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 po e ed. See Qurʾān, Sūrah iv. 3 : “Marry what seems good to you of women, by twos, or threes, or fours, or what your right hand po e es.” [ 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 refractorine 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 kindne , 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 a embled 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 nece ary. 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 admi ible, 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 stand i in the eye of the law. The pre-Islâmic Arab customs as well as the Rabbinical law, dealt most harshly with them. (3 Cau in 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 unfaithfulne 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 di olved. “The maintenance ( nafkah ) of a wife includes everything connected with her support and comfort, such as food, raiment, lodging, ., 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-Imâdiy ah ; 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-Imâdiy ah ; 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 illne , 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 busine , 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 busine . (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 nece aries 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 po e ion 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 nece ity 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-Imâdiy ah ; Jâma-ush-Shattât .) Simple refractorine , 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 neverthele 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 po e ed 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 di olution 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 di olve 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 (unle 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 a istance of a court of justice to compel her to live with him. The bad conduct or gro neglect of the husband is, under the Mu ulman 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 expre 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 expre 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 Mu ulman law on the subject being the same as in other systems of law, viz. that the wife is bound to reside with her husband, unle 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 expre es very much the ordinary Oriental view of the question:— The best of wives would be such an one as is graced with intellect, honour, chastity, good sense, modesty, tenderne of heart, good manners, submi ion 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 acce ion 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 weakne 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 po e le of that judgment which restrains from crime, it may thus lead to mischief without end. 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 a ure 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, politene , 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 weakne 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 idlene 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. Exce 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 po e es, beyond those in present consumption, or her weakne 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 tenderne ; 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 unruline and contumacy; as a foe for contemptuousne 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 cla es 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 pa ion is the most evident and common motive both to polygamy and repeated divorces. They are comparatively very few who gratify this pa ion 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 unle 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 Ha an Ali, an English woman 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 po ible), 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 a imilating mind, po e ing 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 Hindu stan, particularly among the Sayyuds and religious characters, who deem a plurality of wives a plague to the po e ors 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 po e an excellent disposition, who never fails to comply with his wife’s wishes, since the hearts of women are gentle and tender, and harshne 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 goodne 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 a uredly be punished for all his sins and omi ions 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 distre 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 po e es 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 nece ity sue for a divorce, or make him faithfully promise future obedience and readine 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 bitterne 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 po ible 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, unle 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 nece ary, 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.” (At kins on’s Customs and Manners of the Women of Persia , p. 54.)