By Willem Floor, Bethesda (Md), USA
Recently, three excellent studies have been published, each of which
sheds light on different aspects of mut'a. The study by W. Ende deals
with the contemporary discussion on mut'a between Shi'ites and
Sunnis'. S. Haeri's study focusses upon the institute of mut'a as it is
currently perceived in the Islamic Republic of Iran^. Von Denffer dis¬
cusses the nature of mut'a from a historical-sociological perspective*.
Although all three studies deserve our attention I would like to make
some observations on a few issues raised by the last study.
Von Denffer rightly and convincingly argues that mut'a should be
considered as an institution between marriage and prostitution. One
could say, to phrase it in Westem terms, that on one side of its spectmm
mut'a is a kind of legal concubinage, while on the other side it is legal
prostitution. The author's analysis of mut'a raises three issues which
merit further discussion. Firstly, von Denffer states that "Der Kreis der
möglichen Partner für die mut'a-Ehe wird theoretisch durch die Zugehö¬
rigkeit zu bestimmten Religionsgmppen eingeschränkt, während in der
Praxis die mut'a entsprechend dem äi'itischen Recht nur zwischen Si'i
ten vorkommen wird"*. Secondly, he submits that "Den sozialen Status
der ^iga zu bestimmen, dürfte uns aber auf Gmnd mangelnder Informa¬
tion nicht gelingen"*. Thirdly, the author rejects Woodsmall's opinion
that "75% der $igät zu Prostituierten würden"; he inter alia quotes Rosen "der uns mitteilt, in Persien bestünde 'eigentliche Prostitution'
' W.Ei^DE: Ehe auf Zeit {mut'ah) in der innerislamischen Diskussion der Gegen¬
wart. In: WI 20 (1980).
^ SahlehHaeri: Thelnstitutionof Mut'a Marriage in Iran: A Forrrud and His¬
torical Perspective. In: G. Nashat [ed.] : Women and Revolution in Iran. Boulder 1983, pp. 231-252.
* D. VON Denffer: Mut'a-Ehe oder Prostitution? It^: ZDMG 128 (1978),
pp. 299-325.
* Ibid., p. 320.
* Ibid., p. 314.
verhältnismäßig wenig"*. In what follows I wül discuss these three issues.
Von Denffer is wrong in maintaining that in practice mut'a
occurred only between Shi'ites. We know, for example, that in the Qajar
period Europeans availed themselves ofthe institution oi mut'a to have
relations with women outside legal marriage. According to Southgate
"the custom is not only prevalent among the Persians, but has been
practised to a very considerable extent by foreigners in the country, the
females, in this case, being generally, if not always Armenians"'.
BfiLANGER confirms this, when he observes that also Armenian priests
are willing to conclude mut'a marriages*. In these cases I have the
impression that the relationship between the mut'a partners is of the
concubinage type rather than of a one night stand nature.
Social status in Iran was based on non-economic factors such as socio-
religious behaviour and reputation, kinship affiliation, occupation, and
level of education. Family status was of overriding importance. Inter¬
connection among families were carefully planned from birth and cross-
cousin marriages were quite common. Therefore, a marriage with a
socially inferior woman, or in other words a mut'a marriage, was not an
event a man or his family wanted to advertize. For despite its legality,
and its religiously approved nature, ^iga wives, in general, were neither
accepted by society as equal to legal {'aqdi) wives, nor had their child¬
ren, in practice, automatically the same rights as 'aqdl children, be the
latter from a monogamous or a polygamous marriage. A telling case is
that of Mas'üd Mirzä, Zih us-Sultän, the eldest son of Nä^ir ud-Din
Shäh. Zill us-Sultän was exluded from the viläyat-e 'ahd, because his
mother was a ?iga. Therefore, a younger brother, son of an 'aqdimother,
was selected as crown prince". In some elite families one finds both an
'aqdi and a si^a branch, originating in the nature of the marriage of their
ancestress. What is interesting about this is, that this still is known and
socially significant after 100 years'". Although, children legally have
the same right, despite the nature of their mother's mariage, children of
" Ibid., pp. 318, 321; F. Rosen: Persien. Berlin 1906, p. 87.
' H. Southgate: Narrative of a Tour through Armenia, etc. New York 1840,
Vol. 2, p. 38.
* Ch. Bälanger: Voyage aux Indes-Orientales. Paris 1838, Vol. 2, p. 207.
' J. E. Polak: Persien, das Land und seine Bewohner. Leipzig 1865, Vol. 1,
pp. 230.
Based on information provided by Iranian friends; since the ßigat were
generally lower class village women, who worked as maids (kolfat), they were
not considered as equals by their betters.
a ^iga often found it difficult to obtain their rightful share of their
father's inheritance, according to Polak". One cannot say that marry¬
ing a ^iga, or being one, implied social stigma; however, a ^iga often
found herself an outsider in the family into which she married. KÄ?EMi
relates an event ofhis youth, when during a family festive gathering his
uncle's 'wive' sat apart and did not participate in the merriment. He
then found out that she was secretly his uncle's ^vga (dar khafä ^iga-yi
ür.
Apart from the explicit sexual objective ofa mwt'o marriage other uses
ofthe institution of mut'a also existed in Iran. Wilson, for example,
reports that "In the rice fields of Mezanderan a man engages as concu¬
bines for the season as many women as are required to harvest his
crops, abandons them during the winter; and the next year contracts
with the same or different ones, as the case may be"'*. A similar kind of
situation also existed in the urban areas. Mahdavi, in his biography,
relates that when he came to Tehran as a bachelor and wanted to hire a
maid to clean his house he was referred by friends to an 'employment
agency' in South Tehran. When he arrived at the 'agency' he was asked
to wait for the 'Madam' in a room, where a number of women were sit¬
ting, arranged according to age, who were eying him. When Madam
finally arrived, and he asked for a maid, she told Mahdavi "to-day it is
not the day for maids, to-day is the day for ^igas. If you will take a ^iga
she will be a maid as well". Because Mahdavi was opposed to mut'ahe
left the house and did not avail himself of this two-for-one offer'*. The
latter case resembles prostitution, for which mut'a often is mistaken, as
von Denffer shows. However, as Forbes-Leith points out: "Such a
custom as the segar (sic) marriage is naturally open to a great deal of
abuse, and inasmuch as the public prostitution of women is a sin accord¬
ing to the Mohammedan scriptures, 'segarism', is nothing more or less
than a form of this vice. Many hundreds of women in every city and
town in the country, making a living by becoming temporary wives of
" Polak: Persien Vol. 1, p. 208; see also F. A. C. Forbes-leith: Checkmate.
Fighting Tradition in Central Persia. New York, 1927, p. 181; for the different treatment of male and female offspring of a mut'a marriage, see e.g. Ibid., p.
185; a siga's chUdren were often referred to by their 'aqdi famUy members as
pesar-e (or dokhtar-e) kolfat or the maid's son (or daughter) to indicate the differ¬
ence in social status and background.
MuRTApÄ Shafaq KÄ?iMi: Rüzgär va Andisha. Tehran 1350/1971, Vol. 1,
p. 56.
S. G. Wilson: Persian Life and Customs. New York 1896, p. 263.
Mu'izz ud-Din Mahdavi: DästänM'ipanjäJi säl. Tehran 1348/1969, p. 199.
travellers or casual visitors"'*. It was especially against this form of
mut'a marriage that a 19th century reformer such as Häjj Sayyäh ful¬
minated, accusing the moUahs, who made a living ofthe misery of desti¬
tute women, of immoral behaviour'". Although much more research will
have to be done to adduce additional facts about the social status ofthe
$iga, I believe, that the abovementioned facts indicate that it were
mainly, if not exclusively, women from the lower classes, forced by eco¬
nomic and/or social necessity, to hire out their bodies in a legal way to
make a living for themselves and their parents. In these cases the bor¬
derline between legal mut'a and illegal prostitution is, as Malcolm puts
it, "simply a legal quibble"".
This brings me to the next point; did mut'a lead to prostitution, or was
it an institution that reduced its prevalence? Southgate believes the
latter. He states that mut'a is "a custom which prevents, in some mea¬
sure, the great prevalence of a more public and common vice"'*. In
actual practice, however, we find no evidence for such a belief, and
observe that prostitution was common throughout Iranian history".
Here we will discuss briefly the prevalence of prostitution in Iran since
1800. Although data are dispersed and infrequent we have convincing
evidence that prostitution was part of social life in urban Iran. In Teh¬
ran there was a special city quarter for prostitutes during Fath 'Ali
Shäh's reign (1798-1834)". For the same period Scott-Waring gives
us a very detailed description of such a special city quarter in Shiraz in
1806^". Polak reports that Muhammad Shäh ordered the closure ofthe
prostitutes' quarter. However, it is doubtful whether this had the
desired result. For during his son's reign (Nä§ir ud-Din Shäh) "wurde
die Prostitution streng verpönt, doch wusste sie sich trotz oder besser
wegen der Verbote in noch ärgerem Masse zu behaupten"^'. This is also
clear from such authors as Häjj Sayyäh, who writes that prostitutes
were allowed to be in business in exchange for a monthly fee^^. I'timäd
Forbes-Leith, p. 181; see also J. Basset: In the Land of the Imams. New York 1866, p. 288.
Häjj Sayyäh: Khäfirät-i Häjj Sayyäh. Ed. HamId Sayyä?. Tehran 1346/
1967, p. 164-65.
" N. Malcolm: Five Years in a Persian Toum. London 1905, p. 177.
" Southgate, Vol. 2, p. 38
For a very brief overview see J. E. Polak: Die Prostitution in Persien. In:
Wiener Medicinische Wochenschrift 32 (1861), pp. 516-17.
Scott-Waring: A Tour to Sheeraz ete. London 1807, p. 80.
^' Polak: Die Prostitution, p. 517.
HÄJJ Sayyäh, p. 482; see also C. J. Wills: Persia as it is. London 1886, p. 40.
us-Saltäna records that the govemor of Tehran, in response to pubhc
opinion, occasionally threw the prostitutes out ofthe city gates to allow
them back through another gate in exchange of a payment of a lump
sum. For his main fear was not religious public opinion, but rather the
loss ofthe prostitutes' annual pajrment of 14,000 tomans^*. Prostitutes
remained an integral part of social life in Qajar Iran. About the situation
in Tehran around the tum of this century Shahri gives us interesting
sociological material*.
Under the Pahlavi regime prostitution was almost exclusively found
in urban areas. According to HuÄzi prostitution represented about
25% of crimes committed by women^*. At the time of HuÄzi's study it
was estimated that there were about 3,000 licensed prostitutes in the
walled area of Shahr-e now in South Tehran^*. A study on the sociologi¬
cal profile of prostitution in Tehran in the late 1960s^' showed that in
most cases women had tumed to prostitution of their own free will, hav¬
ing been forced by economic necessity. Neither the IIiJÄzi study nor
that by Farmänfarmä'iyän suggests mut'a as a (partial) solution, or
even as a preventive measure for prostitution. In fact neither author
even mentions the existence of mut'a, and through its application, the
possibility of legalization of the prostitutes' employment. This may
have been, because mut'a did not really constitute a viable economic
altemative for prostitutes.
In conclusion, it seems that mut'a marriage was not limited to Shi'ites
only. Although, religiously legal, the social status ofthe ^igät in general
was low, partly due to their lower class origins. Their children, often,
were unable to claim their lawful (inheritance) rights. The majority of
the ^igät made a living as 'legaj^prostitutes', forced by economic neces-
Mirzä Hasan Khän, I'timäd us-Saltana: Rüznäma-yi khäfirät-i I'timäd
us-Salfana. Iraj Afshär (ed.). Tehran, 1345/1966, p. 159.
Ja'far Shahri: Güshe'i az tdrikh-i ijtimä'i-yi Tehrän-i qadim. Tehran
1357/1978, p. 12.
QuDSiYYA HiJÄzi: Barrasi-yi jarä'im-i zan dar Irän. Tehran 1341/1962
(2nd. ed. 1357/1978), pp. 148-49; for a discussion see Khosrov KhosrovI:
Tahqiqi dar bära-yi jorm-e zanän dar Tehrän. In: Masä'U-i Irän Vol. 1, no. 9 (Tir/
June, 1342/1963), pp. 434-47; see also Shähpür Räsokh: Sokhani-yi chand
dar bära-yi jarä'im-i zanän. In: Masä'U-i Irän Vol. 3, no. 4, 5 (Khordäd-'Tir/Sep- tember 1344/1965), pp. 103-08.
Iran Almanac 1965, p. 494; see also Iran Almanac 1963, p. 374. For a dis¬
cussion of living conditions and other problems of prostitutes in Shahr-e now
see: HakIm Olah!: Ba man beh Shar-i now beyäyid. Tehran 1326/1947.
^' Setäre Farmänfarmä'iyän: Peiramün-i rüspigari dar shahr-i Tehrän.
Tehran 1349/1970.
sity. Finally, there is no evidence (as yet) that mut'aled to prostitution,
but it certainly did not prevent it. It also seems to have been neither an
attractive or feasible option, nor an economic altemative for those pros¬
titutes, who wanted to climb one sport higher on the social ladder.
By Rahul Petek Das, Quiekbom
The ^nkr^nakirtan(a) (ÖKK) of Baru Can(iidäs(a)', if indeed of pre-
Caitanya origin, as tends to be generally assumed, is, it seems, the
oldest Middle Bengali (MB) text extant today, though probably not in a
wholly original garb. Actually, Eastem Magadhan at the time of its
composition had not yet fully split up into the three main groups we
know today — Oriya had branched off only a short while ago, and its
separation from the tongues that were to become Bengali-Assamese
was probably not yet fully complete. As for the tongues that ultimately
grouped themselves around the two literary languages (High) Bengali
and (High) Assamese by means of a process cutting across closer group
affiliations,^ these were, on the one hand, if at all, then not too widely
separated, thus sharing several pan-'Eastem' characteristics, while on
the other hand, since no common New Indo-Aryan (NIA) literary idiom
seems yet to have emerged in this region,' probably preserving more
purely regional characteristics than the later literary languages in those
cases in which they did come to be put into writing, though of course the
latter is only a guess, which is however founded on known later develop¬
ments. Thus one may argue against labelling the language ofthe 6KK
MB. Since however this language does — overwhelmingly — show cha¬
racteristics that have been retained mostly, though in several cases not
' On the transliteration of New Indo-Aryan I regularly use in my publications cf. IIJ 27 (1984), p. 66^. As regards Middle Bengali words, I have, following established usage, not tried to show the retention or dropping of ain pronuncia¬
tion, as this is on the whole unknown, but simply reproduced the script faithful¬
ly. Proper nouns represent a special problem: should one regard them as Middle Bengali, or fohow their modem pronimciation? The transliterations Cat)4idäs(a) and ärikxßnakirta'nfa) are attempts at compromise.
^ Cf. also op. cit., pp. 52-54.
' Whether the language of the Caryäpada collection was a widely used liter¬
ary language is a matter of debate (s. also l.c. in note 2); the relation ofthe lan¬
guage of the manuscript to the original language (for there has definitely been some change) will of course also have to be considered in this connection.
However, even if there should have been an older NIA Hochsprache widely used, it cannot have been in such use for long, especiaUy not until the age ofthe SKK.
