Ghazali, Tusi, Rūmī and Dawānī are among the most influential philosophers in the world, yet curiously unknown in the West. These Islamic ethicists were patronised by Seljuk, Ottoman, Timurid, Safavid and Mughal rulers, who institionalised their ideals. Across their vast empires in Anatolia, North Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia and South Asia, men’s honour became contingent on female seclusion. Imperial expansion thus propounded patriarchal religions, thereby entrenching gender inequality.
One thing that I think is extremely relevant to why their thinking developed as it did. Tusi and Rumi were contemporaries, and were alive when the Mongol siege of Baghdad happened. Ghazali lived through the Crusades, as did they. It was an unstable time with intense conflict, which meant the incentive to seclude women was extremely powerful. They just provided the religious justification.
That’s an excellent point, curiously as far as I’m aware they don’t mention conflict or foreigners raping women. They talk about ordinary civilian life - afaik
One interesting thing to consider is why the "patriarchal Muslims" only "won" after the Mongol conquests. Before that there was a significant tradition of Islamic heterodoxy that even went as far as pseudo-atheism at the extreme edges. Centralized extractive states would have logically found the latter a more useful ideology, but why did it so long for it to win? Early 13C Baghdad was reported to be "liberal" (in the historical context) on gender relations.
All these people are Persians. So it's perhaps more specifically a question of why these trends won in the Persianate world (and filtered down to the other Muslims).
That's a great overview.
One thing that I think is extremely relevant to why their thinking developed as it did. Tusi and Rumi were contemporaries, and were alive when the Mongol siege of Baghdad happened. Ghazali lived through the Crusades, as did they. It was an unstable time with intense conflict, which meant the incentive to seclude women was extremely powerful. They just provided the religious justification.
That’s an excellent point, curiously as far as I’m aware they don’t mention conflict or foreigners raping women. They talk about ordinary civilian life - afaik
Excellent piece.
One interesting thing to consider is why the "patriarchal Muslims" only "won" after the Mongol conquests. Before that there was a significant tradition of Islamic heterodoxy that even went as far as pseudo-atheism at the extreme edges. Centralized extractive states would have logically found the latter a more useful ideology, but why did it so long for it to win? Early 13C Baghdad was reported to be "liberal" (in the historical context) on gender relations.
All these people are Persians. So it's perhaps more specifically a question of why these trends won in the Persianate world (and filtered down to the other Muslims).
Brilliant piece.