A Dictionary of Islam / Being a cyclopedia of the doctrines, rites, ceremonies, and customs, together with the technical and theological terms, of the Muhammadan religion.

by Thomas Patrick Hughes

W.

WADĪʿAH (وديعة‎). Lit. “A thing put down.” The legal term for a deposit. (See Hamilton’s Hidāyah, vol. iii. p. 259.)

AL-WADŪD (الودود‎). “The Loving One,” or “The Beloved One.” One of the ninety-nine special attributes of God. It occurs twice in the Qurʾān:—

[Sūrah xi. 92]: “My Lord is Merciful and Loving.”

[Sūrah lxxxv. 14]: “He is the Forgiving, the Loving.”

Al-Maliku ʾl-Wadūd, the “King of Love.”

WAḤDANĪYAH (وحدنية‎). (1) A theological term for the doctrine of the Unity of God. (2) The name of a sect of Ṣūfīs. [[GOD], [SIKHISM], [SUFI].]

WAḤDATU ʾL-WUJŪDĪYAH (وحدة الوجودية‎). A pantheistic sect of Ṣūfīs, who say that everything is God, and of the same essence.

AL-WAHHĀB (الوهاب‎). “The Bestower of gifts.” One of the ninety-nine special attributes of God. It occurs in the Qurʾān, e.g. [Sūrah iii. 6]: “Thou art He who bestoweth gifts.”

WAHHĀBĪ (وهابى‎). A sect of Muslim revivalists founded by Muḥammad, son of ʿAbdu ʾl-Wahhāb, but as their opponents could not call them Muḥammadans, they have been distinguished by the name of the father of the founder of their sect, and are called Wahhābīs.

Muḥammad ibn ʿAbdu ʾl-Wahhāb was born at Ayīnah in Najd in A.D. 1691. Carefully instructed by his father in the tenets of the Muslim faith, according to the Ḥanbalī sect, the strictest of the four great schools of interpretation, the son of ʿAbdu ʾl-Wahhāb determined to increase his knowledge by visiting the schools of Makkah, al-Baṣrah and Bag͟hdād. The libraries of these celebrated centres of Muḥammadanism placed within the reach of the zealous student those ponderous folios of tradition known as the “six correct books,” and also gave him access to numerous manuscript volumes of Muslim law. Having performed the pilgrimage to Makkah with his father, and visited the Prophet’s tomb at al-Madīnah, he remained at the latter place to sit at the feet of Shaik͟h ʿAbdu ʾllāh ibn Ibrāhīm, by whom he was carefully instructed in all the intricacies of the exegetical rules laid down for the exposition of ethics and jurisprudence.

For some years he resided with his father at Horemelah, a place which, according to Palgrave, claims the honour of his birth; but after his father’s death, he returned to his native village, Ayīnah, where he assumed the position of a religious leader.

In his various travels, Muḥammad ibn ʿAbdu ʾl-Wahhāb had observed the laxities and superstitions of those who, whilst they professed to accept the stern unbending precepts of the Prophet of Arabia, had succeeded in stretching the rigid lines of Islām almost to breaking. Omens and auguries, sacred shrines and richly ornamented tombs, the use of intoxicating drugs, the silks and satins of the wealthy, all seemed to the earnest reformer lamentable departures from the first principles of Islām, and unwarrantable concessions to the luxury, idolatry, and superstitions of the age. Having carefully studied the teachings of the Qurʾān and the sacred traditions, he thought he had learned to distinguish between the essential elements of Islām and its recent admixtures, and now, once more in the home of his childhood, he determined to teach and to propagate nothing but the “pure faith” as laid down by the precepts and practice of the Prophet himself. The Muslim world had departed from the worship of the Unity, and had yielded a blind allegiance to Walīs, Pīrs, and Saints, and all because the teachings of the sacred traditions had been neglected for that of learned but ambitious teachers.

To accept any doctrine other than that of those “Companions” who received their instructions from the Prophet’s lips, was simply the blind leading the blind; and, therefore, the Reformer, refusing to join his faith to the uncertain leading-strings of even the four orthodox doctors, determined to establish the right of private judgment in the interpretation of those two great foundations of Islām—the Qurʾān and the Aḥādīs̤.

His teaching met with acceptance, but his increasing influence excited the opposition of the ruler of his district, and he was compelled to seek an asylum at Deraiah, under the protection of Muḥammad ibn Ṣaʿud, a chief of considerable influence. The protection of the religious teacher was made a pretext for more ambitious designs, and that which the zealous cleric had failed to accomplish by his persuasive eloquence, the warrior chief now sought to attain by the power of the sword; and he thus established in his own person that Wahhābī dynasty which, after a chequered existence of more than a hundred years, still exercises so powerful an influence not only in Central and Eastern Arabia, but wherever the Muḥammadan creed is professed. Like other great men before him, the Chief of Deraiah strengthened his position by a matrimonial alliance, which united the interests of his own family with that of the reformer. He married the daughter of Muḥammad ibn ʿAbdu ʾl-Wahhāb, and she became the mother of the celebrated Wahhābī chief ʿAbdu ʾl-ʿAzīz, who, upon the death of his father (A.D. 1765), led the Wahhābī army to victory, and succeeded in pushing his conquests to the remotest corners of Arabia.

ʿAbdu ʾl-ʿAzīz was not only a brave warrior, but a pious Muslim, and it is said that he fell a victim to the scrupulous regularity with which he performed his devotions in public. A Persian fanatic plunged his sharp K͟hurasān dagger into his side, just as he was prostrating himself in prayer in the mosque of Deraiah (A.D. 1803).

But the great military champion of the reformed doctrines was Saʿud, the eldest son of ʿAbdu ʾl-ʿAzīz, who during the lifetime of his father led the Wahhābī armies to victory, and threatened even the conquest of the whole Turkish empire. He is said to have been a remarkably handsome man, praised for his wisdom in counsel and skill in war. Having wielded the sword from his youth (for he fought his first battle when a lad of twelve), he was regarded by the wild Arabs of the desert as a fit instrument to effect the conversion of the world, and men from all parts of Arabia flocked round his standard.

Saʿud gained several decisive victories over Sulaimān Pasha, and afterwards, with an army of 20,000 men, marched against Karbalāʾ, the famed city of the East, which contains the tombs of the Shīʿah K͟halīfahs. The city was entered with the Wahhābī cry, “Kill and strangle all infidels which give companions to God,” and every vestige of supposed idolatry, from the bright golden dome of al-Ḥusain’s tomb to the smallest tobacco pipe, was ground to the very dust, whilst the offerings of the numerous devotees, which formed the rich treasure of the sacred shrines, served to replenish the impoverished exchequer of the Wahhābī chief.

The following year the fanatical army effected the conquest of Makkah, and, on the 27th April 1803, Saʿud made his formal entry into the sacred city of the Kaʿbah. The sanctity of the place subdued the barbarous spirit of the conquerors, and not the slightest excesses were committed against the people. The stern principles of the reformed doctrines were, however, strictly enforced. Piles of green ḥuqqas and Persian pipes were collected, rosaries and amulets were forcibly taken from the devotees, silk and satin dresses were demanded from the wealthy and worldly, and the whole, collected into the one heterogeneous mass, was burnt by the infuriated reformers. So strong was the feeling against the pipes, and so necessary did a public example seem to be, that a respectable lady, whose delinquency had well nigh escaped the vigilant eye of the Muḥtasib, was seized and placed on an ass, with a green pipe suspended from her neck, and paraded through the public streets—a terrible warning to all of her sex who may be inclined to indulge in forbidden luxuries. When the usual hours of prayer arrived, the myrmidons of the law sallied forth, and with leathern whips drove all slothful Muslims to their devotions. The mosques were filled. Never since the days of the Prophet had the sacred city witnessed so much piety and devotion. Not one pipe, not a single tobacco-stopper, was to be seen in the streets or found in the houses, and the whole population of Makkah prostrated themselves at least five times a day in solemn adoration. Having carried out his mission with fidelity, Saʿud hastened to convey the news of his success to the Sult̤ān of Turkey in the following characteristic letter:—

“Saʿud to Salīm.—I entered Makkah on the fourth day of Muḥarram in the 1218th year of the Hijrah. I kept peace towards the inhabitants, I destroyed all things that were idolatrously worshipped. I abolished all taxes except those required by the law. I confirmed the Qāẓī whom you had appointed agreeably to the commands of the Prophet of God. I desire that you will give orders to the rulers of Damascus and Cairo not to come up to the sacred city with the Maḥmal and with trumpets and drums. Religion is not profited by these things. May the peace and blessing of God be with you.” [[MAHMAL].]

Before the close of the year, al-Madīnah was added to the Wahhābī conquests, and so thoroughly did Saʿud carry out the work of reform, that even the Ḥujrah, containing the tomb of the Prophet, did not escape. Its richly ornamented dome was destroyed, and the curtain which covered the Prophet’s grave would have been removed, had not the Leader of the Faithful been warned in his dreams not to commit so monstrous a sacrilege. [[HUJRAH].]

For nine years did the Wahhābī rule exist at Makkah, and so strong was the position occupied by the Wahhābī army, and so rapidly did Wahhābī opinions spread amongst the people, that the Sultan of Turkey began to entertain the worst fears for the safety of his empire. ʿAlī Pasha was therefore ordered by the Sultan of Turkey to collect a strong army to suppress the Wahhābī movement; and eventually, Makkah and al-Madīnah were taken from the fanatics.

Upon the death of Saʿud (A.D. 1814), his son, ʿAbdu ʾllāh, became the Leader of the Faithful. He was even more distinguished than his father for personal bravery, but he lacked that knowledge of men which was so necessary for one called upon to lead the undisciplined nomadic tribes of the Arabian deserts. ʿAbdu ʾllāh and his army met with a series of reverses, and he was at last taken prisoner by Ibrāhīm Pasha and sent to Constantinople. He was executed in the public square of St. Sophia, December 19th, 1818. Turkī, the son of ʿAbdu ʾllāh, abandoned all hope of regaining the position, and fled to Riyāẓ, where he was afterwards assassinated. Faizul succeeded his father A.D. 1830, and established the Wahhābī rule in Eastern Arabia, making Riyāẓ the capital of his kingdom. It was this chief who entertained the traveller Palgrave in 1863, and received Lieutenant-Colonel (now Sir) Lewis Pelly, as Her Majesty’s representative, in 1865. Faizul died in 1866, soon after Sir Lewis Pelly’s visit, and was succeeded by his son ʿAbdu ʾllāh.

But although the great political and military power of the Wahhābīs had been well nigh crushed, and the rule of the dynasty of Saʿud circumscribed within the limits of the province of Najd, the principles laid down by Muḥammad ibn ʿAbdu ʾl-Wahhāb were still zealously maintained by certain religious teachers within the sacred mosque itself. And so it came to pass that when a restless spirit from India was endeavouring to redeem a lawless life by performing the pilgrimage to Makkah, he fell in with teachers who had imbibed Wahhābī doctrines and were secretly disseminating them amongst the pilgrims. Saiyid Aḥmad, the freebooter and bandit of Rai Bareli, having performed the sacred rites of the Pilgrimage, returned from Makkah (A.D. 1822), resolved to reclaim the whole of North India to the Faith of Islām. Being a direct descendant from the Prophet, he possessed (unlike the Wahhābī of Najd) the necessary qualification for a Leader of the Faithful, and the Muslims of India at once hailed him as the true K͟halīfah or al-Mahdī. Unheeded by the British Government, he traversed our provinces with a numerous retinue of devoted disciples, and converted the populace to his reformed doctrines by thousands. He appointed deputies at Patna, and then proceeded to Delhi, where he met with a ready listener in Muḥammad Ismāʾīl, who became his most devoted disciple, and recorded the sayings of the new K͟halīfah in the well-known Wahhābī book, entitled the Ṣirāt̤u ʾl-Mustaqīm.

On the 21st December 1826, Saiyid Aḥmad, the Leader of the Faithful, declared a religious war, or Jihād, against the Sikhs, and, hoping to unite the hosts of Islām in Central Asia under his banner, he commenced an insurrection on the Peshawar frontier. A fanatical war of varied successes followed, and lasted for four years; but the Wahhābī army was soon reduced in strength, and its disasters culminated in the death of its chief, who was slain by Sher Singh in an engagement at Balakot in Hazarah, May 1831. The remnant of the Saiyid’s army fled across the border and settled at Sattāna, where in 1857, their numbers were augmented by mutineers, who joined their camp. They were eventually displaced by the British Government in the Umbeyla War of 1863, but there are still some three hundred of them residing at Palosi on the banks of the Indus, where they are ruled by Shaik͟h ʿAbdu ʾllāh, an old mutineer of 1857, who has recently married his daughter to a former Imām of the Peshawar, Sadar Bāzār, in order to combine the Wahhābī influences of Peshawar with those of the Palosi settlement.

But as in the case of the Wahhābīs of Najd, so with the Wahhābīs of India. The religious tenets of the reformers did not die with their political leader. What Saʿud of Najd and Aḥmad of Bareli failed to accomplish with the sword, the cheapness of lithographic printing has enabled less daring leaders to accomplish with the pen. The reformed doctrines, as embodied in the Ṣirāt̤u ʿl-Mustaqīm and the Taqwiyatu ʾl-Īmān, still exercise a powerful influence upon Muḥammadan thought in India.

Wahhābīism has sometimes been designated the Protestantism of Islām, and so it really is, although with this remarkable difference, that whilst Christian Protestantism is the assertion of the paramount authority of sacred scripture to the rejection of traditional teachings, Wahhābīism is the assertion of the paramount authority of the Qurʾān with the Traditions. But both systems contend for first principles, and if there appears to be any incongruity in applying the term Protestant to a sect which receives, instead of rejects, tradition, it arises from the very important fact that what is called “tradition” in Islām occupies a totally different place in the Muḥammadan system from that which it does in the Christian, Tradition in Islām being nothing less than the supposed inspired sayings of the Prophet, recorded and handed down by uninspired writers, and being absolutely necessary to complete the structure of the faith. The daily prayer, the customs of the pilgrimage, and numerous other duties and dogmas held to be of Divine institution, being found not in the Qurʾān but in the Aḥādīs̤, or Traditions. Hence it is that the Wahhābīs of Najd and India call themselves Ahl-i-Ḥadīs̤, or the people of Tradition, and promote in every way they can the study of those records. [[TRADITION].]

The Wahhābīs speak of themselves as Muwaḥḥid, or “Unitarians,” and call all others Mushrik, or those who associate another with God; and the following are some of their distinctive religious tenets:—

1. They do not receive the decisions of the four orthodox sects, but say that any man who can read and understand the Qurʾān and the sacred Ḥadīs̤ can judge for himself in matters of doctrine. They, therefore, reject Ijmāʿ after the death of the Companions of the Prophet.

2. That no one but God can know the secrets of men, and that prayers should not be offered to any prophet, walī, pīr, or saint; but that God may be asked to grant a petition for the sake of a saint.

3. That at the Last Day, Muḥammad will obtain permission (iẕn) of God to intercede for his people. The Sunnīs believe that permission has already been given.

4. That it is unlawful to illuminate the shrines of departed saints, or to prostrate before them, or to perambulate (t̤awāf) round them, they do not even perform any act of reverence at the Prophet’s tomb at al-Madīnah.

5. That women should not be allowed to visit the graves of the dead, on account of their immoderate weeping.

6. That only four festivals ought to be observed, namely, ʿĪdu ʾl-Fit̤r, ʿĪdu ʾl-Aẓḥā, ʿĀshūrā, and al-Lailatu ʾl-Mubārakah.

7. They do not observe the ceremonies of Maulūd, which are celebrated on the anniversary of Muḥammad’s birth.

8. They do not present offerings (Naẕr) at any shrine.

9. They count the ninety-nine names of God on their fingers, and not on a rosary.

10. They understand the terms “sitting of God” (Arabic Istiwāʾ), and “hand of God” (Yadu ʾllāh), which occur in the Qurʾān, in their literal (Ḥaqīqī) sense, and not figuratively (Majāzī); but, at the same time, they say it is not revealed how God sits, or in what sense he has a hand, &c., and on this account the Christian doctrines of the Trinity and the Sonship of Christ do not present the same difficulties to the mind of a Wahhābī which they do to that of a Sunnī.

Mr. Wilfrid Blunt, in his Future of Islam, says:—

“I believe it is hardly now recognized by Mohammedans how near Abd el Wahhab was to complete success. Before the close of the eighteenth century, the chiefs of the Ibn Saouds, champions of Unitarian Islam, had established their authority over all Northern Arabia as far as the Euphrates, and in 1808 they took Mecca and Medina. In the meanwhile, the Wahhabite doctrines were gaining ground still further afield. India was at one time very near conversion, and in Egypt, and North Africa, and even in Turkey, many secretly subscribed to the new doctrines. Two things, however, marred the plan of general reform and prevented its full accomplishment. In the first place, the reform was too completely reactive. It took no account whatever of the progress of modern thought, and directly it attempted to leave Arabia it found itself face to face with difficulties which only political as well as religious success could overcome. It was impossible, except by force of arms, to Arabianise the world again, and nothing less than this was in contemplation. Its second mistake, and that was one that a little of the Prophet’s prudence which always went hand in hand with his zeal might have avoided, was a too rigid insistence upon trifles. Abd el Wahhab condemned minarets and tombstones because neither were in use during the first years of Islam. The minarets, therefore, were everywhere thrown down, and when the holy places of Hejaz fell into the hands of his followers, the tombs of saints which had for centuries been revered as objects of pilgrimage were levelled to the ground. Even the Prophet’s tomb at Medina was laid waste and the treasures it contained distributed among the soldiers of Ibn Saoud. This roused the indignation of all Islam, and turned the tide of the Wahhabite fortunes. Respectable feeling which had hitherto been on their side now declared itself against them, and they never after regained their position as moral and social reformers. Politically, too, it was the cause of their ruin. The outside Musalman world, looking upon them as sacrilegious barbarians, was afraid to visit Mecca, and the pilgrimage declined so rapidly that the Hejazi became alarmed. The source of their revenue they found cut off, and it seemed on the point of ceasing altogether. Then they appealed to Constantinople, urging the Sultan to vindicate his claim to be protector of the holy places. What followed is well known. After the peace of Paris, Sultan Mahmud commissioned Mehemet Ali to deliver Mecca and Medina from the Wahhabite heretics, and this he in time effected. The war was carried into Nejd; Deriyeh, their capital, was sacked, and Ibn Saoud himself taken prisoner and decapitated in front of St. Sophia at Constantinople. The movement of reform in Islam was thus put back for, perhaps, another hundred years.

“Still, the seed cast by Abd el Wahhab has not been entirely without fruit. Wahhabism, as a political regeneration of the world, has failed, but the spirit of reform has remained. Indeed, the present unquiet attitude of expectation in Islam has been its indirect result. Just as the Lutheran reformation in Europe, though it failed to convert the Christian Church, caused its real reform, so Wahhabism has produced a real desire for reform if not yet reform itself in Mussulmans. Islam is no longer asleep, and were another and a wiser Abd el Wahhab to appear, not as a heretic, but in the body of the orthodox sect, he might play the part of Loyola or Borromeo with success.

“The present condition of the Wahhabites as a sect is one of decline. In India, and I believe in other parts of Southern Asia, their missionaries still make converts and their preachers are held in high esteem. But at home in Arabia, their zeal has waxed cold, giving place to liberal ideas which in truth are far more congenial to the Arabian mind. The Ibn Saoud dynasty no longer holds the first position in Nejd, and Ibn Rashid who has taken their place, though nominally a Wahhabite, has little of the Wahhabite fanaticism. He is in fact a popular and national rather than a religious leader, and though still designated at Constantinople as a pestilent heretic, is counted as their ally by the more liberal Sunites. It is probable that he would not withhold his allegiance from a Caliph of the legitimate house of Koreysh.”

(The following English works may be consulted on the subject of Wahhābīism: Burckhardt’s Bedouins and Wahhabys; Brydge’s Brief History of the Wahhabis; Sir Lewis Pelly’s Political Mission to Najd; Hunter’s Musalmāns of India; Palgrave’s Central and Eastern Arabia; Lady Ann Blunt’s Pilgrimage to Najd; Dr. Badger’s Imāms and Seyyids of ʾOmān; Blunt’s Future of Islam.)

AL-WĀḤID (الواحد‎). “The One.” One of the ninety-nine special attributes of the Almighty. It occurs frequently in the Qurʾān, e.g. [Sūrah ii. 158]: “Your God is One God.”

WAḤY (وحى‎). [[INSPIRATION].]

WĀʿIZ̤ (واعظ‎). “A preacher.” The word k͟hat̤īb is generally applied to the Maulawī who recites the k͟hut̤bah on Fridays; wāʿiz̤ is of more general application. In the Qāmūs dictionary, the wāʿiz̤ is defined as one who reminds mankind of those punishments and rewards which soften the heart. The usual time for preaching is on Fridays, and in the months of Muḥarram and Ramaẓān. [[KHUTBAH].]

WAJD (وجد‎). “Ecstasy.” A Ṣūfī term for the fifth stage of the mystic journey, when the spiritual traveller attains to a state of mental excitement which is supposed to indicate a high state of divine illumination. [[SUFI].]

WAJH (وجه‎). Lit. “Presence; face.” The word occurs in the Qurʾān for the presence of God. [Sūrah ii. 109]: “Wherever ye turn there is the face of God (Wajhu ʾllāh).”

WĀJIB (واجب‎). Lit. “That which is obligatory.” A term used in Muḥammadan law for those injunctions, the non-observance of which constitutes sin, but the denial of which does not attain to downright infidelity. For example, that Muslim who does not offer the sacrifice on the day of the Great Festival [[IDU ʾL-AZHA]] commits a sin, and if he says the sacrifice is not a divine institution, he is a sinner, but not an infidel; and he who does not observe the fast [[RAMAZAN]] is a sinner, but if he deny that the fast is a divine institution, he is an infidel. The sacrifice being wājib, whilst the fast is farẓ. [[LAW].]

(2) A term which frequently occurs in combination with others. For example, al-Wājibu ʾl-wujūd, “the necessary existence”—God; Wājibu ʾl-ittibāʿ, “worthy to be obeyed,” as a teacher or prophet; Wājibu ʾl-adāʾ, “necessary to be discharged,” as a debt or duty.

AL-WĀJID (الواجد‎). “The Finder, Inventor, or Maker.” One of the ninety-nine attributes of God, but the word does not occur in the Qurʾān.

WAKĀLAH, WIKĀLAH (وكالة‎). The office of substitute. An embassy; an agency; attorneyship. For the Muḥammadan law, with regard to agency for sale, see Hamilton’s Hidāyah, vol. iii. pp. 1–62. [[AGENT], [BAIL], [SALE].]

WAKĪL (وكيل‎). An attorney, an agent, an ambassador. [[AGENT].]

AL-WAKĪL (الوكيل‎). “The Guardian.” One of the ninety-nine special attributes of God. It occurs in the Qurʾān, [Sūrah iv. 83]: “For God is all sufficient for a Guardian.”

WALĀʾ (ولاء‎). Lit. “Proximity, kin, friendship.” A peculiar relationship voluntarily established, and which confers a right of inheritance on one or both parties connected. It is of two kinds:—

(1) Walāʾu ʾl-ʿAtāqah (ولاء العتاقة‎), Relationship between a master and a manumitted slave, in which the former inherits any property the latter may acquire after emancipation.

(2) Walāʾu ʾl-Muwālāt (ولاء الموالاة‎), The connection arising out of mutual friendship, especially between a Muḥammadan and a convert. (See Hidāyah, Grady’s edition, p. 513.)

WALAHĀN (ولهان‎). The demon who troubles people when they are performing their ablutions. (Mishkāt, book ii. ch. 7.) The name signifies grief or distraction of mind. (See Muntaha ʾl-ʿArab.)

WALĪ (ولى‎), pl. auliyāʾ, “One who is very near.” (1) Saints, or holy men, e.g. [Sūrah x. 63]: “Are not, verily, friends (auliyāʾ) of God they on whom there is no fear?” [[SAINTS].]

(2) Next of kin or kindred, e.g. [Sūrah viii. 73]: “These shall be next of kin to each other.”

Walī ʿahd, an heir, especially to a sovereignty.

Walī baʿīd, a legal guardian of a more remote degree than father, brother, or uncle.

Walī jabīr, an authoritative guardian recognised by law.

Walī niʿmat, a title of respect for a father, a patron, a benefactor.

Walīyu ʾd-dam, a relative entitled to exact retaliation.

(3) A benefactor or helper, e.g. [Sūrah ii. 114]: “Thou hast no helper but God.”

(4) Al-Walī, “the Helper.” One of the ninety-nine special attributes of God.

WĀLĪ (والى‎), pl. wulāt. A prince or governor. A term used for the ruler of a country. It is assumed by the Ameer of Afghanistan in his treaties.

The title implies one who rules a Muslim country as an Amīr, or in behalf of the K͟halīfah of Islām.

(2) God. Qurʾān, [Sūrah xiii. 12]: “Nor have they any governor beside Him.”

AL-WALĪD IBN ʿUQBAH (الوليد بن عقبة‎). A celebrated Companion. A brother to the K͟halīfah ʿUs̤mān, who was Governor of al-Kūfah, and died in the reign of Muʿāwiyah.

WALĪMAH (وليمة‎). The nuptial feast. The wedding breakfast, which is generally given on the morning after the marriage. The custom is founded on the example of Muḥammad, who is related to have given a feast of dates and a meal on the occasion of his marriage with Ṣafīyah.

Ibn Masʿūd says the Prophet regarded the wedding feast as of divine authority, and he who is invited on such an occasion must accept the invitation. (Mishkāt, book xiii. ch. ix. pt. 1.)

WALIYU ʾL-ʿAHD (ولى العهد‎). Vulg. Waliʿahd. The heir to a kingdom or state.

WALKING. [[DEPORTMENT].]

WAQF (وقف‎). Lit. “Standing, stopping, halting.” (1) A term which in the language of the law signifies the appropriation or dedication of property to charitable uses and the service of God. An endowment. The object of such an endowment or appropriation must be of a perpetual nature, and such property or land cannot be sold or transferred. If a person build a mosque his right of property is extinguished as soon as prayers have been recited in the building.

According to the Imām Abū Yūsuf, if the place in which a mosque is situated should become deserted or uninhabited, inasmuch as there is no further use for the mosque, no person coming to worship therein, still the property does not revert to the original owner and founder. But Imām Muḥammad alleges that in such a case the land and the material (bricks, &c.) again become the property of the founder or his heir.

If a person construct a reservoir or well for public use, or a caravansera, for travellers, or a hostel on an infidel frontier for the accommodation of Muslim warriors, or dedicate ground as a burying-place, his right is not extinguished until the magistrate, at his request, issues a decree to that effect. This is the opinion of Imām Abū Ḥanīfah, but Imām Abū Yūsuf maintains that the person’s right of property ceases on the instant of his saying: “I have made over this for such and such purposes.” Whilst Imām Muḥammad asserts that as soon as the property is used for the purpose to which it is dedicated, it ceases to be the property of the original owner. (See Hamilton’s Hidāyah, vol. ii. p. 334.)

(2) A term used for a full pause, and particularly for certain pauses in the reading of the Qurʾān, which are marked with the letters قف‎ in the text.

WĀQIʿAH (واقعة‎). Lit. The “inevitable.” (1) A term generally used for an accident or an unavoidable circumstance in life.

(2) The Day of Judgment. See Qurʾān, [Sūrah lvi. 2]: “When the inevitable happens none shall call its happening a lie.”

(3) The title of the LVIth Sūrah of the Qurʾān.

AL-WĀQIDĪ (الواقدى‎). His full name: Abū ʿAbdi ʾllāh Muḥammad ibn ʿUmar al-Wāqidī. A celebrated Muslim historian, much quoted by Muir in his Life of Mahomet. Born at al-Madīnah A.H. 130, died A.H. 207. He is said to have left a library of 600 boxes of books.

WAQṢ (وقص‎), pl. auqāṣ. Any property under the regulated value or number upon which zakāt or legal alms is due.

WAQT (وقت‎). The present time as distinguished from al-Waqtu ʾd-Dāʾim, or the eternal existence of God.

AL-WAQTU ʾD-DĀʾIM (الوقت الدائم‎). Lit. “The Everlasting Time.” A Ṣūfī term for the extent of the existence of the Eternal One. (ʿAbdu ʾr-Razzāq’s Dictionary of Ṣūfī Terms.)

WARAQAH (ورقة‎). Waraqah ibn Naufal ibn Asad ibn ʿAbdi ʾl-ʿUzzā. The cousin of K͟hadījah; to whom she first made known the supposed revelation, or dream, of Muḥammad, and who is related to have said that the Prophet must have seen the Nāmūs which God sent to Moses. (Mishkāt, book xxiv. ch. v. pt. 1.)

In the Arabic Dictionary al-Qāmūs, it is stated that Waraqah was the son of one of K͟hadījah’s uncles, and that it is not certain if he ever embraced Islām. ʿAbdu ʾl-Ḥaqq, the commentator on the Mishkāt, says he had embraced Christianity and had translated the Gospels into Arabic. There does not seem to be any good authority for the supposition that he was originally a Jew. He appears to have died soon after the incident in the cave at Ḥirāʾ. [[MUHAMMAD].]

WARFARE. There are three terms used in the Traditions for warfare.

(1) Jihād (جهاد‎), warfare carried on by Muslims for the extension of Islām.

(2) Fitan (فتن‎), seditions and commotions which will precede the Resurrection.

(3) Malāḥim (ملاحم‎), pl. of malḥamah, warfare carried on between Muslim nations and tribes. These are also signs of the Resurrection. [[FITAN], [JIHAD], MALAHIM.]

AL-WĀRIS̤ (الوارث‎). “The Heir” (of all things). One of the ninety-nine attributes of the Almighty.

WAS̤AN (وثن‎), pl. aus̤ān. An idol. [[IDOLATRY].]

WAS̤ANĪ (وثنى‎), from was̤an, an idol. An idolater. [[IDOLATER].]

WAṢĀYĀ (وصايا‎), pl. of waṣīyah. Lit. “Precepts.” Used in Muslim law for wills and regulations concerning them. [[WILLS].]

AL-WĀSIʿ (الواسع‎). “The Capacious.” One of the ninety-nine attributes of God. It occurs in the Qurʾān, [Sūrah ii. 248]: “God is the Capacious one and knows.”

WASĪLAH (وسيلة‎). Lit. “Nearness.” The name of the highest station in Paradise, which Muḥammad said was reserved for one person only, and which he hoped to obtain for himself. (Mishkāt, book xxiv. ch. ii. pt. 2.)

It is usual for religious Muḥammadans to pray, after the call to prayer (aẕān) has been concluded, that Muḥammad may obtain this station of Wasīlah. Hence the place of intercession, and the office of mediator. That which effects nearness to God.

WĀSIT̤AH (واسطة‎). A thing or person intervening; an agent; a broker. Hence, a mediator.

WAṢL (وصل‎). “Meeting; union.” A Ṣūfī term used for the seventh stage in the spiritual journey, when the mystic, as it were, sees the Divine One face to face. The stage previous to fanāʾ, or extinction in the essence of the Eternal One. [[SUFI].]

WASWASAH (وسوسة‎). Lit. “Inspiring,” or “suggesting.” A suggestion from the devil. The machinations of the devil, to the consideration of which a chapter is devoted in the Traditions. (Mishkāt, book i. ch. iii.)

Muḥammad said, “There is not a single child of man, except Mary and her son, who is not touched by the devil at the time of his birth, and hence the child makes a loud cry when he is born, nor is there one human being who has not a devil appointed to attend him. The devil sticks close to the sons of Adam, and also an angel; the business of the devil is to do evil, and that of the angel to guide them unto truth.”

WATER. Arabic māʾ (ماء‎), pl. miyāh, amwāh. Heb. ‏מַיִם‎ mayim, waters. In the Qurʾān, [Sūrah xxi. 31], it is said, “We clave them (the heavens and the earth) asunder, and by means of water, We gave life to everything.” Which, as Sprenger (vol. i. p. 30n) remarks, is one of the principles of the Ebionite doctrine. Al-Baiẓāwī says it means either that God made all animals from water, or that the chief element in animal life is water, or that animal life is supported chiefly by water.

Muḥammadan writers say there are seven kinds of water which are lawful for the purposes of purification and drinking:—

Māʾu ʾl-mat̤ar, rain-water.

Māʾu ʾl-ʿain, spring-water.

Māʾu ʾl-bīʾr, well-water.

Māʾu ʾl-barad, hail-water.

Māʾu ʾs̤-s̤alj, snow-water.

Māʾu ʾl-baḥr, sea-water.

Māʾu ʾn-nahr, river-water.

Water which is considered lawful for ablution is also lawful for drinking, and vice versâ. Ibn ʿUmar relates that Muḥammad was asked about the water of the plains in which animals go to drink, &c., and he said, “When the water is equal to two qullahs, it is not impure.” ʿAbdu ʾl-Ḥaqq says two qullahs are equal to 250 mans. (Mishkāt, Matthew’s ed., vol. i. p. 107.) [[WELLS].]

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
6	س‎	ـس‎	سـ‎	ـسـ‎	s, sh
7	ص‎	ـص‎	صـ‎	ـصـ‎	ṣ, ẓ
8	ط‎	ـط‎	طـ‎	ـطـ‎	t̤, z̤
9	ع‎	ـع‎	عـ‎	ـعـ‎	ʿ, g͟h
10	ڡ‎	ـڡ‎	ڡـ‎	ـڡـ‎	f, q
11	ك‎	ـك‎	كـ‎	ـكـ‎	k
12	ل‎	ـل‎	لـ‎	ـلـ‎	l
13	م‎	ـم‎	مـ‎	ـمـ‎	m
14	ن‎	ـن‎	نـ‎	ـنـ‎	n
15	ه‎	ـه‎	هـ‎	ـهـ‎	h
16	و‎	ـو‎	وـ‎	ـوـ‎	w
17	ى‎	ـى‎	يـ‎	ـيـ‎	y

A further examination of this reduced list shows, that the characters, 1, 4, 5 and 16, ا‎, د‎, ر‎ and و‎, do not admit of the horizontal prolongation towards the left which serves to connect a letter with a following one, or, in other words, that they can only be joined to a preceding letter, and that the characters 14 and 17, viz. ن‎ and ى‎, in their initial and medial form, differ from the character b only by the superadded dots, and may therefore count for one with it, finally limiting the number of characters to fifteen. Thus the whole Arabic alphabet resolves itself into the four signs

ا د ر و‎

which can be joined to a preceding letter, but must, even in the middle of a word, remain separate from a following one, and the eleven signs

ٮحسصطعڡكلمه‎

which can be connected either way.

These, then, are the graphical elements, in their simplest expression, by means of which Arabic, etymologically perhaps the richest language in existence, was originally written, and which were expected to transmit the sacred text of the inspired book to the coming generations. The first in the above series of connectible characters (ٮـ‎) represents five different sounds, b, t, s̤, n, and y; the second (حـ‎) three sounds, ḥ, j, and k͟h; the next five (سـ‎, صـ‎, طـ‎, عـ‎, ڡـ‎), together with د‎ and ر‎ two sounds each, s and sh, ṣ and ẓ, t̤ and z̤, ʿ and g͟h, f and q, d and ẕ, r and z, respectively, and only five out of the whole number of fifteen (و‎, مـ‎, لـ‎, كـ‎, ا‎) are single signs for a single consonantal sound each. As for the vowels, only the long ones, ā, ū, and ī, were in this system of writing graphically expressed, being represented by the so-called weak consonants, ا‎, و‎, and ى‎, which, in this case, act as letters of prolongation. Yet the corresponding short vowels, a, u, and i, were of the utmost importance for the correct reading of a text, for the whole system of Arabic inflection is based upon them, and their faulty employment in the recital of the Qurʾān would frequently lead to grave mistakes, or, at all events, grievously shock the pious and the learned.

So it will be easily understood that the want of additional signs was soon felt, to obviate this double insufficiency of the original alphabet, that is to say, on the one hand to distinguish between letters of the same form but of different sound, and on the other hand to show with what vowel a letter was to be enounced in accordance with the rules of the Iʿrāb or grammatical inflection.

Accounts differ as to when and by whom these signs were invented and introduced into the sacred as well as the secular writing. We must here at once remark that the form in which they now appear is by no means their oldest form, as we have also, with regard to the characters of the alphabet themselves, to distinguish between two styles of writing, the one called Cufic, used in inscriptions on monuments and coins, in copies of the Qurʾān, and documents of importance, the other of a more cursive character, better adapted to the exigencies of daily life. This latter style, it is true, seems to have existed, like the former, long before Muḥammad, and resembles in a document of the second century of the Hijrah, which has come down to us, already very much the so-called Nask͟hī character now in use. But the two kept from the first quite apart, and developed independently from each other up to the middle of the fourth century of the Muḥammadan era, when the more popular system began to supplant the older one, which it finally superseded even in the transcriptions of the sacred book.

In tracing the origin of the vowel-marks and the diacritical signs, as we may now call them, in the first instance of the Cufic alphabet, we will follow Ibn K͟hallikān, whose information on the subject seems the most intelligible and self-consistent that has reached us. In his celebrated biographical dictionary, he relates that Ziyād, a natural brother of the first Umaiyah K͟halīfah Muʿāwiyah, and then Governor of the two ʿIrāqs, directed Abū Aswad ad-Duʾilī, one of the most eminent of the Tābiʿūn, to compose something to serve as a guide to the public, and enable them to understand “the book of God,” meaning thereby a treatise on Grammar, the elements of which Abū Aswad was said to have learned from ʿAlī, the son-in-law of the Prophet himself. He at first asked to be excused, but when he heard a man, on reciting the passage ([Sūrah ix. 3]): Anna ʿllāha bariʾun mina ʾl-mushrikīna wa rasūluhu, pronounce the last word rasūlihi, which changes the meaning of the passage from “That God is clear of the idolaters, and His Apostle also,” into “That God is clear of the idolaters and of His Apostle,” he exclaimed, “I never thought that things would have come to such a pass.” He then went to Ziyād and said, “I shall do what you ordered; find me an intelligent scribe who will follow my directions.” On this a scribe belonging to the tribe of ʿAbdu ʾl-Qais was brought to him, but did not give him satisfaction: another then came, and ʿAbdu ʾl-Aswad said to him: “When you see me open (fataḥ) my mouth in pronouncing a letter, place a point over it; when I close (ẓamm) my mouth, place a point before the letter, and when I pucker up (kasar) my mouth, place a point under the letter.” Nöldeke, the learned author of Geschichte des Qorâns, rejects this part of the story as a fable, and it is certainly not to be taken in the literal sense, that each time a letter was pronounced, the scribe was supposed to watch the action of the dictater’s lips. But it seems reasonable enough to assume that in cases where much depended on the correct vocalisation of a word, and where the reciter would naturally put a particular emphasis on it, Abū Aswad should instruct his amanuensis not to rely upon his ears only in fixing upon the sound, but also call the testimony of his eyes to his aid. At any rate, the name of the vowel-points: Fatḥah, “opening,” for a, ẓammah, “contraction,” for u, and kasrah, “fracture” (as the puckering up of the mouth may fitly be called), is well explained, and the notation itself:

for fatḥah,

for ẓammah and

for kasrah, is that which we still find in some of the old Cufic manuscripts of the Qurʾān marked in red ink or pigment. We refer the reader to the first specimen of Cufic writing given below (p. 687), which he is requested to compare with the transcript in the modern Arabic character and with our Roman transliteration, when he will readily perceive that the points or dots in the Cufic fragment correspond to the short vowels of the transliteration, while, in the Arabic transcript, they serve to distinguish the consonants. Take, for instance, the point above the second letter of the third word, and it will at once be seen that in the Cufic form it expresses the a after the n of tanazzalat, for it recurs again after the l in the last syllable, and that in the Nask͟hī character it distinguishes the n (نـ‎) itself from the preceding double-pointed t (تـ‎), both which letters remain without a distinctive sign in the Cufic.

To return to Ibn K͟hallikān: he relates in another place, after Abū Aḥmad al-ʿAskarī, that in the days of ʿAbdu ʾl-Malik ibn Marwān, the fifth K͟halīfah of the Umaiyah dynasty, the erroneous readings of the Qurʾān had become numerous and spread through ʿIrāq. This obliged the governor, al-Ḥajjāj ibn Yūsuf, to have recourse to his kātibs, for the purpose of putting distinctive marks on the words of uncertain pronunciation; and it is said that Naṣr ibn ʿĀṣim undertook that duty and imagined single and double points (nuqat̤, pl. of nuqt̤ah, “drop,” “dot”), which he placed in different manners. The people then passed some time without making any copies of the Qurʾān but with points, the usage of which did not, however, prevent some false readings from taking place, and for this reason they invented the Iʿjām (signs serving to distinguish the letters of the same form from one another), and they thus placed the iʿjām posteriorly to the nuqat̤.

Primâ facie, this seems to contradict the passage quoted previously, according to which Abū Aswad would be the inventor of the nuqat̤ or vowel-points, and the same remark applies to another account of the same author, which we shall adduce presently. Pending our attempt to reconcile the different statements, we notice here two fresh particulars of some importance. For the first time mention is made of double points, and we shall scarcely be wrong if we refer this to the way in which the Nunnation or Tanwīn, that is the sounding of an n after the vowels, is expressed in the early writing. It is simply by doubling the vowel-signs in the same position in which the single points are placed:

for an,

for un, and

for in. Secondly, we meet with the distinct assertion that the invention of the iʿjām or diacritical signs followed that of the nuqat̤ or vowel-points. Nöldeke thinks the reverse more probable, not only because the letter b (ب‎) is found already pointed on coins of ʿAbdu ʾl-Malik, but also because the diacritical signs are in the ancient manuscripts, like the letters themselves, written with black ink, while the vowel-points are always of a different colour. But the early use of a pointed b does not prove that the other letters were similarly marked at the same time. On the contrary, if such a distinction was once established for the b, which would be most liable to be confounded with one of its four sister-forms, the other characters of a like shape could for some time dispense with distinctive signs, as for an Arabian reader accustomed to hear, see, and think certain groups of consonants together, and deeply imbued with an instinctive consciousness of the phonetic laws of his language, the danger of mistaking one letter for another would not be by far so great as it appears to us. And as for the argument taken from the different colour of the ink, Nöldeke himself remarks that it was natural to use the same tint for the consonants and their distinctive signs, which form only a part of them, while the vowel-points are an entirely new element.

According to a third tradition, it was Yaḥyā ibn Yaʿmar (died A.H. 129) and al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī (died A.H. 110), by whom al-Ḥajjāj caused the Qurʾān to be pointed, and it is stated that Ibn Shīrīn possessed a copy of it, in which Yaḥyā ibn Yaʿmar had marked the vowel points. He was remarkable as a Shīʿah of the primitive class, to use Ibn K͟hallikān’s expression: one of those who, in asserting the superior merit of the People of the House, abstained from depreciating the merit of those Companions who did not belong to that family. It is related by ʿĀṣim ibn Abī ʾn-Najūd, the Qurʾān reader (died A.H. 127), that al-Ḥajjāj summoned Yaḥyā on that account into his presence and thus addressed him:—

“Do you pretend that al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusain were of the posterity of the Apostle of God? By Allāh, I shall cast to the ground that part of you which has the most hair on it (that is: I shall strike off your head), unless you exculpate yourself.” “If I do so,” said Yaḥyā, “shall I have amnesty?” “You shall,” replied al-Ḥajjāj. “Well,” said Yaḥyā, “God, may His praise be exalted! said:

“‘And We gave him (Abraham) Isaac and Jacob, and guided both aright; and We had before guided Noah; and of his posterity, David and Solomon, and Job, and Joseph, and Moses and Aaron: Thus do We reward the righteous: And Zachariah, John, Jesus, and Elias: all were just persons.’ ([Sūrah vi. 84, 85]).

“Now, the space of time between Jesus and Abraham is greater than that which separated al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusain from Muḥammad, on all of whom be the blessing of God and his salvation!” Al-Ḥajjāj answered, “I must admit that you have got out of the difficulty; I read that before, but did not understand it.” In the further course of conversation, al-Ḥajjāj said to him: “Tell me if I commit faults in speaking.” Yaḥyā remained silent, but as al-Ḥajjāj insisted on having an answer, he at length replied: “O Emir, since you ask me, I must say that you exalt what should be depressed, and depress what should be exalted.” This has the grammatical meaning: You put in the nominative (rafʿ) what should be in the accusative (naṣb), and vice versâ; but it is, at the same time an epigrammatical stricture on al-Ḥajjāj’s arbitrary rulership, which, it is said, won for Yaḥyā the appointment as Qāẓī in Marw, that is to say, a honorary banishment from the former’s court.

According to other sources, Yaḥyā had acquired his knowledge of grammar from Abū Aswad ad-Duʾilī. It is related that, when Abū Aswad drew up the chapter on the agent and patient (fāʿil, subject, and mafʿūl, object of the verb), a man of the tribe of Lais̤ made some additions to it, and that Abū Aswad, having found on examination that there existed, in the language of the desert Arabs, some expressions which could not be made to enter into that section, he stopped short and abandoned the work. Ibn K͟hallikān thinks it possible that this person was Yaḥyā ibn Yaʿmar, who, having contracted an alliance by oath with the tribe of Lais̤, was considered as one of its members. But it is equally possible that the before-mentioned Naṣr ibn ʿĀṣim, whose patronymic was al-Lais̤ī, may have been that man, and this supposition would enable us to bring the different statements which we have quoted into some harmony. To Abū Aswad the honour can scarcely be contested of having invented the simple vowel-points or nuqat̤. Naṣr ibn ʿĀṣim, walking in his track, may have added the double points to designate the Tanwīn. Lastly, Yaḥyā would have completed the system by devising the iʿjām, or diacritical signs of the consonants, and introduced it to a fuller extent into the writing of the Qurʾān, in which task he may have been assisted by al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, one of the most learned and accomplished Qurʾān-readers amongst the Tābiʿūn.

But whoever may have been the inventor of the diacritical signs in their earlier form, we must again remark that their shape in Cufic manuscripts, like that of the vowel-points, is essentially different from the dots which are now employed for the same purpose. They have the form of accents (

), or of horizontal lines (

), or of triangular points, either resting on their basis or with their apex turned to the right (

). As it cannot be our intention to give here an exhaustive treatise on Arabic writing, we pass over the remaining orthographical signs made use of in the old copies of the Qurʾān, in order to say a few words on the system of notation which is employed in the Nask͟hī character and our modern Arabic type.

If, with regard to the Cufic alphabet, we have spoken of diacritical signs to distinguish between the consonants, and of vowel-points, we must now reverse these expressions, calling the former diacritical points, the latter vowel-signs. For, as already has been seen from the synopsis of the alphabet on p. 681, the point or dot is there made use of for the distinction of consonants, while the vowels, which in the Greek and Latin alphabets rank as letters equally with the consonants, have no place in that synopsis. As this style of writing was to serve the purposes of daily life, it is probable that the want of some means of fixing the value of the consonants was here more immediately felt, and that therefore the use of points for this end preceded the introduction of the vowel marks, or to speak more accurately, of marks for the short vowels. For the long vowels ā, ī, and ū, were, as in the Cufic writing, also expressed by the weak consonants ا‎, ى‎ and و‎ taken as letters of prolongation.

When, later on, the necessity arose to represent the short vowels equally in writing, the point or dot, as a distinctive mark, was disposed of, and other signs had to be invented for that purpose. This was accomplished, we are told, by al-K͟halīl, the celebrated founder of the Science of Arabic Prosody and Metric. His device was simply to place the abbreviated form of the before-mentioned weak consonants themselves above or beneath the letter after which any short vowel was to be pronounced. The origin of the ẓammah or u ( _ُ‎_ ) from the و‎ is at once evident. The sign for the fatḥah or a ( _َ‎_ ) differs only by its slanting position from the form which the ا‎ assumes frequently in such words as اللٰه‎ for اللاه‎; and the kasrah or i ( _ِ‎_ ) is derived from the bend towards the right which the letter ى‎ takes in its older shape ( ے‎ ). The Tanwīn was then, as in the Cufic writing, expressed by doubling the signs for the simple vowels: _ً‎_ for an, _ُ‎_ُ‎_ or _ٌ‎_ for un, and _ٍ‎_ for in.

There remains a third set of signs supplementary to the Arabic alphabet, which may be called orthographical signs, and which, in their present form, were probably also invented and introduced by al-K͟halīl; at all events, this is distinctly stated with regard to two of them, the Hamzah and the Tashdīd. The Hamzah, to be well understood, must be considered in connection with the letter ʿain (ع‎) of which its sign (ء‎) is the abbreviated form. If the latter assertion needed proof against the erroneous opinion, put forth by some writers, that the Hamzah is derived from the ى‎, this proof would be afforded by the following anecdote. The K͟halīfah Hārūnu ʾr-Rashīd was sitting one day with a favourite negro concubine, called K͟hāliṣah, when the poet Abū Nuwās entered into his presence and recited some verses in his praise. Absorbed in conversation with the fascinating slave-girl, the K͟halīfah paid no attention to the poet, who, leaving him in anger, wrote upon ar-Rashīd’s door:—

لقد ضاع شعرى على بابكم كما ضاع عقد على خالصة‎

Laqad ẓāʿa shiʿrī ʿala bābikum, kamā ẓāʿa ʿiqdun ʿala K͟hāliṣah.

“Forsooth, my poetry is thrown away at your door, as the jewels are thrown away on the neck of K͟hāliṣah.”

When this was reported to Hārūn, he ordered Abū Nuwās to be called back. On re-entering the room, Abū Nuwās effaced the final stroke of the ع‎ in the word ضاع‎ (ẓāʿa, “is lost” or “thrown away”), changing it thereby into ضاء‎ (ẓāʾa), written with the Hamzah and entirely different in meaning. For when the K͟halīfah asked: “What have you written upon the door?” the answer was now:

“Truly, my poetry sparkles upon your door, as the jewels sparkle on the neck of K͟hāliṣah.”

The fact is, that both the letter ʿain and the Hamzah are different degrees of the distinct effort, which we all make with the muscles of the throat, in endeavouring to pronounce a vowel without a consonant. In the case of the ʿain, this effort is so strong for the Arabic organ of speech, that it partakes in itself of the nature of a consonant, and found, as such, from the first, a representative in the written alphabet, while the slighter effort, embodied in the Hamzah, was left to the utterance of the speaker. But when their language became the object of a favourite study with the learned Arabs, this difference not only called for a graphical expression, but led even to a further distinction between what is called Hamzatu ʾl-Qat̤ʿ or Hamzah of Disjunction, and Hamzatu ʾl-Waṣl or Hamzah of Conjunction. We will try shortly to explain this difference.

If we take the word امير‎ amīr, “a commander or chief,” the initial a remains the same, whether the word begins the sentence or is preceded by another word: we say أَميرٌ قالَ‎ amīrun qāla, “a commander said” (according to the Arabic construction literally “as for a commander, he said”), as well as قالَ أَميرٌ‎ qāla amīrun, “there said a commander” (in Arabic literally “he said, namely, a commander”). Here the Hamzah (ء‎), with the Alif (ا‎) as its prop and the fatḥah or a as its vowel, is called Hamzatu ʾl-Qat̤ʿ, because in the latter case it disjoins or cuts off, as it were, the initial a of the word amīrun from the final a of the word qāla; and the same holds good if the Hamzah is pronounced with i, as in إمارة‎ imārah, “commandership,” or with u, as in أُمراء‎ umarāʾ, “commanders,” plural of amīr. But it would be otherwise with the a of the article أَل‎ al, if joined with the word amīr. In أَلاميرُ قالَ‎ al-amīru qāla, “the commander said,” it would preserve its original sound, because it begins the sentence; but if we invert the order of words, we must drop it in pronunciation altogether, and only sound the final a of qāla instead, thus: qāla ʾl-amīru, “said the commander,” and the same would take place if the preceding word terminated in another vowel, as yaqūlu ʾl-amīru, “says the commander,” or bi-qauli ʾl-amīri, “by the word of the commander.” Here the Hamzah would no longer be written

but

(قالَ ٱلامير‎, etc.), and would be called Hamzatu ʾl-Waṣl or Hamzatu ʾṣ-Ṣilah, because it joins the two words together in closest connection.

In the article, as it has been stated above, and in the word aimān, “oath,” the original sound of the Hamzatu ʾl-Waṣl is fatḥah, a; it occurs besides in a few nouns, in several derived forms of the verb, and in the Imperative of the primitive triliteral verb, in all of which cases it is sounded with kasrah or i, except in the Imperative of those triliteral verbs whose aorist takes ẓammah or u for the vowel of the second radical, where the Hamzah is also pronounced with ẓammah (أُسكُتْ‎ uskut, “be silent”). But the reader must always keep in mind that it preserves this original pronunciation only at the beginning of a sentence; if it is preceded by any other word, the final vowel of that preceding word takes the place of the Hamzah, and if this word terminates in a consonant, the Hamzah is generally pronounced with i. We say generally, because the only exceptions are after the preposition من‎ min, where it is sounded with a, and after the pronominal affixes of the second and third person plural, كُم‎ kum and هُم‎ hum, where it takes u.

We can pass over more rapidly the other signs of this class, which are the Maddah, the Tashdīd, and the Jazmah or Sukūn. If in consequence of any grammatical operation an Alif, as prop of a Hamzah sounded with fatḥah, comes to stand before another such Alif, we write آ‎ pronounced ā, instead of أَأَ‎, and the upper horizontal sign is called Maddah or Madd, “lengthening,” “prolongation.” While thus the Maddah is the sign for the doubling of an Alif, the Tashdīd ( _ّ‎_ ) is the sign for the doubling of a consonant (ـبّـ‎ = bb). If, lastly, a consonant is not to be followed by a vowel, the sign _ْ‎_ or

, named Jazmah (cutting off) or Sukūn (rest), is placed above it, and the consonant is called “quiescent” (sākinah), in contradistinction from a “moved” consonant (muḥarrakah), that is, one sounded with a vowel (ḥarakah, “motion”).

We have seen that the Hamzatu ʾl-Qat̤ʿ (

) is an abbreviated form of the letter ʿAin (ع‎). In similar manner, the sign for the Hamzatu ʾl-Waṣl or Hamzatu ʾṣ-Ṣilah (

) is an abbreviated form of the initial صـ‎ (ṣ) of the word Ṣilah. The sign for the Maddah (

), as written in old manuscripts, seems to be a stretched out form for the word Madd (مد‎) itself, and the sign for the Tashdīd ( _ّ‎_ ) represents the initial شـ‎ of the word Shiddah, which is the technical term for it. The original sign for the Jazmah (

) is the cypher or zero, employed to indicate the absence of a vowel sound. A native Arab scholar of our days, the late Nāṣif al-Yazijī of Beyrout, has combined the vowel marks as well as the last-mentioned orthographical signs in the words:

أَخَطُّ ٱلْهِجاَٰ‎

Ak͟hat̤t̤u ʾl-hijāʾa.

“I write out the Alphabet,”

and these words, together with the two formulas given on page 682 (ادرو‎ and ٮحسصطعڡكلمه‎), and the dot as a diacritical sign, contain the whole system of Arabic writing, as it were, in a nut-shell.

However indispensable these various supplementary signs may seem to us for fixing the meaning of an Arabic text, educated Arabs themselves look at them in a different light. Although the need for them was from the first most urgently felt for the purpose of securing the correct reading of the Qurʾān, several of the learned doctors of early Islām strongly opposed their introduction into the sacred book as a profane innovation. The great Sunnī traditionist, Mālik ibn Anas (died A.H. 179), prohibited their use in the copies employed at the religious service in the mosque (ummahātu ʾl-maṣāḥif), and allowed them only in the smaller copies, destined for the instruction of the young in schools. In course of time, however, when even the office of reading the Qurʾān publicly more and more frequently devolved upon persons who had not received a special theological training, the necessity of carefully marking the text with these signs all through went on increasing, and became at last a generally acknowledged principle. In secular literature and in epistolary intercourse amongst the educated, on the contrary, their use should, according to the competent authorities, be limited to those cases where ambiguity is to be apprehended from their omission. If there is no danger of miscomprehension, we are told by Ḥājī K͟halīfah, it is preferable to omit them, especially in addressing persons of consequence and refinement, whom it would be impolite not to suppose endued with a perfect knowledge of the written language. Moreover, to a chastened taste, a superabundance of those extraneous signs seems to disfigure the graceful outline of the Arabic character. When a piece of highly elaborate penmanship was presented to ʿAbdu ʾllāh ibn T̤āhir, the accomplished governor of K͟hūrasān under the Abbaside K͟halīfah al-Maʾmūn, he exclaimed, “How beautiful this would be if there were not so much coriander seed scattered over it.” The diacritical points of the consonants, of course, are now always added, for they have grown to be considered as integral elements of the alphabet itself. Their absence, or their accidental misapplication, gave rise, in former times, to numberless ludicrous or serious perplexities and mistakes, instances of which abound in Muḥammadan history. Al-Balādorī, e.g., relates that the poet al-Farazdaq (died A.H. 110) interceded by letter with Tamīm, governor of the boundaries of Sind, in order to obtain release from military service for the son of a poor woman of the tribe of T̤aiy. The youth’s name was Ḥubaish حبيش‎; but as the diacritical points were not marked in al-Farazdaq’s letter, Tamīm was at a loss whether to read Ḥubaish or K͟hunais خنيس‎, and solved the difficulty by sending home all soldiers whose names contained the dubious letters. A more tragical event is recorded by Ḥājī K͟halīfah, to which we would fain apply the Italian saying: Sè non è vero, è ben trovato. The K͟halīfah al-Mutawakkil is said to have sent an order to one of his officials to ascertain the number of Ẕimmīs in his province, and to report the amount. Unfortunately, “a drop fell,” as the Arabic original expresses it, upon the second letter of the word احصى‎ (aḥṣī, “count”), and the result was, that the officious functionary submitted the ill-fated Ẕimmīs to a certain painful and degrading operation, in consequence of which they all died but two.

On the other hand, the employment of these signs in the Qurʾān, together with several others, to mark its division into verses, chapters, sections, and portions of sections, to call attention to the pauses that should be observed in reciting it, and to indicate the number of rukūʿ or inclinations with which the recital is to be accompanied, gave occasion for graphical embellishment of various kinds. Brilliantly coloured ink or a solution of gold to write with, delicately tinted and smoothly pressed pergament or paper, frequently overspread with gold or silver dust, highly finished ornamental designs of that fanciful and elegant description which has received the name of arabesques, such are the means which serve to render the copies of the Qurʾān of the halcyon days of Islām gorgeous and oftentimes artistically beautiful. Writing became indeed an art, diligently cultivated, and eloquently treated upon in prose and verse by its possessors, to whom it opened access to the most exalted positions in the State. Amongst the most celebrated calligraphists are mentioned the Wazīr Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī ibn Muqlah (died A.H. 328), ʿAlī ibn Hilāl, surnamed al-Bauwāb (died A.H. 413), and Abū ʾd-Durr Yāqūt ibn Yāqūt ibn ʿAbdi ʾllāh ar-Rūmī al-Mustʿaṣamī (died A.H. 698), whose father and grandfather had excelled in the art before him, but who, according to Ḥājī K͟halīfah, was never surpassed in it by any of his successors.

It was a natural consequence of the general development of the art of writing, that various styles were invented and cultivated independently of each other, and it will now be our task shortly to speak of the principal varieties, trying to describe their distinguishing features by help of a few illustrations chosen from Bresnier’s Cours de Langue Arabe. Along with the fundamental distinction already mentioned, of the Cufic or monumental, and the Nask͟hī or manuscript style, there runs, in the first instance, that of the Mag͟hrib-Berber or Western, and Mashriq or Eastern style. It must, however be remarked, that the Western Nask͟hī stands in closer connection and has preserved a greater resemblance with the Western Cufic, than is the case with the Eastern Nask͟hī in reference to the Eastern Cufic, as the reader will scarcely fail to perceive on comparing the following specimens.

The first is the before-mentioned fragment of the Qurʾān, written in the Cufic manuscript style, and provided with the vowel-points as invented by Abū Aswad ad-Duʾilī (or Naṣr ibn ʿĀṣim, see page 682). Like the remainder of our specimens, we accompany it with a transcript in modern type, a transliteration in Roman character, and a rendering into English.

No. 1.

CUFIC MANUSCRIPT CHARACTER.

وَ مَا تَنَزَّلَتْ بِهِ ٱ لْشَّيَاطِينُ وَ مَا يَنْبَغىِ لَهُمْ و مَا (يَسْتَطِيعوُنَ)‎

Wa mā tanazzalat bi-hi ash-shayāt̤īnu wa mā yanbag͟hī la-hum wa mā (yastat̤īʿūna).

“The Satans were not sent down with it (the Qurʾān): it beseemed them not, and they had not the power.”

([Sūrah xxvi. 210]; the words in italics correspond to the word yastat̤īʿūna, which is not contained in the Cufic original.)

---

The next two specimens illustrate the Cufic style, as it is employed on monuments, and more particularly so its Maghrebian development.

No. 2.

CUFIC MONUMENTAL CHARACTER.

No. 2 is part of an inscription copied from a public building in Tarragona in Spain. It reads:—

بسم الله بركة من الله لعبد الله عبد الرحمان امير المومنين اطال الله (بقاءه)‎

Bi-smi ʾllāhi! barakatun mina ʾllāhi li-ʿabdi ʾllāhi ʿabdi ʾr-raḥmāni amīri ʾl-muʾminīna at̤āla ʾllāhu (baqāʾa-hu).

“In the name of God! May a blessing from God be upon ʿAbdillāh ʿAbdur-raḥmān, Commander of the Faithful; may God lengthen his life.”

No. 3.

MAGHRIB MONUMENTAL CHARACTER.

No. 3, an inscription taken from the Alhambra, exhibits a style of monumental writing which can scarcely be called Cufic any longer, so much resembles it the Nask͟hī character. While in the previous specimen neither vowel points nor diacritical signs are made use of, here we find them employed in the shape, which they assume in manuscripts written in that hand. The reader will not have much difficulty in tracing the component letters by comparison with the following transcript and transliteration:—

يا وارث الانصار لا عن كلالة تراث جلال تستخف الرواسيا‎

Yā wāris̤a ʾl-anṣāri lā ʿan kalālatin turās̤a jalālin tastak͟hiffu ʾr-rawāsiyā.

“O thou who inheritest from the Anṣārs, and not by way of distant kindred, a heirloom of glory that makes every summit of fame appear low.”

It will be noticed that the فـ‎ (f) of the word tastak͟hiffu is left without the diacritical point which distinguishes this letter from the letter قـ‎ (q). This tallies with a remark of Ḥājī K͟halīfah, according to which the diacritical points of these two letters may be put or omitted ad libitum; and we seem therefore justified in concluding that the necessity for their distinction was latest felt and provided for. Hence arises one of the peculiarities which at once mark the difference between the Western and Eastern styles of writing, and which the reader will observe in the next three specimens, presenting instances of the Mag͟hrib manuscript character.

The first (No. 4) is written in a bolder hand, and consequently shows more strikingly the close relationship with the monumental style of the Western Arabs.

No. 4.

TYPICAL FORM OF THE MAGHRIB MANUSCRIPT CHARACTER.

قالت عائشة رضى الَّله عنها فجئْت رسول الَّله صلَّى الَّله عليه‎

Qālat ʿĀyishatu raẓiya ʾllāhu ʿan-hā fa-jiʾtu rasūla ʾllāhi ṣalla ʾllāhu ʿalai-hi.

“ʿĀyishah, may God be gracious to her, related: I went to the Apostle of God, may God’s blessing be upon him,” &c.

On comparing the initial letter of either line, it will be found that the one is قـ‎ (in qālat), the other فـ‎ (in fa-jiʾtu); but in the Maghrebian original, the former is marked by a dot above, the latter by a dot beneath the character, instead of the superscribed double and single point respectively in the transcript. This is the distinguishing feature between the two styles previously alluded to, and it seems to prove that the use of the diacritical points for these two letters is of later origin, and dates from a time when the two great divisions of the nation had definitely separated and followed each their own destinies. Another point to which we draw attention, is the different form of the Tashdīd, as seen in the word Allāh. The Mag͟hrib form is

instead of

; and while in the Oriental writing the vowel signs are placed over it, the Western style places the sign for the Tashdīd and for the vowel frequently side by side, as it is done here.

No. 5.

GOOD MAGHRIB WRITING.

قال ابقراط رحمه الله العمر قصير والصناءة طويلة والوقت ضيق والتجربة خطر والقضاء عسر‎

Qāla Abuqrāt̤u raḥima-hu ʾllāhu ʾl-ʿumru qaṣīrun wa ʾṣ-ṣināʾatu t̤awīlatun wa ʾl-waqtu ẓaiyiqun wa ʾt-tajribatu k͟hat̤irun wa ʾl-qaẓāʾu ʿasirun.

“Hippocrates, may God have compassion upon him, said: Life is short, art is long, Time is narrow, experience dangerous, judgment difficult.”

No. 6.

SUPERIOR MAGHRIB WRITING.

ان ابقراط لم ياذن لمن دعته شهوته الى الشرب بالليل ان يشرب او
لا يشرب لكنه ان شرب ونام بعد شربه فانه اجود من ان لا
ينام وذلك لان النوم يتدارك ضرر الشرب وذلك ان العادة لم
تجر بالشرب بالليل فاذا شرب فيه فلا محالة ان ذلك الشرب يحدث
فى الهضم فجاجة وفسادا كحال الماء البارد اذا صب فى قدر
فيها طعام وهو يغلى على النار‎

Inna Abuqrāt̤a lam yaʾẕan li-man daʿat-hu shahwatu-hu ilā ʾsh-shurbi bi-ʾl-laili an yashraba aw
lā yashraba lakinna-hu in shariba wa nāma baʿda shurbi-hi faʾinna-hu ajwadu min an lā
yanāma wa ẕālika liʾanna ʾn-nauma yatadā­raku ẓarara ʾsh-shurbi wa ẕālika anna ʾl-ʿādata lam
tajri bi-ʾsh-shurbi bi-ʾl-laili fa ʾiẕā shariba fī-hi fa-lā maḥālata anna ẕālika ʾsh-shurba yuḥdis̤u
fī ʾl-haẓmi fajājatan wa fasādan ka-ḥāli ʾl-māʾi ʾl-bāridi iẕā ṣubba fī qadrin
fī-hā t̤aʿāmun wa huwa yag͟hlī ʿala ʾn-nāri.

“Hippocrates neither allows nor forbids a man, who has a desire to drink at night-time,
to satisfy his desire. If, however, he drinks, and sleeps after drinking, it is better
than not to sleep, this being so because sleep counteracts, in this case, the evil effect of drinking;
for it is not customary to drink at night-time, and if one does so, this will of necessity produce
a disturbance and derangement in the digestion, just as if cold water were poured into a vessel
containing food that is being boiled.”

These two fragments scarcely call forth any further remark, except that in the last both forms of the Tashdīd are employed, the ordinary form even more frequently than the Maghrebian; for the latter occurs only twice, in bi-ʾsh-shurbi, which is the second word in the fourth line, and in ash-shurba, which is the last word but one in the same line. Moreover, it will be useful to notice the peculiar shape which the letters د‎ (d) and ذ‎ (ẕ) take in the Mag͟hrib character, as in the words ajwadu towards the end of the second line, and yaʾẕan near the beginning of the first.

Dismissing the Mag͟hrib-Berber style of Arabic writing, with its numerous local varieties, as less interesting for the English reader, we now turn to the Oriental style, where we meet again with a bipartition, viz. into the Eastern Nask͟hī, as it is written in Arabia itself, Egypt, and Syria, and the T̤aʿlīq, current in Persia, India, and Central Asia.

No. 7 is a specimen of the Nask͟hī in the more limited sense of the word, meaning the style generally employed in manuscripts, and derived from nask͟h or nusk͟hah, “copy.”

No 7.

NASKHI CHARACTER FROM A GOOD EGYPTIAN MANUSCRIPT.

قال يا آدم انبئهم باسمائهم فلما انباهم باسمائهم قال الم اقل لكم‎

انى اعلم غيب السموات والارض واعلم ما تبدون‎

وما كنتم تكتمون * واذ قلنا للملائكت اسجدوا‎

Qāla yā Ādamu ʾnbiʾ-him bi-asmāʾi-him fa­lammā anbaʾa-hum bi-ʾasmāʾi-him qāla alam aqul la-kum

Annī aʿlamu g͟haiba ʾs-samawāti wa ʾl-arẓi wa aʿlamu mā tabdūna

Wa mā kuntum taktumūna. Wa iẕ qulnā li-ʾl-malāʾi-kati ʾsjudū.

“He said: ‘O Adam, inform them of their names,’ and when he had informed them of their names, He said: ‘Did I not say to you, That I know the hidden things of the heavens and of the earth, and know what ye bring to light, And what ye hide?’ And when we said to the angels: ‘Bow down’.…”

([Sūrah ii. 31, 32].)

From this ordinary Nask͟hī several more ornate manuscript styles are derived, as the Rīḥānī, Yāqūtī, and S̤ulus̤. They are distinguished principally by the relative proportions of the characters; and in the S̤ulus̤ in particular, of which we give a specimen under No. 8, the letters are three times the size of the ordinary Nask͟hī, while the Rīḥānī and Yāqūtī show intermediate proportions between the two.

No. 8.

SULUS STYLE.

كنت نبيا والادم بين الماء والطين‎

Kuntu nabīyan wa ʾl-adamu baina ʾl-māʾi wa ʾt̤-t̤īni.

“I was a prophet, when man was yet a mixture of water and clay.”

It will be observed that beneath the م‎ (m) of the words الادم‎ (al-adamu) and الماء‎ (al-māʾi), in the S̤ulus̤ fragment, the letter is written a second time in a smaller character, and that, moreover, in the word الادم‎ it is surmounted by the sign

, which in Mag͟hrib writing, as we have seen, generally represents the Tashdīd. This is done in the above-mentioned ornate styles, especially with those letters which admit of diacritical points, viz. ح‎, د‎, ر‎, س‎, ص‎, ط‎, ع‎, &c. To indicate that no such diacritical point is intended, the sign

is placed on the top of the letter, or to make still surer of preventing a mistake, the letter itself is repeated in a minute shape at the bottom. Only the letter ه‎ (h), as distinguished from ة‎ (t), is, in this case, written above the line, because it frequently occurs as abbreviation of هو‎ huwa, “He,” or الله‎ Allāh, “God,” and it would therefore be considered irreverential towards the Deity to write it beneath the other letters. As a feature common to this division of the Eastern Arabic manuscript style, we lastly point out the inclination of the characters from the left to the right, in contradistinction both to the Mag͟hrib and T̤aʿlīq writing, where the letters are traced perpendicularly, or even with a slight bend from the right to the left.

Two other deviations from the pure Nask͟hī style are the Jarī and Dīwānī, officially employed in Turkey, and exhibited in the specimen No. 9:—

No. 9.

JARI AND DIWANI.

The Jarī fragment in the upper division is a facsimile of the formula which accompanies the seal of the Sultān, and runs as follows:—

نشان شريف عاليشان سامى مكان وطغراى غراى جهان اراى ستان خاقان نفذ بالعون الربانى والصون الصمدانى حكمى اولدر كه‎

Nishāni sharīfi ʿālīshān sāmī makān wa tug͟hrāʾī g͟harrāʾī jihān arāʾī sitāni k͟hāqān nufiẕa bi ʾl-ʿaun ar-rabbānī wa ʾṣ-ṣaun aṣ ṣamadānī ḥukmī oldur ki.…

“This is the noble, exalted, brilliant sign-manual, the world-illuminating and adorning cipher of the K͟hāqān (may it be made efficient by the aid of the Lord and the protection of the Eternal). His order is that, etc.”

The beauty of this style is considered to consist in its being written either diagonally from the top to the bottom of the page, or ascending elliptically from the bottom to the top.

The Dīwānī style, of which the lower division gives an example, is used in the official correspondence of the Turkish administration. The final letters, and even words, are placed on the top of one another, and in its more intricate varieties the letters run together in a fanciful manner, which renders the decipherment of this writing frequently very difficult.

Finally, we present in No. 10 a specimen of the Persian T̤aʿlīq writing:—

No. 10.

TAʿLIQ CHARACTER.

همين چشم دارم ز خوانندگان كه نامم به نيكو برند بر زبان‎

Hamīn chashmi dāram zi k͟hwānandagān Ki nāmam ba nīkū barand bar zabān.

“Such hope I cherish that in minstrel’s lay, With right fair fame my name will live for aye!”

(Firdausī.)

From this style of writing the Shikastah is derived, and bears the same relation to it which the Dīwānī bears to Nask͟hī. While in general preserving the peculiar outline of the T̤aʿlīq, it superposes finals and words, and joins letters in a similar way to the Dīwānī, with which, however, it contrasts favourably by a far more elegant and graceful delineation of the characters.

It remains now only to add a few words on the writing materials which the Arabs, and Orientals in general, make use of. From the nature of the character and from the direction of the writing from the right to the left, it will be easily understood that our quill and steel pens would answer the purpose rather indifferently. The bolder stroke requires a broader nib, and, at the same time, the edges of the writing instrument should be smooth enough to glide with ease over the paper, so as to enable the hand to give that fine swing and swell to the curved lines, which form one of the chief beauties of the Arabic writing. These conditions are admirably fulfilled by the qalam or reed pen. For the same reasons their ink is richer and their paper more glossy than those which we employ ourselves. The best ink is said to be made of lamp-black and vinegar or verjuice, to which red ochre is added, well beaten up and mixed with yellow arsenic and camphor. The paper, before being used for writing, is submitted to the action of the press, or made smooth by placing it on a well-levelled board of chestnut wood, and polishing it with an egg of crystal of about half a pound’s weight.

We cannot here enter into further particulars on the subject. The reader who might feel interested in it, will find some curious details in a short poem by Abū ʾl-Ḥasan ʿAlī ibn al-Bauwāb, which De Sacy has published and translated in his Chrestomathie. As mentioned before, this calligraphist was one of the greatest masters of his art, so much so that when he died, A.H. 413 or 423, the following lines were written in his praise:—

“Thy loss was felt by the writers of former times, and each successive day justifies their grief. The ink-bottles are therefore black with sorrow, and the pens are rent through affliction.”

Ibn K͟hallikān, from whom we quote, finds these verses very fine. Without disparaging his taste, we can happily assure our readers that Ibn al-Bauwāb’s verses are finer. With regard to the qalam, however, he rather mystifies us on the very point which would be most interesting, namely, the manner in which the nib should be cut or made. He says:—

“Give your whole attention to the making of your nib, for on this, verily, all else depends.

“But do not flatter yourself that I am going to reveal this secret; it is a secret which I guard with a miser’s jealousy.

“All that I will tell is, that you must observe the golden mean between a too much rounded and too much pointed form.”

Disappointed as we are at this oracular saying, we will condone him for his niggardly reticence on account of his final lines, with which we will also terminate our article:—

“Let your hand devote its fingers to writing only useful things that you will leave behind you on quitting this abode of illusion;

“For man will find, when the book of his actions will be unrolled before him, all that he has done during the days of his life.”

WUJŪD (وجود‎). An existence. Philosophers say existences are of three kinds:—

Wājibu ʾl-Wujūd, necessary existence—God.

Mumkinu ʾl-Wujūd, a possible existence—Creation.

Mumtaniʿu ʾl-Wujūd, an impossible existence—an Associate with God.

WUQŪF (وقوف‎). “Standing.” A name given to those ceremonies of the Pilgrimage which are performed on Mount ʿArafah. (Burton, Pilgrimage, vol. ii. p. 383.)

WUẒŪʾ (وضوء‎). The ablution made before saying the appointed prayers. Those which are said to be of divine institution are four in number, namely: to wash (1) the face from the top of the forehead to the chin, and as far as each ear; and (2) the hands and arms up to the elbow; (3) to rub (masaḥ) with the wet hand a fourth part of the head; also (4) the feet to the ankles. The authority for these actions is the Qurʾān, [Sūrah v. 8]: “O Believers! when ye address yourselves to prayer, wash your hands up to the elbow, and wipe your heads, and your feet to the ankles.” The Sunnīs wash the feet: the Shīʿahs are apparently more correct, for they only wipe, or rather rub (masaḥ) them. In these ablutions, if the least portion of the specified part is left untouched, the whole act becomes useless and the prayer which follows is vain.

The Sunnah regulations (or those established on the example of Muḥammad) regarding it are fourteen in number. (1) to make the intention or nīyah of wuẓūʾ, thus: “I make this wuẓūʾ for the purpose of putting away impurity”; (2) to wash the hand up to the wrist, but care must be taken not to put the hands entirely into the water, until each has been rubbed three times with water poured on it; (3) to say one of the names of God at the commencement of the wuẓūʾ, thus: “In the name of the Great God,” or “Thanks be to God”; (4) to clean the teeth (miswāk); (5) to rinse the mouth three times; (6) to put water into the nostrils three times; (7) to do all the above in proper order; (8) to do all without any delay between the various acts; (9) each part is to be purified three times; (10) the space between the fingers of one hand must be rubbed with the wet fingers of the other; (11) the beard must be combed with the fingers; (12) the whole head must be rubbed once; (13) the ears must be washed with the water remaining on the fingers after the last operation; (14) to rub under and between the toes with the little finger of the left hand, drawing it from the little toe of the right foot and between each toe in succession. [[ABLUTION], [PRAYER], [WATER].]