DICTIONARY OF ISLĀM. (continued 38)

Mr. Sell, in his Faith of Islam, says:—

“Minute regulations are laid down with regard to the water which may be used for purification. The following kinds of water are lawful:—rain, sea, river, fountain, well, snow, and ice-water. Ice is not lawful. The first kind is authorised by the Qurán. ‘He sent you down water from heaven that He might thereby cleanse you, and cause the pollution of Satan to pass from you.’ (Súra viii. 11.) The use of the others is sanctioned by the Traditions. I give one illustration. A man one day came to the Prophet and said: ‘I am going on a voyage and shall only have a small supply of fresh water; if I use it for ablutions I shall have none wherewith to quench my thirst, may I use sea-water?’ The Prophet replied: ‘The water of the sea is pure.’ Tirmízí states that this is a Hadís-i-Sahíh. Great difference of opinion exists with regard to what constitutes impurity in water, and so renders it unfit for ablutions. It would be wearisome to the reader to enter into all details, but I may briefly say that, amongst the orthodox, it is generally held that if a dead body or any unclean thing falls into flowing water, or into a reservoir more than 15 feet square, it can be used, provided always that the colour, smell, and taste are not changed. It is for this reason that the pool near a mosque is never less than ten cubits square. If of that size, it is called a dah dar dah (literally 10 × 10). It may be, and commonly is, larger than this. It should be about one foot deep.”

Rights regarding water. According to Muḥammadan law, water is of four kinds:—

(1) The water of the ocean, to which every person has a perfect and equal right, for the enjoyment of the ocean is common to everyone, in the same manner as the light of the sun or the air we breathe.

(2) The waters of large rivers, such as the Euphrates, the Tigris, the Indus, or the Oxus, from which every person has an absolute right to drink, and also a conditional right to use it for the purpose of irrigating his lands. For example, if a person desire to cultivate waste land, and dig a watercourse or canal for the purpose of conveying water to it from the river, he may lawfully do so, provided the act be in no sense detrimental to the people. The same law applies to the erection of a water-mill on the banks of a river.

(3) Water in which several have a share; in which case also the right of drinking is common to all, whilst there are certain restrictions regarding its use for the purposes of irrigation, which will be hereafter treated of.

(4) Water which is kept in vessels; which is regarded as property, except in times of scarcity, when it is even lawful to seize it for common use.

The law regarding the division of water for the purposes of irrigation, known as shirb (شرب‎), or “a right to water,” is most important in the East, where so much of the cultivation of land depends not upon the fall of rain but upon irrigation. In Afghanistan, there are more disputes and more murders committed over the division of water than with regard to any other question. A claim of shirb, or “right of water,” is valid, independent of any property in the ground, for a person may become endowed with it, exclusive of the ground, either by inheritance or bequest; and it sometimes happens that when a person sells his lands, he reserves to himself the right of shirb. No person can alter or obstruct the course of water running through his ground, and in the case of disputes regarding a rivulet held jointly by several, it is the duty of the judge to make a distribution of the water according to the extent of land which they severally possess; for, as the object of right to water is to moisten the lands, it is but fit that each should receive a just proportion. A rivulet must not be dammed up for the convenience of one partner without the consent of the others; nor can he dig a trench or erect a mill upon a rivulet used for irrigation, without the general consent of all persons concerned. The same restriction applies, also, to a water-engine or a bridge. One partner cannot alter the mode of partition without the others’ consent, nor increase the number of sluices or openings through which he receives his share, nor convey his share into lands not entitled to receive it, nor even to lands which are entitled to receive it, nor can he shut up any of the sluices, or exchange the manner of division in any way, as, for example, by taking the water in rotation instead of division by sluices. A right to water cannot be consigned as a dower, nor given as a consideration in K͟hulʿ, when a wife bargains for her divorce [KHULʿ], nor in composition for a claim, nor sold to discharge the debts of a defunct owner. It is also noted that if a person, by irrigating his lands, should by that means overflow those of his neighbour, he is not liable to make compensation, as he was not guilty of any transgression.

WAʿZ̤ (وعظ‎). A sermon. [KHUTBAH, WAIʾZ.]

WAZ̤ĪFAH (وظيفة‎), from waz̤f, “a daily ration of food.” (l) A term used for a daily lesson, or portion from the Qurʾān which is read by devout Muslims. The Qurʾān is divided into thirty sipārahs as the daily waz̤īfah to be read during the month of Ramaẓān.

(2) A pension or stipend granted to pious persons.

(3) Revenue collected at a stipulated rate.

WAZĪR (وزير‎). A Vezeer. The principal minister in a Muḥammadan country. There are three opinions respecting the etymology of the word. Some derive it from wizr, “a burden,” because the wazīr bears the burden of state; others from wazar, “a refuge,” because the ruler has recourse to the counsels of the wazīr; others from azr, “the back, or strength,” because the ruler is strengthened by his wazīr as the human frame is by the back.

Mr. Lane (Arabian Nights, Intro., p. 23), says: “The post of wezeer was the highest that was held by an officer of the pen; and the person who occupied it was properly the next to the Sultān; but the Turkish Sultāns of Egypt made the office of nāïb, or “viceroy,” to have the pre-eminence. Under them, the post of wezeer was sometimes occupied by an officer of the pen, and sometimes by an officer of the sword; and in both cases the wezeer was called ‘the Ṣāḥeb.’ ”

K͟halīl az-Zāhir relates that Muḥammad said, “Whosoever is in authority over Muslims, if God prosper him, shall be given a virtuous wazīr. The wazīr shall remind him when he forgetteth his duty, and shall assist him when he doth remember it. But to a bad ruler God giveth an evil-minded wazīr, who, when the ruler forgetteth his duty, does not remind him of it, and when he remembereth his duty, doth not assist him to perform it.”

WEDDING. [MARRIAGE.]

WEEK. Arabic usbūʿ (اسبوع‎), subūʿ (سبوع‎); Heb. ‏שָׁבוּעַ‎ shāvūaʿ. The Muḥammadan week (as the Jewish and Christian) begins with Sunday and ends with Saturday. In the Qurʾān, Sūrah vii. 52, it is said “God created the heavens and the earth in six days.” In Sūrah xvi. 125, it is said, “the Sabbath was only made for those who dispute thereon,” which al-Baiẓāwī says means that the Sabbath was established for the Jews who disputed with Moses regarding it; but there is no injunction in the Qurʾān for the due observance of the Sabbath. [DAY, FRIDAY.]

WEEPING. [BUKAʾ.]

WELLS. Arabic biʾr (بئر‎), pl. abʾār. Heb. ‏בְּאֵר‎ Beʾēr. If a person dig a well for public use, it is held by Imām Muḥammad that his right to the well ceases as soon as the people drink of the well; but Imām Abū Ḥanīfah is of opinion that it does not become common property until the magistrates issue a decree to that effect. (Hidāyah, vol. ii. p. 357.)

If a person dig a well in a high road (where no person is entitled to dig a well), he is liable to a fine for any accident which may happen by people falling into it. (Hidāyah, vol. ii. p. 719.)

If any animal, or impurity of any kind, fall into a well, all the water must be drawn out before the well can be lawfully used; and if it be impossible to draw the whole of the water, then not less than 300 bucketfuls must be drawn out. If the animal has in any way become putrified in the well, then the water must not be used for three whole days; but in any other case the water can be used after the lapse of a whole day. (Sharḥu ʾl-Wiqāyah, p. 10.)

WHISTLING. Arabic mukāʾ (مكاء‎). Mentioned in the Qurʾān, Sūrah viii. 35: “Their (the Quraish) prayer at the House was naught but whistling and clapping hands! Taste, then, the torment, for that ye misbelieve.” From which it is understood that whistling was one of the idolatrous ceremonies in the days of ignorance in the Makkan temple. Whistling is therefore generally held to be unlawful for pious Muslims.

WIDOWS. Arabic armalah (ارملة‎). Heb. ‏אַלְמָנָה‎ almānāh. Mourning is incumbent upon a widow for a period of four months and ten days after the death of her husband. (Hamilton’s Hidāyah, vol. i. p. 370.) After this period she may lawfully take another husband, provided she be not pregnant of her first husband. A widow’s share of her late husband’s property is one-eighth when there is a child, or a son’s child, how low soever, and a fourth when there is no child. Though a man may have as many as four wives, the provision for two or more is the same as that for one: the fourth or eighth, as the case may be, being divisible among them equally. (Baillie’s Law of Inheritance, p. 59.)

If a Muslim, whose wife was once a Christian should die, and his widow appear before a Qāẓī and declare that she is Muslim, and that she embraced the faith prior to the death of her husband, and the heirs assert the contrary, the assertion of the heirs is to be credited to the exclusion of the rights of the widow. And if a Christian die, and his widow appear before the Qāẓī as a Muslim, and the heirs declare the contrary, the assertion of the heirs is to be credited to the exclusion of the widow. (Grady’s Hidāyah, p. 347.)

WILLS. Arabic waṣīyah (وصية‎), pl. waṣāyā, which term is held by Muslim legists to mean “an endowment with the property of anything after death, as if one person should say to another, ‘Give this article of mine, after my death, to a particular person.’ ”

The testator is called mūṣī, fem. mūṣīyah. The legatee is termed mūṣa la-hu. The legacy, mūṣa bi-hi. The person appointed to carry out the will, or the executor, is called the wasīy, pl. auṣīyā.

It is not necessary that the will of a Muslim should be executed in writing, but it must be certified to by two male witnesses, or one male and two females.

The following are some of the chief points in Muslim law, regarding the making and the execution of wills:—

Wills are lawful and valid to the extent of a third of the testator’s property, but not to any further extent unless by consent of the heirs, and it is laudable to avoid making bequests when the heirs are poor.

A bequest to an heir is not valid unless confirmed by the other heirs, and a bequest to a person from whom the testator has received a mortal wound is not valid; and if a legatee slay his testator, the bequest in his favour is void.

A bequest to a part of the heirs is not valid.

Bequests are valid between Muslims and Ẕimmīs, that is, between Muḥammadans and Jews or Christians under protection. [ZIMMI.]

The acceptance or rejection of bequests is not determined until after the death of the testator.

The legatee becomes proprietor of the legacy by his acceptance of it, which may be either expressed or implied.

A bequest by an insolvent person is void, as also that of an infant, or a mukātab (a slave who has ransomed himself). A bequest in favour of a fœtus in the womb is also invalid; but ash-Shāfiʿī says it is valid.

A female slave may be bequeathed, with the exception of her progeny. To bequeath the offspring of a female slave is unlawful.

A bequest is rescinded by the express declaration of the testator, or by any act on his part implying his retractation, or which extinguishes his property in the legacy. But the testator’s denying his bequest is not a retractation of it, nor his declaring it unlawful or usurious, nor his desiring the execution of it to be deferred. A bequest to one person is annulled by a subsequent bequest of the same article to another, unless that other be not then alive.

A legacy after being divided off by the magistrate, descends to the legatee’s heirs in case of his decease.

Concerning the Bequest of a Third of the Estates.

If a person leave a third of his property to one man and a third to another, and the heirs refuse their consent to the execution of the whole, it is then restricted to one third.

If a person bequeath the third of his estate to one, and then a sixth of it to another, and the heirs refuse their consent, in that case one-third of his estate is divided into three shares, of which two are given to the legatee of the third and one to the legatee of the sixth.

A bequest of a son’s portion of inheritance is void, but not the bequest of an equivalent to it. For example: If a person say, “I bequeath my son’s portion,” such a bequest is null; but the bequest will be valid if he say, “I bequeath an equivalent to my son’s portion.”

A bequest of a “portion” of the estate is executed to the extent of the smallest portion inherited from it, and a bequest of “part of the estate,” undefined, may be construed to apply to any part.

A person bequeathing a third of any particular property, if two-thirds of it be lost, and the remainder come within a third of the testator’s estate, the legatee is entitled to the whole of such remainder; and a bequest of “the third of” an article, part of which is afterwards destroyed, holds with respect to a third of the remainder.

A legacy of money must be paid in full with the property in hand, although all the rest of the estate should be expended in debts.

A legacy left to two persons, one of them being at that time dead, goes entire to the living legatee.

A legacy being bequeathed to two persons indefinitely, if one of them die, a moiety of it only goes to the other.

A bequest made by a poor man is of force if he afterwards become rich.

A bequest of any article, not existing in the possession or disposal of the testator at his decease, is null, unless it was referred to his property, in which case it must be discharged by a payment of the value.

An acknowledgment of debt, upon a death-bed, is efficient to the extent of a third of the estate.

Any accident occasioning uncertainty with respect to the legatees, annuls the bequest.

An heir, after partition of the estate, acknowledging a bequest in favour of another, must pay the acknowledged legatee his proportion of such bequest.

The Period of Making Wills.

As has already been remarked, Muḥammadan wills are not as a rule written documents, and therefore the institutions of the law are entirely made for verbal rather than written bequests.

Gratuitous acts, of immediate operation, if executed upon a death-bed, take effect to the extent of one-third of the property only.

An acknowledgment on a death-bed is valid in favour of the person who afterwards becomes an heir, but not a bequest or gift; neither is an acknowledgment so made valid, if the principle of inheritance had existed in the person previous to the deed.

Such acknowledgment, gift, or bequest, in favour of a son, being a slave, who afterwards becomes free, previous to the father’s decease, is nevertheless void.

Rules for Ascertaining a Death-bed Illness.

The following curious paragraph occurs in the Hidāyah on this subject:—

“Paralytic, gouty, or consumptive persons, where their disorder has continued for a length of time, and who are in no immediate danger of death, do not fall under the description of marīẓ or ‘sick,’ whence deeds of gift, executed by such, take effect to the extent of their whole property; because, when a long time has elapsed, the patient has become familiarised to his disease, which is not then accounted as sickness. The length of time requisite, by its lapse, to do away with the idea of sickness in those cases, is determined at one year; and if, after that time, the invalid should become bed-ridden, he is then accounted as one recently sick. If, therefore, any of the sick persons thus described make a gift in the beginning of their illness, or after they are bedridden, such gift takes effect from the third of their property, because at such time there is apprehension of death (whence medicine is given to them), and therefore the disorder is then considered as a death-bed illness.” (Hidāyah, Grady’s ed., p. 685.)

Emancipation of Slaves upon a Death-bed.

Emancipation and deeds of gift on a death-bed, take effect to the extent of a third of the property, and emancipation precedes in their execution the actual bequests.

The appropriation of a sum by bequest to the emancipation of a slave is annulled by the subsequent loss or failure of any part of it, but not the appropriation of a sum to the performance of a pilgrimage.

A slave, exceeding one-third of the property, emancipated on death-bed, is exempted from emancipatory labour by the heirs assenting to his freedom.

A bequest of emancipation in favour of a slave is annulled by his being made over in compensation for an offence committed by him.

Where the heir and the legatee agree concerning a slave having been emancipated by the testator, the allegation of the heir is credited with respect to the date of the deed.

Bequests for Pious Purposes.

In the execution of bequests to certain pious purposes, the duties ordained by the command of God precede those which are voluntary, and are then benevolent acts towards mankind.

If a person will that “the pilgrimage which was incumbent upon him be performed on his behalf after his death,” the heirs must depute a person for this purpose and pay all his expenses to Makkah.

But when all the purposes mentioned be of equal importance, the arrangement of the testator must be followed.

A legacy, appropriated to pilgrimage, if lost, must be repaired to the extent of a third of the estate.

Wills made by Jews and Christians.

Ẕimmīs, or Jews and Christians paying tribute for protection, can make bequests, and they are held good in Muslim law, and are subject to the same restrictions with those of Muslims.

A church or synagogue founded during health descends to the founder’s heirs, but the bequest of a house to the purpose of an infidel place of worship, is appropriated, whether any particular legatees be mentioned or otherwise.

Abū Ḥanīfah says the bequests of Ẕimmīs are of four kinds:—

(1) Those made for purposes held sacred in their belief, but not in that of Muslims, such as the building of a church or synagogue, which according to Ḥanīfah is valid under certain restrictions.

(2) Those made for purposes held pious by Muslims and not by Ẕimmīs, such as the building of a mosque, in which case the bequest is invalid.

(3) Those made for a purpose held sacred by both Muslims and Ẕimmīs, such as an offering to the Temple at Jerusalem, which are valid.

(4) Those made for purposes held to be wrong by both Ẕimmīs and Muslims, such as the support of singers and dissolute women, which are invalid as being sinful.

The will of a sensualist or innovator is the same as of an orthodox Mussulman, unless he proceed to avowed apostasy. The will of a female apostate is valid, but not that of a male apostate.

A Ẕimmī may bequeath the whole of his property; but if he bequeath a part only, the residue is transmitted to his heirs.

An emancipation granted by him on his death-bed, takes effect in toto.

Any bequest in favour of a Ẕimmī is valid, and he may make a bequest in favour of an unbeliever of a different sect not being a hostile infidel.

Usufructuary Wills.

An article bequeathed in usufruct must be consigned to the legatee; but if it constitute the sole estate, being a slave, he is possessed by the heirs and legatee alternately; or, being a house, it is held among them in their due proportions; nor are the heirs in the latter instance allowed to sell their slaves. The bequest becomes void on the death of the legatee.

A bequest of the produce of an article does not entitle the legatee to the personal use of the article; nor does a bequest of the use entitle him to let it to hire. A bequest of the use of a slave does not entitle the legatee to carry him out of the place, unless his family reside elsewhere. A bequest of a year’s product, if the article exceed a third of the estate, does not entitle the legatee to a consignment of it.

In a bequest of the use of an article to one, and the substance of it to another, the legatee of usufruct is exclusively entitled to the use during his term. A bequest of an article to one, and its contents to another, if connectedly expressed, entitles the second legatee to nothing.

A bequest of the fruit of a garden implies the present fruit only, unless it be expressed in perpetuity, and a bequest of the produce of an animal implies the existent produce only in every instance.

The Executors.

An executor having accepted his appointment in presence of the testator, is not afterwards at liberty to reject it, but his silence leaves him an option of rejection; but any act indicative of his acceptance binds him to the execution of the office.

Having rejected the appointment after the testator’s decease, he may still accept of it, unless the magistrate appoint an executor in the interim.

Where a slave, a reprobate, or an infidel are appointed, the magistrate must nominate a proper substitute.

The appointment of the testator’s slave is invalid if any of the heirs have attained to maturity, but not otherwise.

In case of the executor’s incapacity, the magistrate must give him an assistant; but he must not do so on the executor pleading incapacity without due examination; and if he appear perfectly equal to the office, he cannot be removed, not even on the complaint of the heirs, unless his culpability be ascertained.

One of two joint executors cannot act without the concurrence of the other, except in such matters as require immediate execution, or which are of an incumbent nature, or in which the interest or advantage of the estate are concerned.

In case of the death of a joint executor, the magistrate must appoint a substitute, unless the deceased have himself nominated his successor. The executor of an executor is his substitute in office.

An executor is entitled to possess himself of the portions of infant and absent adult heirs on their behalf, but not of the legacies of infant or absent legatees.

An executor may sell a slave of the estate, for the discharge of the debts upon it, in absence of the creditors, unless the slave be involved in debt.

An executor having sold and received the price of an article which afterwards proves to be the property of another, is accountable to the purchaser for the price he had so received; but if this has been lost he may reimburse himself from the person to whom the article had fallen by inheritance.

An executor may accept a transfer for a debt due to his infant ward, or sell or purchase movables on his account. He may also sell movables on account of an absent adult heir, but he cannot trade with his ward’s portion. He may sell movable property on account of the infant or absent adult brother of the testator.

The power of a father’s executor precedes that of the grandfather. If there be no executor, the grandfather is the father’s representative.

Evidence with respect to Wills.

The evidence of two executors to the appointment of a third is not valid, unless he claim or admit it, and the evidence of orphans to the appointment of an executor is not admitted if he deny it.

The testimony of executors with respect to property on behalf of an infant or of an absent adult is not admitted.

The mutual evidence of parties on behalf of each other to debts due to each from an estate is valid, but not their evidence to legacies, unless each legacy respectively consists of a slave.

A mutual evidence of this nature is void where it involves a right of participation in the witnesses.

WINDS. Arabic riyāḥ (رياح‎), pl. of rīḥ. Heb. ‏רוּחַ‎ rūak͟h. There are four special winds mentioned in the Qurʾān: Ṣarṣar, a violent hurricane (Sūrah lxix. 6); ʿaqīm, a barren wind (Sūrah li. 42); lawāqīḥ, fertilizing winds (Sūrah xv. 22); mubashshirāt, harbingers of rain (Sūrah xxx. 47). And it is related that the Prophet said he was assisted by an east wind at the battle of the Ditch, and that the tribe of ʿĀd was destroyed by a west wind. A special chapter is devoted to the Prophet’s sayings with regard to the wind, as it appears that he had a superstition of it. ʿĀyishah said, that when the clouds appeared, the Prophet used to change colour, and come out of his house and walk to and fro, nor would his alarm cease until the storm had passed away. When she expressed her surprise at his excitement, he said, “O ʿĀyishah, peradventure these winds be like those which destroyed the tribe of ʿĀd.”

WINE. Heb. ‏חֶמֶר‎ k͟hemer, Is. i. 22, “old wine.” Wine under the term k͟hamr (خمر‎), which is generally held to imply all things which intoxicate, is forbidden in the Qurʾān in the following verses:—

Sūrah ii. 216: “They will ask thee concerning wine and games of chance. Say: In both is great sin, and advantage also, to men; but their sin is greater than their advantage.”

Sūrah v. 92: “O believers! surely wine and games of chance, and statues, and the divining arrows, are an abomination of Satan’s work! Avoid them, that ye may prosper. Only would Satan sow hatred and strife among you, by wine, and games of chance, and turn you aside from the remembrance of God, and from prayer: will ye not, therefore, abstain from them? Obey God and obey the Apostle, and be on your guard: but if ye turn back, know that our Apostle is only bound to deliver a plain announcement.”

Al-Jalālān, the commentators, on these verses, say, “Only that wine is forbidden which intoxicates the brain and affects the steadiness of the body.” But all Muslim doctors hold that wine of any kind is forbidden.

Imām Abū Ḥanīfah says: “This doctrine is founded upon a precept of the Prophet, who said, ‘Whoever drinks wine, let him suffer correction by scourging as often as he drinks thereof.’” (Hamilton’s Hidāyah, vol. ii. 53.)

If a Musalman drinks wine, and is seized whilst his breath yet smells of wine, or be brought before the Qāẓī whilst he is yet intoxicated, and two witnesses give evidence that he has drunk wine, scourging is to be inflicted. The punishment is eighty lashes for a free man, and forty lashes for a slave.

Mr. Lane says: “Several stories have been told as to the occasion of Muḥammad’s prohibiting the drinking of wine. Busbequius says: ‘Muḥammad, making a journey to a friend at noon, entered into his house, where there was a marriage feast, and, sitting down with the guests, he observed them to be very merry and jovial, kissing and embracing one another, which was attributed to the cheerfulness of their spirits raised by the wine; so that he blessed it as a sacred thing in being thus an instrument of much love among men. But, returning to the same house the next day, he beheld another face of things, as gore-blood on the ground, a hand cut off, an arm, foot, and other limbs dismembered, which he was told was the effect of the brawls and fightings occasioned by the wine, which made them mad, and inflamed them into a fury, thus to destroy one another. Whereon he changed his mind, and turned his former blessing into a curse, and forbade wine ever after to all his disciples.’ Epist. 3. This prohibition of wine hindered many of the Prophet’s contemporaries from embracing his religion. Yet several of the most respectable of the pagan Arabs, like certain of the Jews and early Christians, abstained totally from wine, from a feeling of its injurious effects upon moral, and, in their climate, upon health; or, more especially, from the fear of being led by it into the commission of foolish and degrading actions. Thus Keys (Qais), the son of Asim, being one night overcome with wine, attempted to grasp the moon, and swore that he would not quit the spot where he stood until he had laid hold of it. After leaping several times with the view of doing so, he fell flat upon his face; and when he recovered his senses, and was acquainted with the cause of his face being bruised, he made a solemn vow to abstain from wine ever after.”—Lane’s Arabian Nights, vol. i. pp. 217, 218.

WITNESS. Arabic shahīd (شهيد‎), dual shahīdān; pl. shuhadā, or shuhūd.

Terms which are used for witness in legal cases, an account of which is given in the article on EVIDENCE; and also for those who die as martyrs for the Muslim faith, or meet with sudden death from any accidental circumstance. [MARTYR.]

WITR (وتر‎). Lit. “An odd number.” Witr rakʿahs are an odd number of rakʿahs, 3, 5, or 7, which may be said after the last prayer at night, and before the dawn of day. Usually they are added to the Ṣalātu ʾl-ʿIshā. Imām Abū Ḥanīfah says they are wājib, that is, ordered by God, although they are not authorised by any text in the Qurʾān. But they are instituted by traditions, each of which is generally received as a Ḥadīs̤ Ṣaḥīḥ; and so witr rakʿahs are regarded as being of divine authority. Imām Shāfaʿī, however, considers them to be sunnah only.

The Traditions referred to are:—

The Prophet said: “God has added to your prayers one prayer more: know that it is witr, say it between the Ṣalātu ʾl-ʿIshā and the dawn.”

On the authority of Buzār, it is recorded that the Prophet said: “Witr is wājib upon Muslims,” and in order to enforce the practice, he added: “Witr is right; he who does not observe it is not my follower.”

The Prophet, the Companions, the Tābiʿūn and the Tabaʿu ʾt-Tābiʿīn, all observed it.

The word witr literally means “odd number,” and a tradition says: “God is odd, He loves the odd.”

Musalmāns pay the greatest respect to an odd number. It is considered unlucky to begin any work, or to commence a journey on a day, the date of which is an even number.

The number of lines in a page of a book is nearly always an odd number. [SALATU ʾL-WITR.]

WIVES. Arabic zauj (زوج‎), pl. azwāj, also zaujah, pl. zaujāt. Although Muḥammad himself claimed the special indulgence of eleven lawful wives, he limited his followers to four, allowing at the same time as many female concubines or domestic slaves as the master’s right hand possessed. See Qurʾān, Sūrah iv. 3: “Marry what seems good to you of women, by twos, or threes, or fours, or what your right hand possesses.” [MARRIAGE.]

According to the Shīʿahs, he also sanctioned temporary marriages, an account of which will be found in the article on MUTʿAH.

Regarding the treatment of wives, the following verse in the Qurʾān (Sūrah iv. 38) allows the husband absolute power to correct them: “Chide those whose refractoriness you have cause to fear. Remove them into sleeping chambers apart, and beat them. But if they are obedient to you, then seek not occasion against them.”

(For other injunctions in the Qurʾān on the subject, see the article WOMEN.)

The following is Muḥammad’s teaching, as given in the Traditions (see Mishkāt, Arabic edition; Bābu ʾn-Nikāḥ):—

“That is the most perfect Muslim whose disposition is the best, and the best of you is he who behaves best to his wives.”

“When a man has two wives and does not treat them equally, he will come on the Day of Resurrection with half his body fallen off.”

“When a man calls his wife, she must come, although she be at an oven.”

“The Prophet used to divide his time equally amongst his wives, and he would say, ‘O God, I divide impartially that which thou hast put in my power.’ ”

“Admonish your wives with kindness, because women were created from a crooked bone of the side; therefore, if you wish to straighten it, you will break it, and if you let it alone, it will always be crooked.”

“Not one of you must whip his wife like whipping a slave.”

“A Muslim must not hate his wife, for if he be displeased with one bad quality in her, then let him be pleased with another that is good.”

“A Muslim cannot obtain anything better than an amiable and beautiful wife, such a wife who, when ordered by her husband to do a thing, will obey, and if her husband looks at her will be happy; and if her husband swears by her, she will make him a swearer of truth; and if he be absent from her, she will honour him with her own person and property.”

It is related that on one occasion the Prophet said: “Beat not your wives.” Then ʿUmar came to the Prophet and said, “Our wives have got the upper hand of their husbands from hearing this.” Then the Prophet permitted beating of wives. Then an immense number of women collected round the Prophet’s family, and complained of their husbands beating them. And the Prophet said, “Verily a great number of women are assembled in my home complaining of their husbands, and those men who beat their wives do not behave well. He is not of my way who teaches a woman to go astray and who entices a slave from his master.”

The legal position of a wife under Sunnī, and, with some slight differences, under Shīʿah law also, may be generally stated as follows:—

Her consent to a marriage is necessary. She cannot legally object to be one of four wives. Nor can she object to an unlimited number of hand-maids. She is entitled to a marriage settlement or dower, which must be paid to her in case of divorce or separation. She may, however, remit either whole or part of the dower. She may refuse to join her husband until the dower is paid. She may be at any time, with or without cause, divorced by her husband. She may seek or claim divorce (k͟hulʿ) from her husband with her husband’s consent. She may be chastised by her husband. She cannot give evidence in a court of law against her husband. According to the Sunnīs, her evidence in favour of her husband is not admissible, but the Shīʿahs maintain the opposite view. Her husband can demand her seclusion from public. If she becomes a widow, she must observe ḥidād, or mourning, for the space of four months and ten days. In the event of her husband’s death, she is entitled to a portion of her husband’s estate, in addition to her claim of dower, the claim of dower taking precedence of all other claims on the estate.

There are special arrangements made by Muslim law for the partition of the husband’s time amongst his wives in case he may have two or more wives. For it is related that Muḥammad said, “The man who has two or more wives, and who, in partition of his time, inclines particularly to one of them, shall in the Day of Judgment incline to one side by being paralytic.” And ʿĀyishah relates that the Prophet said, “O God, I make an equal partition amongst my wives as to what is in my power; do not, therefore, bring me to account for that which is not in my power, namely, the affections.” It is therefore ruled that the wife of a prior marriage and of a recent one, are all alike in the matter of the partition of time spent with them. The husband can, however, arrange and determine the measure of the partition of his time as to whether it be one day or more at a time. But if a man marry two wives, the one a free woman and the other a bond-maid, he must divide his time into three portions, giving two portions to the free woman and one to the bond-maid. When the husband is on a journey, his wives can make no claim to accompany him on the journey, and it is entirely at his option to carry along with him whomsoever he pleases, but it is preferable for him to cast lots and take with him on the journey her upon whom the lot may happen to fall. The time of the journey is not to be counted against a husband, and he is therefore not obliged to make up for the partition lost within that time. It is also allowed by the law, of one wife to give up her right as regards partition of time to any other of her husband’s wives. But if a woman give up her right, she is not at liberty to resume it. (Durru ʾl-Muk͟htār, in loco.)

The position of a wife as regards the law of divorce, is treated under the article DIVORCE.

We are indebted to Moulvi Syed Ameer Ali, M.A., LL.B., a Muḥammadan Barrister-at-Law, and Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta, for the following able exposition of the position of wives under the Muslim law:—

“Prior to the Islâmic legislation, and especially among the pagan Arabs, women had no locus standi in the eye of the law. The pre-Islâmic Arab customs as well as the Rabbinical law, dealt most harshly with them. (3 Caussin de Perceval, Hist. des. Arabes, p. 337.)

“The Koran created a thorough revolution in the condition of women. For the first time in the history of Oriental legislation, the principle of equality between the sexes was recognised and practically carried into effect. ‘The women,’ says the Koran, ‘ought to behave towards their husbands in like manner as their husbands should behave towards them, according to what is just.’ (Koran, chap. ii., v. 228.) And Mohammed in his discourse on Jabl-i-Arafât, emphasised the precept by declaring in eloquent terms, ‘Ye men, ye have rights over your wives, and your wives have rights over you.’ (Ibn Hishâm.) In accordance with these precepts the Mahommedan law declares equality between the married parties to be the regulating principle of all domestic relationship. Fidelity to the marriage bed is inculcated on both sides; and unfaithfulness leads to the same consequences, whether the delinquent be the husband or the wife. Chastity is required equally from man and woman.

“The husband is legally bound to maintain his wife and her domestic servants, whether she and her servants belong to the Moslem faith or not. This obligation of the husband comes into operation when the contract itself comes into operation, and the wife is subjected thereby to the marital control. It continues in force during the conjugal union, and in certain cases even after it is dissolved.

“The maintenance (nafkah) of a wife includes everything connected with her support and comfort, such as food, raiment, lodging, &c., and must be provided in accordance with the social position occupied. (1 Fatâwa-i-Alamgîrî, p. 737; 1 Fatâwa-i-Kâzi Khân; Jâma-ush-Shattât; Fusûl-Imâdiyah; Mafâtîh; 1 Hed., Eng. Trans., p. 392.)

“The wife is not entitled merely to maintenance in the English sense of the word, but has a right to claim a habitation for her own exclusive use, to be provided consistently with the husband’s means.

“If the wife, however, is a minor, so that the marriage cannot be consummated, according to the Hanafî and the Shiah doctrines, there is no legal obligation on the husband’s part to maintain her. (1 Fatâwa-i-Alamgîrî, p. 773; Kanz-ud-Dakâik; 1 Hed., Eng. Trans., p. 394; Jâma-ush-Shattât.)

“With the Shâfeïs it makes no difference, in the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife, whether the wife be a minor or not. (Kitâb-ul-Anwâr; 1 Hed., Eng. Trans., p. 394.)

“Nor is a husband, under the Hanafî and the Shiah law, entitled to the custody of the person of a minor wife whom he is not bound to maintain. (In re Khatija Bibi, 5 Bengal Law Reports, O. C. J. 557.)

“If the husband be a minor and the wife an adult, and the incapacity to complete or consummate the contract be solely on his part, she is entitled to maintenance. (1 Hed., Eng. Trans., p. 395; Fusûl-i-Imâdiyah; 1 Fatâwa-i-Kâzi Khân, p. 480; Jâma-ush-Shattât.)

“It makes no difference in the husband’s liability to maintain the wife whether he be in health or suffering from illness, whether he be a prisoner of war or undergoing punishment, ‘justly or unjustly,’ for some crime, whether he be absent from home on pleasure or business, or gone on a pilgrimage. (1 Fatâwa-i-Alamgîrî, p. 733.) In fact, as long as the status of marriage subsists, and as long as the wife is subject to the marital power, so long she is entitled to maintenance from him. Nor does she lose her right by being afflicted with any disease. (1 Fatâwa-i-Alamgîrî, p. 734; Jâma-ush-Shattât.)

“When the husband has left the place of the conjugal domicil without making any arrangement for his wife’s support, the Kazi is authorised by law to make an order that her maintenance shall be paid out of any fund or property which the husband may have left in deposit or in trust, or invested in any trade or business. (1 Fatâwa-i-Alamgîrî, p. 750.)

“A wife may contract debts for her support during the husband’s absence, and if such debts are legitimate, contracted bonâ fide for her support, the creditors have a “right of recovery” against the husband. (Nail-ul-Marâm.) In the same way, if the husband be unable for the time being to maintain his wife, ‘it would not form a cause for separation,’ says the Hedayah, ‘but the magistrate may direct the woman to pledge her husband’s credit and procure necessaries for herself, the husband remaining liable for the debts.’ (1 Hed., Eng. Trans., p. 297.)

“When the husband is absent and has left real property either in the possession of his wife or of some other person on her behalf, the wife is not entitled to sell it for her support, though she may raise a temporary loan on it, which the husband will be bound to discharge, provided the mortgage was created bonâ fide for her or her children’s support, and did not go beyond the actual necessity of the case. Under such circumstances the mortgagee is bound to satisfy himself that the money advanced is applied legitimately to the support of the family of the absent husband. (1 Fatâwa-i-Alamgîrî, p. 737.)

“When the woman abandons the conjugal domicil without any valid reason, she is not entitled to maintenance. (1 Fatâwa-i-Alamgîrî, p. 733; Fusûl-i-Imâdiyah; Jâma-ush-Shattât.) Simple refractoriness, as has been popularly supposed, does not lead to a forfeiture of her right. If she live in the house but do not obey the husband’s wishes, she would not lose her right to her proper maintenance. If she leave the house against his will without any valid reason, she would lose her right, but would recover it on her return to the conjugal domicil. (Fatâwa-i-Alamgîrî; Jâma-ush-Shattât; Kitâb-min lâ-Euhazzar al-Fakîh.)

“What is a valid and sufficient reason for the abandonment of the conjugal domicil is a matter for the discretion of the Kazi or judge. As a general principle and one which has been adopted and enforced by the Kazis’ mahkamas in Algeria, a wife who leaves her husband’s house on account of his or his relations’ continued ill-treatment of her, does not come within the category of nâshizah and continues entitled to her maintenance.

“A woman who is imprisoned for some offence, or is undergoing incarceration in the civil jail for non-payment of a debt, or who goes on a voyage or pilgrimage without her husband’s consent, has no right to claim any maintenance during her absence. (1 Fatâwa-i-Alamgîrî, p. 734.)

“Among the Shiahs, if she goes on an obligatory pilgrimage, even without her husband’s consent, she is nevertheless entitled to maintenance.

“The husband’s liability to support the wife continues during the whole period of probation, if the separation has been caused by any conduct of his, or has taken place in exercise of a right possessed by her. The husband would not, however, be liable to support the wife during the iddat, if the separation is caused by her misconduct. (Fatâwa-i-Alamgîrî, p. 746; Jâma-ush-Shattât; 1 Fatâwa-i-Kâzi Khân, p. 481.)

“If she is pregnant at the time of separation her right remains intact until she is confined of the child.

“The Hedâya seems to imply that a woman is not entitled to maintenance during the period of probation she observes on the death of her husband. (1 Hed. p. 407.) As the Koran, however, distinctly says, ‘Such of you as shall die and leave wives ought to bequeath to them a year’s maintenance,’ several jurists have held that a widow has a right to be maintained from the estate of her husband for a year, independently of any share she may obtain in the property left by him. This right would appertain to her whether she be a Moslemah or non-Moslemah.

“In the case of probation (iddat) observed by a woman on the death of her husband, the Sunnis calculate the period from the actual date of his decease; the Shiahs from the day on which the wife receives the news of the death.

“According to the Sunnis, the liability of the husband to maintain a pregnant wife from whom he has separated ceases at her confinement. (1 Hed. p. 360.) The Shiahs, on the other hand, hold that the liability lasts for the same period after confinement as if the woman was not enceinte. (Jâma-ush-Shattât.)

“If the husband be insane, the wife is entitled, according to the Shâfeï doctrines and the views of the compilers of the Fatâwa-i-Alamgîrî, to maintenance for the period of one year, which is fixed by the Kazi in order to discover whether the insanity is curable or not. The Mâlikîs, with whom the author of the Hedâya seems to agree, deny to the wife the right of asking for a dissolution of the marriage tie on the ground of the husband’s insanity. Among them the wife, therefore, retains the right of maintenance during the insanity of her husband, however long continued. With the Shiahs the wife is entitled to a cancellation of the marriage contract if the husband’s insanity be incurable. Should she exercise this right and dissolve the marriage, her right to maintenance ceases.

“The Mahommedan law lays down distinctly (1) that a wife is bound to live with her husband, and to follow him wherever he desires to go; (2) and that on her refusing to do so without sufficient or valid reason, the courts of justice, on a suit for restitution of conjugal rights by the husband, would order her to live with her husband.

“The wife cannot refuse to live with her husband on pretexts like the following:—

“(1.) That she wishes to live with her parents.

“(2.) That the domicil chosen by the husband is distant from the home of her father.

“(3.) That she does not wish to remain away from the place of her birth.

“(4.) That the climate of the place where the husband has established his domicil is likely to be injurious to her health.

“(5.) That she detests her husband.

“(6.) That the husband ill-treats her frequently (unless such ill-treatment is actually proved, which would justify the Kazi to grant a separation).

“The obligation of the woman, however, to live with her husband is not absolute. The law recognises circumstances which justify her refusal to live with him. For instance, if he has habitually ill-treated her, if he has deserted her for a long time, or if he has directed her to leave his house or even connived at her doing so, he cannot require her to re-enter the conjugal domicil or ask the assistance of a court of justice to compel her to live with him. The bad conduct or gross neglect of the husband is, under the Mussulman law, a good defence to a suit brought by him for restitution of conjugal rights.

“In the absence of any conduct on the husband’s part justifying an apprehension that, if the wife accompanied him to the place chosen by him for his residence, she would be at his mercy and exposed to his violence, she is bound by law to accompany him wherever he goes. At the same time the law recognises the validity of express stipulations, entered into at the time of marriage, respecting the conjugal domicil. If it be agreed that the husband shall allow his wife to live always with her parents, he cannot afterwards force her to leave her father’s house for his own. Such stipulation in order to be practically carried into effect, must be entered in the deed of marriage; a mere verbal understanding is not sufficient in the eye of the law.

“If the wife, however, once consent to leave the place of residence agreed upon at the time of marriage, she would be presumed to have waived the right acquired under express stipulation, and to have adopted the domicil chosen by the husband. If a special place be indicated in the deed of marriage as the place where the husband should allow the wife to live, and it appear subsequently that it is not suited for the abode of a respectable woman, or that injury is likely to happen to the wife if she remain there, or that the wife’s parents were not of good character, the husband may compel the wife to remove from such place or from the house of such parents.

“The husband may also insist upon his wife accompanying him from one place to another, if the change is occasioned by the requirements of his duty.

“Every case in which the question of conjugal domicil is involved will depend, says De Ménerville, upon its own special features, the general principle of the Mussulman law on the subject being the same as in other systems of law, viz. that the wife is bound to reside with her husband, unless there is any valid reason to justify her refusal to do so. The sufficiency or validity of the reasons is a matter for the consideration of the Kazi or judge, with special regard to the position in life of the parties and the usages and customs of the particular country in which they reside.”

Faqīr Jani Muḥammad Asʿad, the author of the Ak͟hlāq-i-Jalālī, gives the following sage advice, which expresses very much the ordinary Oriental view of the question:—

As regards the Selection of a Wife.

The best of wives would be such an one as is graced with intellect, honour, chastity, good sense, modesty, tenderness of heart, good manners, submission to her husband, and gravity of demeanour. Barren she should not be, but prolific.… A free woman is preferable to a bond woman, inasmuch as this supposes the accession of new friends and connections, and the pacification of enemies and the furtherance of temporal interests. Low birth is likewise objectionable on the same account. A young maiden is to be preferred, because she may be expected more readily to attend to her husband’s guidance and injunctions; and if she be further graced with the three qualities of family, property, and beauty, she would be the acmè of perfection.

To these three qualities, however, sundry dangers may attach; and of these we should accordingly beware. For family engenders conceit; and whereas women are noted for weakness of mind, she will probably be all the slower to submit to the husband’s control; nay, at times she will view him in the light of a servant, which must needs prove a perversion of interest, an inversion of relation, and an injury in this world and the next. As to property and beauty, they are liable to the same inconvenience; while in beauty there is this further and peculiar evil, that a beauty is coveted of many; and since women possess less of that judgment which restrains from crime, it may thus lead to mischief without end.

As regards the Management of a Wife.

There are three things to be maintained and three things to be avoided.

Of the three things to be maintained:—

1. Dignity.—The husband should constantly preserve a dignified bearing towards her, that she may forbear to slight his commands and prohibitions. This is the primary means of government, and it may be effected by the display of his merits and the concealment of his defects.

2. Complaisance.—He is to comply with his wife as far as to assure her of his affection and confidence; otherwise, in the idea of having lost it, she will proceed to set herself in opposition to his will. And this withal, he is to be particular in veiling and secluding her from all persons not of the ḥarīm, in conversing with her in conciliatory terms, and consulting her at the outset of matters in such a manner as to ensure her consent. (Observe the seclusion and veiling is here put as a compliment rather than a restraint.)

3. Towards her friends and connections he is to follow the course of deference, politeness, cordiality, and fair dealing, and never, except on proof of her depravity, to take any wife besides her, however superior in family, property and person. For that jealousy and acrimony which, as well as weakness of judgment, is implanted in the nature of women, incites them to misconduct and vice. Excepting, indeed, in the case of kings, who marry to multiply offspring, and to whom the wife has no alternative but obedience, plurality of wives is not defensible. Even in the case of kings, it would be better to be cautious; for husband and wife are like heart and body, and like as one heart cannot supply life to two bodies, one man cannot properly provide for two wives or divide his affection equally between them.

The wife should be empowered to dispose of provisions as occasion may require, and to prescribe to the domestics the duties they are to perform. In order that idleness may not lead her into wrong, her mind should be kept constantly engaged in the transaction of domestic affairs and the superintendence of family interests.

As to the three things to be avoided in a husband towards his wife:—

1. Excess of affection, for this gives her the predominance and leads to a state of perversion. When the power is overpowered and the commander commanded, all regularity must infallibly be destroyed. If troubled with redundance of affection, let him at least conceal it from her.

2. Let him not consult her on matters of paramount importance; let him not make her acquainted with his secrets, nor let her know the amount of his property, or the stores he possesses, beyond those in present consumption, or her weakness of judgment will infallibly set things wrong.

3. Let him allow her no musical instruments, no visiting out of doors, no listening to men’s stories, nor intercourse with women noted for such practices; especially where any previous suspicion has been raised.

The particulars which wives should abide by are five:—

1. To adhere to chastity.

2. To wear contented demeanour.

3. To consider their husband’s dignity and treat them with respect.

4. To submit to their husband’s directions.

5. To humour their husbands in their moments of merriment and not to disturb them by captious remarks.

“The Refuge of Revelation (Muḥammad) declared that if the worship of one created thing could be permitted to another, he would have enjoined the worship of husbands. Philosophers have said, ‘A good wife is as a mother for affection and tenderness; as a slave-girl for content and attention; as a friend for concord and sincerity. Whilst, on the other hand, a bad wife is as a rebel for unruliness and contumacy; as a foe for contemptuousness and reproach; and as a thief for treacherous designs upon her husband’s purse.’”

The Arab philosophers also say there are five sorts of wives to be avoided: the yearners, the favourers, the deplorers, the backbiters, and the toadstools. The yearner is a widow who has had a child by a former husband, and who will indulge her child out of the property of her present one. The favourer is a woman of property who makes a favour of bestowing it upon her husband. The deplorer is one who is the widow of a former husband whom she will ever aver to be better than her present one. The backbiter is one invested with the robe of continence, and who will ever and anon in his absence brand his blind side by speaking of his faults. The toadstool is an unprincipled beauty, who is like vegetation springing up to corruption. (See Ak͟hlāq-i-Jalālī, Thompson’s ed., p. 263.)

Mr. Lane, in his Modern Egyptians, remarks:—

“Polygamy, which is also attended with very injurious effects upon the morals of the husband and the wives, and only to be defended because it serves to prevent a greater immorality than it occasions, is more rare among the higher and middle classes than it is among the lower orders; and it is not very common among the latter. A poor man may indulge himself with two or more wives, each of whom may be able, by some art or occupation, nearly to provide her own subsistence; but most persons of the middle and higher orders are deterred from doing so by the consideration of the expense and discomfort which they would incur. A man having a wife who has the misfortune to be barren, and being too much attached to her to divorce her, is sometimes induced to take a second wife, merely in the hope of obtaining offspring; and from the same motive, he may take a third, and a fourth; but fickle passion is the most evident and common motive both to polygamy and repeated divorces. They are comparatively very few who gratify this passion by the former practice. I believe that not more than one husband among twenty has two wives.

“When there are two or more wives belonging to one man, the first (that is, the one first married) generally enjoys the highest rank; and is called ‘the great lady.’ Hence it often happens that, when a man who has already one wife wishes to marry another girl or woman, the father of the latter, or the female herself who is sought in marriage, will not consent to the union unless the first wife be previously divorced. The women, of course, do not approve of a man’s marrying more than one wife. Most men of wealth, or of moderate circumstances, and even many men of the lower orders, if they have two or more wives, have, for each, a separate house.”

Mrs. Meer Hassan Ali, an Englishwoman who spent twelve years in a Muḥammadan zanānah at Lucknow, and who in 1832 published her Observations on the Musalmans of India, says:—

“Although he (the Muslim) may be the husband of many wives in the course of time, and some of them prove greater favourites, yet the first wife takes precedence in all matters were dignity is to be preserved. And when several wives meet (each have separate habitations if possible), all the rest pay to the first wife that deference which superiority exacts from inferiors; not only do the secondary wives pay this respect to the first, but the whole circle of relations and friends make the same distinction, as a matter of course; for the first wife takes precedence in every way.

* * *

“The latitude allowed by the law preserves the many-wived Musalman from the world’s censure; and his conscience rests unaccused when he adds to his numbers, if he cannot reproach himself with having neglected or unkindly treated any of the number bound to him, or their children. But the privilege is not always indulged in by the Musalmans; much depends upon circumstances, and more on the man’s disposition. If it be the happy lot of a kind-hearted, good man to be married to a woman of assimilating mind, possessing the needful requirements to render home agreeable, and a prospect of an increasing family, then the husband has no motive to draw him into further engagements, and he is satisfied with one wife. Many such men I have known in Hindustan, particularly among the Sayyuds and religious characters, who deem a plurality of wives a plague to the possessors in proportion to their numbers.”

There is a curious work published in Persian, entitled Kitábi Kulsúm Naneh, in which are given the maxims regarding wives as they are supposed to exist in Persia. It pretends to be a grave work, compiled under the direction of seven matron law-givers, but is really a specimen of Persian humour, a jeu d’esprit, founded upon female customs and superstitions. The work is of little worth as regards its legal value, but shows the popular views of Persian women regarding their own and the opposite sex. The chapter relating to “The Conduct of the Wife to her Husband, Mother-in-Law, and other Relations,” is a fair specimen of its character.

“That man is to be praised who confines himself to one wife; for if he takes two it is wrong, and he will certainly repent of his folly. Thus say the seven wise women—

Be that man’s life immersed in gloom

Who weds more wives than one,

With one his cheeks retain their bloom,

His voice a cheerful tone;

These speak his honest heart at rest,

And he and she are always blest;

But when with two he seeks for joy,

Together they his soul annoy;

With two no sun-beam of delight

Can make his day of misery bright.

“That man, too, must possess an excellent disposition, who never fails to comply with his wife’s wishes, since the hearts of women are gentle and tender, and harshness to them would be cruel. If he be angry with her, so great is her sensibility, that she loses her health and becomes weak and delicate. A wife, indeed, is the mirror of her husband, and reflects his character; her joyous and agreeable looks being the best proofs of his temper and goodness of heart. She never of herself departs from the right path, and the colour of her cheeks is like the full-blown rose; but if her husband is continually angry with her, her colour fades, and her complexion becomes yellow as saffron. He should give her money without limit: God forbid that she should die of sorrow and disappointment! in which case her blood would be upon the head of her husband.

“The learned conclave are unanimous in declaring that many instances have occurred of women dying from the barbarous cruelty of their husbands in this respect; and if the husband be even a day-labourer, and he does not give his wages to his wife, she will claim them on the Day of Judgment. It is incumbent on the husband to bestow on the wife a daily allowance in cash, and he must also allow her every expense of feasting, and of excursions, and the bath, and every other kind of recreation. If he has not generosity and pride enough to do this, he will assuredly be punished for all his sins and omissions on the Day of Resurrection. And whenever he goes to the market, he must buy fruit and other little things, and put them in his handkerchief, and take them to his wife, to shew his affection for her, and to please her heart. And if she wishes to undertake a little journey, to go to the house of her friends for a month, to attend the baths, or enjoy any other pastime, it is not fit for the husband to deny those wishes, and distress her mind by refusal. And when she resolves upon giving an entertainment, it is wájib that he should anticipate what she wants, and bring to her all kinds of presents, and food, and wine, required on the festive occasion. And in entertaining her guests, and mixing among them, and doing all that hospitality and cordial friendship demand, she is not to be interrupted or interfered with by her husband saying, ‘What have you done? where have you been?’ And if her female guests choose to remain all night, they must be allowed to sleep in the woman’s room, while the husband sleeps apart and alone. The learned conclave unanimously declare that the woman who possesses such a husband—a man so accommodating and obedient, is truly fortunate; but if he happens to be of an opposite character, morose, disobliging, and irritable, then indeed must she be the most wretched of womankind. In that case she must of necessity sue for a divorce, or make him faithfully promise future obedience and readiness to devote himself wholly to her will and pleasure. If a divorce is denied, she must then pray devoutly to be unburthened of her husband, and that she may soon become a widow. By artifice and manœuvring the spouse may thus be at length induced to say: ‘Do, love, whatever you please, for I am your dutiful slave.’ Bíbí Ján Afróz says, ‘A woman is like a nosegay, always retaining its moisture so as never to wither.’ It is not, therefore, proper that such a lovely object should be refused the comfort and felicity of taking pleasant walks in gardens with her friends, and manifesting her hospitality to her guests; nor is it reasonable that she should be prevented from playing on the dyra, and frequently visiting her acquaintance.

“Should her husband, however, maliciously and vexatiously refuse these rights, she cannot remain longer in his house. An old or ugly woman does not lie under the same obligation; she may submit to any privation without infringing the rules of decorum. The conclave also declare that the husband’s mother, and other relations, are invariably inimical to the wife: it is therefore wájib that she should maintain her authority when thwarted in her views, by at least once a day using her fists, her teeth, and kicking, and pulling their hair, till tears come into their eyes, and fear prevents further interference with her plans. Kulsúm Naneh says that she must continue this indomitable spirit of independence until she has fully established her power, and on all occasions she must ring in her husband’s ears the threat of a divorce. If he still resists, she must redouble all the vexations which she knows from experience irritate his mind, and day and night add to the bitterness and misery of his condition. She must never, whether by day or by night, for a moment relax. For instance, if he condescends to hand her the loaf, she must throw it from her, or at him, with indignation and contempt. She must make his shoe too tight for him, and his pillow a pillow of stone: so that at last he becomes weary of life, and is glad to acknowledge her authority. On the other hand, should these resources fail, the wife may privately convey from her husband’s house everything valuable that she can lay her hands upon, and then go to the Kází, and complain that her husband has beaten her with his shoe, and pretend to shew the bruises on her skin. She must state such facts in favour of her case as she knows cannot be refuted by evidence, and pursue every possible plan to escape from the thraldom she endures. For that purpose, every effort of every description is perfectly justifiable, and according to law.

“And the seven learned expounders of the customs regarding the conduct and demeanour of women in Persia declare, that among the forbidden things is that of allowing their features to be seen by men not wearing turbans, unless indeed they are handsome, and have soft and captivating manners; in that case their veils may be drawn aside without the apprehension of incurring blame, or in any degree exceeding the discretionary power with which they are traditionally invested. But they must scrupulously and religiously abstain from all such liberties with Múllahs and Jews; since, respecting them, the prohibition is imperative. It is not necessary, however, to be very particular in the presence of common people; there is nothing criminal in being seen by singers, musicians, hammám-servants, and such persons as go about the streets to sell their wares and trinkets.” (Atkinson’s Customs and Manners of the Women of Persia, p. 54.)

WOMEN. Arabic nisāʾ (نساء‎).

I.—The Condition of Women before the time of Muḥammad.

Although the condition of women under Muslim law is most unsatisfactory, it must be admitted that Muḥammad effected a vast and marked improvement in the condition of the female population of Arabia.

Amongst the Arabs who inhabited the peninsula of Arabia the condition of women was extremely degraded, for amongst the pagan Arabs a woman was a mere chattel. She formed the integral part of the estate of her husband or father, and the widows of a man descended to his son or sons by right of inheritance, as any other portion of patrimony. Hence the frequent unions between step-sons and mothers-in-law, which were subsequently forbidden by Islām, were branded under the name of Nikāḥu ʾl-Maqt, or “odious marriages.”

The pre-Islāmic Arabs also carried their aversion to women so far as to destroy, by burying alive, many of their female children. This fearful custom was common amongst the tribes of Quraish and Kurdah. For although they used to call the angels “daughters of God,” they objected (as do the Badawī to this day) to female offspring, and used to bury their infant daughters alive. This horrible custom is referred to in the Qurʾān, where it is said, Sūrah vi. 138: “Thus have their associates made seemly to many of the idolaters the killing of their children to destroy them.” And, again, Sūrah xvi. 60, 61: “When any one of them has tidings of a female child, his face is overclouded and black, and he has to keep back his wrath. He skulks away from the public for the evil tidings he has heard;—is he to keep it in disgrace, or to bury it in the dust?”

It is said the only time on which ʿUs̤mān shed a tear, was in the days of ignorance, when his little daughter, whom he was burying alive, wiped the dust of the grave-earth from his beard.

The ancient Arabic proverbs illustrate the ideas of pre-Islāmic Arabia as to the position of women, e.g.:—

“A man can bear anything but the mention of his wives.”

“Women are the whips of Satan.”

“Trust neither a king, a horse, nor a woman.”

“Our mother forbids us to err and runs into error.”

“What has a woman to do with the councils of a nation?”

“Obedience to a woman will have to be repented of.”

II.—The Teaching of the Qurʾān.

It has often been asserted by European writers that the Qurʾān teaches that women have no souls. Such, however, is not the case. What that book does teach on the subject of women will be gathered from the following selections:—

Sūrah xxxiii. 35:—

“Verily the resigned men and the resigned women,

The believing men and the believing women,

The devout men and the devout women,

The truthful men and the truthful women,

The patient men and the patient women,

The humble men and the humble women,

The charitable men and the charitable women,

The fasting men and the fasting women,

The chaste men and the chaste women,

And the men and women who oft remember God,

For them hath God prepared forgiveness and a mighty recompense.”

Sūrah xxiv. 31:—

“Speak to the believing women that they refrain their eyes, and observe continence; and that they display not their ornaments, except those which are external; and that they throw their veils over their bosoms, and display not their ornaments, except to their husbands or their fathers, or their husbands’ fathers, or their sons, or their husbands’ sons, or their brothers, or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male domestics who have no natural force, or to children who note not women’s nakedness. And let them not strike their feet together, so as to discover their hidden ornaments. (See Isaiah iii. 16.) And be ye all turned to God, O ye Believers! that it may be well with you.”

Sūrah lx. 10–12:—

“O Believers! when believing women come over to you as refugees (Muhājirs), then make trial of them. God best knoweth their faith; but if ye have also ascertained their faith, let them not go back to the infidels; they are not lawful for them, nor are the unbelievers lawful for these women. But give them back what they have spent for their dowers. No crime shall it be in you to marry them, provided ye give them their dowers. Do not retain any right in the infidel women, but demand back what you have spent for their dowers, and let the unbelievers demand back what they have spent for their wives. This is the ordinance of God which He ordaineth among you: and God is Knowing, Wise.

“And if any of your wives escape from you to the Infidels from whom ye afterwards take any spoil, then give to those whose wives shall have fled away, the like of what they shall have spent for their dowers; and fear God in whom ye believe.

“O Prophet! when believing women come to thee, and pledge themselves that they will not associate aught with God, and that they will not steal or commit adultery, nor kill their children, nor bring scandalous charges, nor disobey thee in what is right, then plight thou thy faith to them, and ask pardon for them of God: for God is Indulgent, Merciful!”

Sūrah iv. 1:—

“O Men! fear your Lord, who hath created you of one man (nafs, soul), and of him created his wife, and from these twain hath spread abroad so many men and women. And fear ye God, in whose name ye ask mutual favours—and reverence the wombs that bare you. Verily is God watching you!

* * *

“And entrust not to the incapable the substance which God hath placed with you as a means of support; but maintain them therewith, and clothe them, and speak to them with kindly speech.”

“Men are superior to women on account of the qualities with which God had gifted the one above the other, and on account of the outlay they make from their substance for them. Virtuous women are obedient, careful during the husband’s absence, because God hath of them been careful. But chide those for whose refractoriness ye have cause to fear; remove them into sleeping-chambers apart, and scourge them, but if they are obedient to you, then seek not occasion against them; verily God is High, Great!

* * *

“And if a wife fear ill-usage or aversion on the part of her husband, then shall it be no fault in them if they can agree with mutual agreement, for agreement is best. Men’s souls are prone to avarice, but if ye act kindly and piously, then, verily, your actions are not unnoticed by God!

“And ye may not have it at all in your power to treat your wives with equal justice, even though you fain would do so; but yield not wholly to disinclination, so that ye leave one of them as it were in suspense; if ye come to an understanding and act in the fear of God, then verily, God is Forgiving, Merciful!

“But if they separate, God can compensate both out of His abundance; for God is Vast, Wise!”

Sūrah xxiv. 4–9:—

“They who defame virtuous women, and bring not four witnesses, scourge them with fourscore stripes, and receive ye not their testimony for ever, for these are perverse persons—

“Save those who afterwards repent and live virtuously; for truly God is Lenient, Merciful!

“And they who shall accuse their wives, and have no witnesses but themselves, the testimony of each of them shall be a testimony by God four times repeated, that he is indeed of them that speak the truth.

“And the fifth time that the malison of God be upon him, if he be of them that lie.

“But it shall avert the chastisement from her if she testify a testimony four times repeated, by God, that he is of them that lie;

“And a fifth time to call down the wrath of God on her, if he have spoken the truth.”

III.—The Teaching of Muḥammad, as given in the Traditions,

will be gathered from the following quotations:—

“I have not left any calamity more detrimental to mankind than women.”

“A bad omen is found in a woman, a house, or a horse.”

“The best women are those that ride on camels, and the virtuous women of the Quraish are those who are affectionate to young children and who are most careful of their husband’s property.”

“The world and all things in it are valuable, but more valuable than all is a virtuous woman.”

“Look to your actions and abstain from the world and from women, for verily the first sin which the children of Israel committed was on account of women.”

“God will reward the Muslim who, having beheld the beauties of a woman, shuts his eyes.”

“Do not visit the houses of men when they are absent from their homes, for the devil circulates within you like the blood in your veins. It was said, ‘O Prophet, in your veins also?’ He replied, ‘My veins also. But God has given me power over the devil and I am free from wickedness.’ ”

“Two women must not sit together, because the one may describe the other to her husband, so that you might say the husband had seen her himself.”

“Do not follow up one look at a woman with another; for verily the first look is excusable, but the next is unlawful.”

IV.—Muḥammadan law secures the following Rights to Women.

An adult woman may contract herself in marriage without her guardian’s consent, and an adult virgin cannot be married against her will. When divorced or a widow, she is at liberty to marry a second husband. She must be treated with respect, and it is not lawful for a judge to see more than her face and the palms of her hands. She should go abroad veiled. She is not required to engage in war, although she may be taken by her husband on a military expedition, but she can have no share in the plunder. She is not to be slain in war.

The fine for a woman is half that of a man, and in evidence the testimony of two women is but equal to that of one man, except in the case of a birth, when the evidence of one woman is to be accepted. Her evidence is not accepted in the case of retaliation. [QISAS.] In the event of a person being found slain in the house or village belonging to a woman, the oath (in the matter of evidence) is administered to her fifty times repeatedly before the fine is imposed. If she apostatize from the faith of Islām, she is not to be put to death, but to be imprisoned until she return to the faith; for although Imām ash-Shāfiʿī maintains that she is to be put to death, Imām Abū Ḥanīfah holds that the Prophet has forbidden the slaying of women, without making any distinction between those who are apostates or those who are original infidels. But, according to an express injunction, they are to be stoned to death for adultery, and beaten for fornication. Women who have no means of subsistence are to be supported by the state.

(The law of divorce is treated under the article DIVORCE.)

It is a curious arrangement of Muslim law, that (according to the Hidāyah, Grady’s ed., p. 340) a woman may execute the office of a Qāẓī or judge, except in the cases ḥadd and qiṣāṣ, in conformity with the rule that her evidence is accepted in every legal case except in that of ḥadd and qiṣāṣ, or “retaliation.” There is, in fact, no distinct prohibition against a woman assuming the government of a state. The rulers of the Muḥammadan State of Bhopal in Central India have been women for several generations.

V.—The Position of Women in Muḥammadan Countries

has been the subject of severe criticism as well as of some controversy. Mr. Stanley Lane-Poole says:—

“The fatal blot in Islām is the degradation of women.… Yet it would be hard to lay the blame altogether on Moḥammad. The real roots of the degradation of women lie much deeper. When Islām was instituted, polygamy was almost necessitated by the number of women and their need of support; and the facility of divorce was quite necessitated by the separation of the sexes, and the consequence that a man could not know or even see the woman he was about to marry before the marriage ceremony was accomplished. It is not Moḥammad whom we must blame for these great evils, polygamy and divorce; it is the state of society which demanded the separation of the sexes, and in which it was not safe to allow men and women freely to associate; in other words, it was the sensual constitution of the Arab that lay at the root of the matter. Moḥammad might have done better. He might boldly have swept away the traditions of Arab society, unveiled the women, intermingled the sexes, and punished by the most severe measures any license which such association might at first encourage. With his boundless influence, it is possible that he might have done this, and, the new system once fairly settled, and the people accustomed to it, the good effects of the change would have begun to show themselves. But such an idea could never have occurred to him. We must remember that we are dealing with a system of the seventh century, not of the nineteenth. Moḥammad’s ideas about women were like those of the rest of his contemporaries. He looked upon them as charming snares to the believer, ornamental articles of furniture difficult to keep in order, pretty playthings; but that a woman should be the counsellor and companion of a man does not seem to have occurred to him. It is to be wondered that the feeling of respect he always entertained for his first wife, Khadeejeh, (which, however, is partly accounted for by the fact that she was old enough to have been his mother,) found no counterpart in his general opinion of womankind: ‘Woman was made from a crooked rib, and if you try to bend it straight, it will break; therefore treat your wives kindly.’ Moḥammad was not the man to make a social reform affecting women, nor was Arabia the country in which such a change should be made, nor Arab ladies perhaps the best subjects for the experiment. Still he did something towards bettering the condition of women: he limited the number of wives to four; laid his hand with the utmost severity on the incestuous marriages that were then rife in Arabia; compelled husbands to support their divorced wives during their four months of probation; made irrevocable divorce less common by adding the rough, but deterring, condition that a woman triply divorced could not return to her husband without first being married to some one else—a condition exceedingly disagreeable to the first husband; and required four witnesses to prove a charge of adultery against a wife—a merciful provision, difficult to be fulfilled. The evil permitted by Moḥammad in leaving the number of wives four instead of insisting on monogamy was not great. Without considering the sacrifice of family peace which the possession of a large harem entails, the expense of keeping several wives, each of whom must have a separate suite of apartments or a separate house, is so great, that not more than one in twenty can afford it. It is not so much in the matter of wives as in that of concubines that Moḥammad made an irretrievable mistake. The condition of the female slave in the East is indeed deplorable. She is at the entire mercy of her master, who can do what he pleases with her and her companions; for the Muslim is not restricted in the number of his concubines, as he is in that of his wives. The female white slave is kept solely for the master’s sensual gratification, and is sold when he is tired of her, and so she passes from master to master, a very wreck of womanhood. Her condition is a little improved if she bear a son to her tyrant; but even then he is at liberty to refuse to acknowledge the child as his own, though it must be owned he seldom does this. Kind as the Prophet was himself towards bondswomen, one cannot forget the unutterable brutalities which he suffered his followers to inflict upon conquered nations in the taking of slaves. The Muslim soldier was allowed to do as he pleased with any ‘infidel’ woman he might meet with on his victorious march. When one thinks of the thousands of women, mothers and daughters, who must have suffered untold shame and dishonour by this license, he cannot find words to express his horror. And this cruel indulgence has left its mark on the Muslim character, nay, on the whole character of Eastern life.” (Selections from the Ḳur-án, 2nd ed., Preface.)

The strict legislation regarding women as expressed in Muḥammadan law, does not affect their position amongst wild and uncivilized tribes. Amongst them she is as free as the wild goats on the mountain tops. Amongst the Afreedees in the Afghān hills, for example, women roam without protection from hill to hill, and are engaged in tending cattle and other agricultural pursuits. If ill-treated by their husbands, they either demand divorce or run away to some neighbouring tribe. Not a few of the tribal feuds arise from such circumstances.

Amongst the Bedouins (Badawīs), Mr. Palgrave tells us, their armies are led by a maiden of good family, who, mounted amid the fore ranks on a camel, shames the timid and excites the brave by satirical or encomiastic recitations. (Arabia, vol. ii. p. 71.)

The influence which Afghān women have exercised upon Central Asian politics has been very great, and, as we have already remarked, the Muḥammadan State of Bhopal in Central India has for several generations past been governed by female sovereigns. [CONCUBINES, DIVORCE, MARRIAGE, WIVES.]

WORD OF GOD. [INSPIRATION, OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS, PROPHETS, QURʾAN.]

WOUNDS. Arabic shijāj (شجاج‎), pl. of shajjah. The Muḥammadan law only treats of wounds on the face and head, all other wounds being compensated for by arbitrary atonement.

According to the Hidāyah, shijāj are of ten kinds:—

Ḥāriṣah, a scratch, such as does not draw blood.

Dāmiʿah, a scratch which draws blood without causing it to flow.

Dāmiyah, a scratch which causes the blood to flow.

Bāẓiʿāh, a cut through the skin.

Mutalāḥimah, a cut into the flesh.

Simḥāq, a wound reaching to the pericranium.

Mūṣiḥah, a wound which lays bare the bone.

Hāshimah, a fracture of the skull.

Munaqqilah, a fracture which requires part of the skull to be removed.

Āmmah, a wound extending to the membrane which encloses the brain.

According to the injunctions of the Prophet, a twentieth of the complete fine for murder is due for mūṣiḥah; a tenth for hāshimah; three-twentieths for munaqqilah; and a third for āmmah. All other fines are left to the discretion of the judge.

WRITING. Arabic ʿIlmu ʾl-K͟hat̤t̤ (علم الخط‎). Sir William Muir, in the Introduction of his Life of Mahomet, writes on this subject as follows:—

“De Sacy and Caussin de Perceval concur in fixing the date of the introduction of Arabic writing into Mecca at A.D. 560 (Mém. de l’Acad., vol. 1. p. 306; C. de Perc., vol. i. p. 294.) The chief authority is contained in a tradition given by Ibn Khallicân, that the Arabic system was invented by Morâmir at Anbar, whence it spread to Hira. It was thence, shortly after its invention, introduced into Mecca by Harb, father of Abû Sofiân, the great opponent of Mahomet. (Ibn Khallicân, by Slane, vol. ii. p. 284.) Other traditions give a later date; but M. C. de Perceval reconciles the discrepancy by referring them rather to the subsequent arrival of some zealous and successful teacher than to the first introduction of the art (vol. i. p. 295). I would observe that either the above traditions are erroneous, or that some sort of writing other than Arabic must have been known long before the date specified, i.e. A.D. 560. Abd al Muttalib is described as writing from Mecca to his maternal relatives at Medîna for help, in his younger days, i.e. about A.D. 520. And still farther back, in the middle of the fifth century, Cussei (Quṣaiy) addressed a written demand of a similar tenor to his brother in Arabia Petræa. (Kâtib al Wâckidi, 11½; Tabari, 18, 28.)

“The Himyar or Musnad writing is said by Ibn Khallicân to have been confined to Yemen; but the verses quoted by C. de Perceval (vol. i. p. 295) would seem to imply that it had at one period been known and used by the Meccans, and was in fact supplanted by the Arabic. The Syriac and Hebrew were also known and probably extensively used in Medîna and the northern parts of Arabia from a remote period.

“In fine, whatever the system employed may have been, it is evident that writing of some sort was known and practised at Mecca long before A.D. 560. At all events, the frequent notices of written papers leave no room to doubt that Arabic writing was well known, and not uncommonly practised, there in Mahomet’s early days. I cannot think, with Weil, that any great ‘want of writing materials’ could have been felt, even ‘by the poorer Moslems in the early days of Islam.’ (Mohammed, p. 350.) Reeds and palm-leaves would never be wanting.” (Muir’s Mahomet, Intro., p. viii.)

The intimate connection of the Arabic alphabet, as it is now in use, with the Hebrew, or rather Phœnician alphabet, is shown not only by the form of the letters themselves, but by their more ancient numerical arrangement, known by the name of Abjad, and described under that head on page 3 of the present work. This arrangement, it will be remembered, is contained in the six meaningless words:—

أَبْجَدْ‎ هَوَّزْ‎ حُطّى‎ كَلَمَنْ‎ سَعْفَصْ‎ قَرَشَتْ‎ ثَخَذْ‎ ضَظَغْ‎

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

The first six of these words correspond to the Hebrew alphabet, the last two consist of the letters peculiar to Arabic, and it will be seen that the words abjad, hawwaz, and ḥut̤t̤ī (as we transcribe them according to our system of transliteration), express the nine units, together with ten, kalaman and saʿfaṣ, the tens from twenty to ninety, and qarashat, s̤ak͟haẕ, and ẓaz̤ag͟h, the hundreds together with one thousand.

The present arrangement of the Arabic alphabet, in the form which the letters take as finals, is the following:—

Finals.

Order. Reduced Order. Separate. Joined. Transliteration.

1 1 ا‎ ـا‎ a (i, u)

2 2 ب‎ ـب‎ b

3 ت‎ ـت‎ t

4 ث‎ ـث‎ s̤

5 3 ج‎ ـج‎ j

6 ح‎ ـح‎ ḥ

7 خ‎ ـخ‎ k͟h

8 4 د‎ ـد‎ d

9 ذ‎ ـذ‎ ẕ

10 5 ر‎ ـر‎ r

11 ز‎ ـز‎ z

12 6 س‎ ـس‎ s

13 ش‎ ـش‎ sh

14 7 ص‎ ـص‎ ṣ

15 ض‎ ـض‎ ẓ

16 8 ط‎ ـط‎ t̤

17 ظ‎ ـظ‎ z̤

18 9 ع‎ ـع‎ ʿ

19 غ‎ ـغ‎ g͟h

20 10 ف‎ ـف‎ f

21 ق‎ ـق‎ q

22 11 ك‎ ـك‎ k

23 12 ل‎ ـل‎ l

24 13 م‎ ـم‎ m

25 14 ن‎ ـن‎ n

26 15 ه‎ ـه‎ h

27 16 و‎ ـو‎ w

28 17 ى‎ ـى‎ y

On examining these characters, as represented in the above synopsis, it will at once be seen that, with the exception of the first and the seven last ones, each character stands for two or three sounds, their only distinction consisting in from one to three dots, which are added at the top or bottom of the letter, and that thereby the number of characters is reduced from twenty-eight to seventeen. It will, moreover, be noticed that several of these characters have an appendix or tail, which is well adapted to mark the end of a word, but which would prevent the letter from being readily joined to a following one, and therefore is dispensed with if the letter be initial or connected with others. Suppressing those dots and cutting off these tails, and arranging the characters in their reduced order, and in that form which fits them to appear as initials or medials, we obtain the following simplified schedule:—

Initials and Medials.

Reduced Order. Final. Initial. Medial. Value.

1 ا‎ ـا‎ اـ‎ ـاـ‎ a (i, u)

2 ٮ‎ ـٮ‎ ٮـ‎ ـٮـ‎ b, t, s̤

3 ح‎ ـح‎ حـ‎ ـحـ‎ j, ḥ, k͟h

4 د‎ ـد‎ دـ‎ ـدـ‎ d, ẕ

5 ر‎ ـر‎ رـ‎ ـرـ‎ r, z