Shams al-D?n al-Dhahab? (1274-1352/3), the noted scholar of traditions and history, spent most of his life in Maml?k Cairo and Damascus. The bulk of his extant work pertains to the science of ?ad?th criticism and historical works such as ?abaq?t, his famous history of Islam, and various other works in the same genre. Dhahab? also authored a highly influential and interesting collection of major sins, kab?’ir, that attempts to compile the principle Quranic, Prophetic, and traditional reports describing the most serious sins a Muslim can commit. This collection is therefore extremely rich in anecdotal material that sheds light on medieval Muslim conceptions of justice, evil, and ethics; it is particularly illuminating for its discussions of sexual deviance, most importantly its sections on zin? (adultery or fornication) and liw?? (“sodomy”). These two sections contain a wealth of detail that can tell us much about how Dhahab? construes human sexuality in general. Through an interpretation of Dhahab?’s prohibitions of certain types of sexual activity, this paper will attempt to get at Dhahab?’s theory of sexuality and how it relates to other relevant social and intellectual discourses in the Maml?k period. Dhahab?’s discussion of male homoerotic desire is particularly instructive in this regard, as he suggests that male homoerotic desire is so pervasive that it was even felt by Quranic prophets and even the Prophet Mu?ammad himself. By closely analyzing Dhahab?’s discussion of male homoerotic sexual desire in particular, this paper will argue that Dhahab? proposes a theory of human sexuality based on the concept of desire (shahwa), a theory that is situated between what are characterized in modern debates as “constructionist” and “essentialist” theories of human sexuality. Dhahab?’s theory of sexuality therefore may suggest a level of complexity in pre-modern notions of sexuality that cannot be fully described in either totally essentialist or constructionist terms, and may instead move simultaneously within discursive categories constitutive of both of these dimensions.

This paper discusses the conditions and representations of womanhood and manhood as portrayed in the Ottoman literature of the late sixteenth century. For the study, the compilation of stories, Bed?yiü?l-?s?r, by Cin?n? (d. 1595), a member of the Ottoman literati is chosen. The work of Cin?n?, according to his own account as well as other contemporary sources, was written down upon the request of the Sultan, Murad III, who asked Cin?n? for stories yet untold. In his attempt to please the Sultan, Cin?n? came up with this very entertaining prose-work that is full of stories about beautiful and evil women, marvels, martyrdom, and rightly religious behaviors. In most cases, the women are the most elaborately described characters of the stories causing the destruction of men. The compilation which is full of vivid and colorful stories revealing men and women from different classes, relations, and manners has been appropriate for the goals of the paper as the stories reflect the plurality of the conditions of manhood and womanhood in a late sixteenth century Ottoman literary work. The intended goal in questioning the manhood and womanhood in fiction is to provide an alternative framework for studies on early Ottoman literature in general and representation of women and men in literary works in particular. Most of the available studies of literature focusing on portrayals of women argue that the male authorship was strongly misogynic, and women were either misrepresented or not represented at all as characters. They claim that the visibility of women deteriorated with the urban conditions of an institutionalized Empire, and the women were silenced in this strongly patriarchal setting. It is true that most of the women described in the stories in detail were of "evil-nature," however they had their agency over the course of their lives, unlike most men who in the stories are depicted as following women blindly. The women were the "others," but remarkably, men were the "others" of women, too. The paper claims that it is almost impossible to talk about a prototypical "Ottoman man" or "Ottoman women" in such a multifaceted context and aims to contribute to the available works on Ottoman literature by providing a multilayered perspective on gender, introducing and analyzing various types and characters of a work of sixteenth century fiction, notably, both men and women.

One of the longest running serials of Ottoman women's press, Kadinlar Dunyasi (1913-1921), proclaimed on its title page that it served the goal of “defending women's rights and interests”. The Second Constitutional Period, during which this journal was published, was in many ways a unique period in the history of Ottoman/Turkish modernization in terms of the lively debates and important developments regarding Ottoman women's social rights. Various women's organizations and publications flourished under the aegis of the CUP-run government. This study argues that three factors set Kadinlar Dunyasi's struggle for women's rights apart from the state-sponsored feminism of the CUP and from that of the rest of the women’s rights activism at the time. First of all, Kadinlar Dunyasi had a forthright, bold feminist discourse, heralding a “women's revolution”. For many of the prominent female and/or feminist writers of the time this idea was “too radical”, therefore they avoided being associated with this journal. Instead of focusing on motherly and wifely duties of women and publishing educational articles on these subjects, Kadinlar Dunyasi focused on three issues that were the corner stones of its feminist agenda: reforming female outfit, improving female working life, spreading education among women. Secondly, both the socio-economic profile of Kadinlar Dunyasi's writers and the content of their feminist reform proposals suggested a modest and lower-middle class agenda that helps shed further light on why many of the elite women writers of the time distanced themselves from this journal. Thirdly, although Kadinlar Dunyasi had a clear nationalist discourse, its writers refused the subjugation of their gender interests to official nationalism and rejected the reproduction of gender inequalities through the policies of the CUP. Despite the conspicuous lack of contribution to this journal by prominent elite female writers of the time, the relatively wide-spread circulation and the long publication life of the journal suggests a wide interest in Kadinlar Dunyasi's agenda among the women from regular walks of life. A through analysis of the feminism of Kadinlar Dunyasi will disclose the ways in which these “ordinary” Ottoman women sought new avenues to challenge their traditional roles and improve their living conditions in a floundering, war-torn empire