DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.49271#0190
128
C. G. and B. Z. Seligman
No objection is made to mentioning the names of those relatives who are avoided
or who are addressed indirectly, so long as they are not present. The word nastb, which
occurs on the relationship list for father-in-law, may also be used for any relative by
marriage. Our information is based upon questions such as “What do you call so-and-
so?” (whose relationship we were able to verify on the genealogical table). If the rela-
tionship were that of father-in-law the invariable answer from a woman would be “He is
nasib, I would never speak to him”; or, if the informant were a man, “He is nasib, I
address him as 'amm of so-and-so”.
So ingrained are the customs of avoidance, that the Kababish consider that meeting
with any relatives who should be avoided is a shameful thing, 'ayb, and to show shame
appears to them to be the visible demonstration of proper feeling or correct behaviour
and to require no explanation. When we questioned women on the subject they invaria-
bly said “iktisi minu; andina 'ayb”. “I am ashamed of it; it is shameful to us”,34 and
they would always turn their heads on one side and usually pull their head cloths over
their mouths. They assured us the avoidance was practised out of respect, for they
honoured those relatives whom they avoided. These avoidances between relatives may be
compared with the prohibitions imposed by Muhammad (Koran, Sura XXIV) on women
against exposing themselves before men, except certain relatives. These relatives are
their fathers, their husbands’ fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers, their
brothers’ sons, their sisters’ sons, and their slaves. The Kababish women will draw the
head-veil across the face before their husbands’ fathers but permit themselves to be seen
unveiled by all the other relatives in the above list, and in addition by their mother’s
brothers and possibly other male relatives related through the mother. From the passage
in the Koran and the absence of all mention of the subject by Burton, Burckhardt, and
other writers on Arabia, it might be inferred that ceremonial avoidances are not practised
in Arabia. The absence of mention by such writers cannot be regarded, however, as defi-
nite negative evidence, because of the difficulty of observing avoidances, unless the ob-
server has realized their social importance and directs his attention specially to the subject.
And although the idea of mother-in-law avoidance was quite foreign to some Yemenite
porters whom we interrogated at Port Sudan, the customs of the settled inhabitants of
Yemen can have so little bearing on those of the nomads of northern Arabia that it
is still unsafe to assume that there is no relationship avoidance in Arabia. This point
of view is strengthened by Doughty’s observation already quoted,35 but which seems
34 'Ayb seems to mean “forbidden” as well as “shame”, “shameful ”. Of this word it has been well said that
it is “an elastic expression which comprises every form of impropriety, from a trifling breach of etiquette to the most
serious moral turpitude”; W. Robertson Smith, Lectures and essays, London, 1912, p. 516.
35 Vide supra n. 33.
C. G. and B. Z. Seligman
No objection is made to mentioning the names of those relatives who are avoided
or who are addressed indirectly, so long as they are not present. The word nastb, which
occurs on the relationship list for father-in-law, may also be used for any relative by
marriage. Our information is based upon questions such as “What do you call so-and-
so?” (whose relationship we were able to verify on the genealogical table). If the rela-
tionship were that of father-in-law the invariable answer from a woman would be “He is
nasib, I would never speak to him”; or, if the informant were a man, “He is nasib, I
address him as 'amm of so-and-so”.
So ingrained are the customs of avoidance, that the Kababish consider that meeting
with any relatives who should be avoided is a shameful thing, 'ayb, and to show shame
appears to them to be the visible demonstration of proper feeling or correct behaviour
and to require no explanation. When we questioned women on the subject they invaria-
bly said “iktisi minu; andina 'ayb”. “I am ashamed of it; it is shameful to us”,34 and
they would always turn their heads on one side and usually pull their head cloths over
their mouths. They assured us the avoidance was practised out of respect, for they
honoured those relatives whom they avoided. These avoidances between relatives may be
compared with the prohibitions imposed by Muhammad (Koran, Sura XXIV) on women
against exposing themselves before men, except certain relatives. These relatives are
their fathers, their husbands’ fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers, their
brothers’ sons, their sisters’ sons, and their slaves. The Kababish women will draw the
head-veil across the face before their husbands’ fathers but permit themselves to be seen
unveiled by all the other relatives in the above list, and in addition by their mother’s
brothers and possibly other male relatives related through the mother. From the passage
in the Koran and the absence of all mention of the subject by Burton, Burckhardt, and
other writers on Arabia, it might be inferred that ceremonial avoidances are not practised
in Arabia. The absence of mention by such writers cannot be regarded, however, as defi-
nite negative evidence, because of the difficulty of observing avoidances, unless the ob-
server has realized their social importance and directs his attention specially to the subject.
And although the idea of mother-in-law avoidance was quite foreign to some Yemenite
porters whom we interrogated at Port Sudan, the customs of the settled inhabitants of
Yemen can have so little bearing on those of the nomads of northern Arabia that it
is still unsafe to assume that there is no relationship avoidance in Arabia. This point
of view is strengthened by Doughty’s observation already quoted,35 but which seems
34 'Ayb seems to mean “forbidden” as well as “shame”, “shameful ”. Of this word it has been well said that
it is “an elastic expression which comprises every form of impropriety, from a trifling breach of etiquette to the most
serious moral turpitude”; W. Robertson Smith, Lectures and essays, London, 1912, p. 516.
35 Vide supra n. 33.