Regarding Khadijah’s (رضي الله عنها) Status as a Businesswoman

This article https://almoslim.net/node/138529 by sister Huwaidah Fawwaz makes an interesting point by citing the Seerah, which is that Khadijah did not actually engage in trade herself. Rather, she was already wealthy and of noble status and used to hire men to do the trading on her behalf. She would entrust trustworthy and skilled tradesmen to use her money for trade and subsequently generate profits for themselves and Khadijah.

Thus, if anything, the author argues, this works against those who appeal to the story of Khadijah to justify the permissibility of women working in mixed business environments since Khadijah herself recognized that trading was primarily a man’s skill, which is why she hired them.

The author also argued that Khadijah did not try to form close bonds and relationships with other merchants and attend essential commercial meetings, but rather delegated such tasks to her slave Maysara, whom she also sent with the Prophet (peace be upon him) when she hired him to engage in commercial transactions using her wealth.

Using Khadijah as a modern-day analogy would work better with a wealthy Muslim woman (wealthy through inheritance) seeking a professional stockbroker to manage her portfolio, rather than going out there herself and toiling. And this, if anything, would be rarely applied and does not speak to the experience and reality of the bulk of people, let alone women, today.

Moreover, the author asks why some are insistent on emulating Khadijah, who passed away in Makkah before the entire Shariah was revealed, especially the ayah on hijab revealed later around 5/6 A.H., yet do not seek to emulate all the remaining Mothers of Believers and how they lived their lives after the verse had been revealed. As one of the Mothers of the Believers herself, would Khadijah have been so different from the remaining wives if she lived after the edict of hijab and other rulings were issued? Hardly. So why not factor that fact into consideration?

Here is another article https://al-sabeel.net/%D9%87%D9%84-%D9%83%D8%A7%D9%86%D8.../ by sister Tasneem Rajih, where she highlights that despite Khadijah still giving the Prophet money to trade with, she still bore him six children and was always accessible in providing him with the needed comfort and support that he required as a husband. Do feminists acknowledge this, or do they demand that husbands compromise all this in order to appreciate and value her being tired after a long day's work?

Sister Tasneem continues on criticizing feminists for cherry-picking from the life of Khadijah and portraying her as a “business woman” and “CEO,” while this point was never an essential feature about her character, but rather Khadijah was known as the “pure one” (الطاهرة).

Sister Tasneem also talks about how feminists amplify what are exceptions to the rule through their cherry-picking and try to normalize them. She gives the example of Um’ Amara and her participation in the Battle of Uhud and how it was an exceptional dire circumstance, while feminists amplify this to generalize that women are like men when it comes to participating in Jihad, while ignoring that the bulk of cases involved women merely going out to attend to the wounded. Thus, the same cherry-picking is extended to Khadijah.

I think people need to drop this specific argument to justify the permissibility of women participating in the workplace and consider seeking other well-crafted arguments that could be valid instead.