Marriage
without a
dower ia
valid*
Ten Dirms
the loweft
legal dower.
c h a p . irr.
Of the Mihrt or Dower.
A m a r r i a g e is valid, although no mention be made of the dower
by the contracting parties, becaufe the term Nikkah, in its literal
fenfe, fignifies a contrail o f union,, which is fully accomplifhed by the
junction of a man and woman; moreover, the payment of dower is
enjoined by the law, merely as' a token of refpeCt for its object (the
woman,) wherefore the mention of it is not abfolutely effenfcial to the
validity of a marriage:— and, for the fame reafon, a marriage is alfo
valid, although the man were to engage in the contract on the fpecial.
condition that there fhould be no dower r but this ia contrary to the
doCtrine. of Malik.
T he fmalleft dower is ten Dirms * .— Shafei fays that whatever
fum may be lawful, as the price of a commodity in purchafe and fide,
is lawful as a dower, becaufe the dower is the right of the woman,
and confequently it mull; depend upon herfelf-to determine the amount1
qf it. The arguments of our doCtors, in this cafe are twofold,; f i r s t .,
a precept of the prophet, which exprefsly declares “ 'There is no dower
“ under ten D i r m s ; ” s e c o n d l y , the law enjoins, a dower with a
* Th e value o f the Dlrm is very uncertain. T en Dirmsj according to one account,
naak,e.about, fix {hillings and, eightpence fterling.
v*ew
[ view to manifeft refpeCt for the wife, wherefore it miift be fixed, in
[ its fmalleft degree, at fuch a fum as may he refpeCtable ; and this is
[ ten Dirms, that being the loweft amount o f a theft inducing the
punifhment o f amputation o f a limb, which fhews that ftich
I fum is the leaft that can be regarded in an important or refpeCtable
I light.
I °
I f a man aflign, as a dower, a fum under ten Dirms, yet his wife Cafe o f a
I fhall receive the whole ten Dirms, according to our o doctors.— ZiWfF er lo?f !teenr D,,irmst
I alleges that flie fhall receive a M ih r-M fl, or proper dower ; becaufe
I where the fum fpecified is fo fmall as not to bear the conftruftion of a
I dower, it is the fame as i f none whatever had been named.— The
I argument o f our doctors is, that the impropriety of naming or ftipu-
I lating fo fmall a.fum is on account o f the injundtion of the law, which
I cannot be fulfilled with lefs than ten Dirms, and the woman will
I certainly be fatisfied with ten Dirms, as fhe had agreed to accept of
I If* than ten : neither is it proper to take an example, in this cafe, from
I that in which no dower whatever has been named, becaufe it may
I fometimes happen that a woman may grant the right of pofTeffion
I without any return, and out o f pure love ; but no woman will agree
I *° % trlfling return. And here, i f the hufband were to divorce the
I wife before confummation, her due on account of the dower is five
I Dirms, according to our three doctors. Ziffer holds that fhe is in this
I cafe entitled only to a Matât, or prefent, the fame as would be due
I where no dower had been named.— The meaning of the term Matât
I fhall be hereafter fully explained.
I f a perfon fpecify a dower of ten or more Dirms, and fhould The wife en-
afterwards confummate his marriage, or be removed by death, his whofe dower,
wife, in either cafe, has a claim to the whole o f the dower fpecified,
becaufe, by confummation, the delivery o f the return for the dower, th” ma"iage,
R or the death
3 namely, of the huf,
band;