caliph. (Ibn Kathir) said that the worst trait that this caliph had was collecting so much wealth and making it his own,and that was probably the main reason for his defeat before the Mongols. The fact that he was so greedy does not make him unique compared to his predecessors but he went too far when he cut the soldiers salaries. Especially at a time like this when he needed his army the most because the Mongols were approaching Baghdad. Here we go back to the historian (Ibn Kathir) as he said "he sent the armies away without money to the extent that they went begging in the streets and at the mosques…poets wrote poems of pity for them and sadness for Islam and its people." The caliph was tightening his hand towards the soldiers who needed it the most, while he was spending lavishly on his followers and his companions. He was surrounded by the lowest of laymen and Mamluks, who gained importance during the decadence of the Abbasid rule. The Mamluks lived like kings while the intellectuals and the nobles were starving. Some examples of the rich followers of (Al Mo’tasim) were (Alaa’ El Din Al Tibarsi Al Zahiri), he had an income of three hundred thousand dinars from his assets, he had a property that was unparalleled in Baghdad and when he got married he paid a dowry of twenty thousand dinars. On his wedding night the caliph (Al Mosta’sim) offered him one hundred thousand dinars, introduced him to the powerful people of the country and offered him a village that brought him a revenue of two hundred thousand dinars yearly. There was also (Mujahid Al Dowedar) whose assets were uncountable, and on his wedding night he received a gift of three hundred thousand dinars, and in the morning (Al Mosta’sim) sent him another three hundred thousand dinars, his yearly revenue from his assets was more than half a million dinars. Another was (Ibn Fakher Sheiykh Al Farashin) from the royal palace. The proof of his wealth was that his house had numerous rooms. Each room had a concubine slave and two servants, one male and one female, then there was a slave for food, one for his work, one for his drink, one for making the bed, one for his laundry, one for the cooking and so on. In contrast with all this wealth, the greatest of intellectuals would not earn more than twelve dinars per month. Such was the fee paid to the teachers at the schools.( Ibn Al Sa’i) and (Ibn Al Quti), the two most famous historians of that time, earned a monthly salary of ten dinars each. How can that be compared to (Sheiykh Al Farashin) in the royal palace? In such times when an empire is heading towards its downfall, be it a Persian, Roman or Abbasid empire the picture is always completed by plundering the country’s wealth, spread of bribery, increase in sequestration, appearance of social unrest along with increase in decadent morality. People start apprehending the danger knocking at their door.( El Ghasani), author of the book [AL ASJAD AL MASBOUK), describes the last days of the empire, being a witness himself, as " they focused on feudalism and revenue and neglected considering the general well being. They concentrated on what could not be allowed. Injustice towards people increased, and the only goal was to gather money. Ownership can last with lack of faith, but it can not last with lack of justice." (Al Ghasani) spoke truthfully because there is a Quranic principle that states :"If we want to destroy a town that we had sent justice to but that their people were lead astray", meaning that they were lead astray from the true worship of God, "then it deserved the destruction we sent upon it". Thus, inner or outer destruction can only occur when injustice is allowed a place. God says: " God would not unjustly destroy a town whose people are pious". The Abbasid caliph did not understand this lesson. He sunk in decadence with his followers; he lost his soldiers and lost his kingdom. He personally underwent severe humiliation before the Mongol soldiers finally kicked him to death. They did that to him after they had destroyed Baghdad and killed two million of its inhabitants. (Al Hamathani) says in his book[ JAME’ EL TAWARIKH] that once Hulagu had conquered Baghdad, he entered the palace, found (Al Mosta’sim) shaking, so he told him: " You are a host and we are your guests, so bring us what you think is fit for us". So the caliph brought him all the treasures he had while he was still trembling with fear. But Hulagu did not even look at them and refused to have anyone touch them. Then he told the caliph, :" all the treasures you have offered are the obvious ones and they belong to our servants, but remember the treasures that you have buried, what are they and where are they? So the caliph confessed that he had a hole filled with gold in the court of the palace. So they dug in the ground until they found it. It was full of red golden bars each weighing a hundred weights. Though Hulagu was known for being a bloody murderer he still looked down on the caliph, wondering how such a rich person could be so stingy with his soldiers!! When Hulagu sent a message to the ruler of Damascus, warning him of future destruction if the latter does not surrender, he said about the caliph of Baghdad :" He had gathered for himself, but he had a despicable self, because he thought of himself and paid no attention to others." Another anecdote took place between the caliph and Hulagu at the royal palace. Hulagu brought before him the women of the caliph, who amounted to seven hundred wives and concubines and one thousand servant. But he asked the caliph to show him the ones that "have not seen the sun nor the moon" meaning the ones that he had buried as he had buried his gold. Such was his view of women and of (Shajarat El Dor), Al Hamathani says :" to summarize we say that what the Abbasid caliphs have gathered in five centuries, the Mongols put it all together and it looked like mountains on mountains. Hulagu decided to melt all that gold forming gold bars and he put them in a secure fortress in Azerbaijan.

14- Such was the caliph (Al Mosta’sim), and such was (Shajarat El Dor)… Each one ruled as a tyrant in the Middle Ages. So which would you chose if you had to accept tyranny?

The conclusion

Ruling is power and domination, and ‘shura’ or democracy is the art of dealing with power and domination. The relationship between the ruler and the people is what determines who holds the power and how much presence does ‘shura’ or democracy has in this relationship. The tyrant ruler who holds the power and the domination considers himself the guardian over his people, thus considers himself responsible for making the law. So he becomes the advisor and the counselor, and ‘shura’ becomes limited to the power he allows himself. Typically, he would hire advisors and followers who think of his benefit and seeking his pleasure. When the people gain awareness and gain some power the ruler feels obliged to meet the needs of the power that is now in the hands of the people. In that case, the state councils are reshaped to include some of the directions of freedom, and the struggle begins between the ruler and the freedom parties among the people. The parties try to strip the ruler of his power while he tries, through his helpers, to fortify his position, thus the age of phony parliaments and fake democracies. Here ‘shura’ partially expresses the benefits of those who made the revolutions and those who have awareness for freedom. It may be that all the power is in the hands of the people. They dominate the government by hiring its employees. The ruler is also an employee who earns a salary, and who has a contract for a period or two, but it is the people who chose, who hire, who expel, who investigate and judge all those made responsible. Such is the Islamic political system for ruling, which allows the ruler to be equally a man or a woman. Dictatorship is a transgression against the basis of the system of the Islamic state. Yet it is still considered a legal system, as long as the people are accepting it, and the tyrant is a lawful ruler, man or woman, but through history and the Quranic stories we see that tyrant women are more lenient and less harmful than tyrant men.