One person’s dowry is only “14 coins,” and another’s is “over one thousand and three hundred coins” (which corresponds to the bride’s age). The amount of this dowry also fluctuates each time. Dowry is supposed to be a sadaq and a symbol of affection and love, but like the price of housing and cars, it increases and decreases with the rise and fall of the dollar and gold. The amount of dowry is sometimes interpreted as the amount of the groom’s love for the bride—as if the higher the dowry, the more the man loves the woman. Dowry, which in Iran and in its legal and social culture is not just a contract or an old tradition, is in fact a multi-layered phenomenon in which traces of economic developments, gender inequalities, and the social status of families are clearly visible. In recent years, the form of dowries has changed; from cash, to coins, and today to assets such as property, vehicles, or even digital currency and dollars. These changes are not merely personal choices, but are a reflection of widespread financial concerns, family traditions, and a reconfiguration of values in the perception of security and women’s status in today’s social structure.

Coin: Symbol of Security or Instrument of Confrontation?

In recent decades, the gold coin has become the most common unit of dowry in Iran. This tendency is due to three factors:

Instability of the national currency and rampant inflation
Families and women preferred, instead of cash dowry, to choose gold coins as a more secure backing for the future.

Liquidity and symbolic value of the coin
The coin not only had high financial value but also became a representation of women’s bargaining power in marriage negotiations.

Increase in dowry lawsuits
A widespread wave of dowry cases, especially among the middle and lower classes, led to judicial and political reactions, including the “reasonable dowry” proposals and capping the number of coins. In many of these cases, men unable to pay the dowry ended up in prison. Meanwhile, in the upper classes, wealthy men, due to access to professional lawyers and the ability to pay all at once or reach a settlement, are less likely to be subject to arrest warrants or detention. As a result, the penal consequences of dowry mostly fall on the shoulders of low-income groups.

From Coin to Property; Dowry as Class-Based Asset

With the decrease in the value of the rial and the leap in gold coin prices, some families from higher classes preferred to define dowry not with coins but with properties, stocks, vehicles, or even digital currency and dollars. This trend is a reflection of the reaction of different social groups to economic instability; while underprivileged families settle for symbolic or unenforceable dowries, it can be said that more affluent classes try to provide their daughters with some form of economic coverage in the face of divorce, instability, or potential violence—through durable assets.

In such a case, dowry, instead of being merely a moral or traditional commitment, becomes a tool for capital transfer, boasting, and class marking. Having a dowry based on property or official assets not only provides a kind of financial security, but also indicates the economic position of the family. You must have often heard in conversations that it is said the dowry of the daughter of such-and-such merchant or landowner is such an amount of coins, while the dowry of a worker’s daughter is a much smaller number. This same economic status is something that also has an effect in judicial mechanisms, since pursuing legal rights for property-based dowries is usually accompanied by more transparency and assurance. In contrast, women who have only a few coins as dowry not only face the constant devaluation of those coins but also often encounter legal complexities and family resistance in claiming it.

The Proposal to Limit Dowry to 14 Coins; Legal Security or Class Suppression?

Recently, a proposal was put forth in Iran’s parliament to cap dowry at 14 coins. Although this proposal appears to be in support of men who cannot afford to pay dowries, it has several important points. This proposal practically reduces the bargaining power and economic backing of women, without changing the patriarchal structures in the country (including lack of right to divorce). Wealthy families, outside the framework of coins, can still define other and larger assets as dowry through official deeds or private contracts. In contrast, lower classes remain with 14 coins or fewer, without any economic guarantee. Reducing the dowry cap without revising other legal and social requirements of marriage (such as alimony, stipulations within the marriage contract, or divorce rights for women) can lead to more instability for women in married life.

Nevertheless, despite the criticism of the dowry cap proposal, one cannot overlook the bitter reality of thousands of men from the lower classes being imprisoned due to inability to pay dowry. In many cases, these prisoners are not irresponsible but simply lack the ability to pay due to structural poverty and livelihood crises. Prison in such cases not only does not help uphold women’s rights, but also deepens the cycle of poverty, violence, and instability on both sides of the relationship. Criticism of the 14-coin proposal should not be interpreted as a defense of imprisoning poor men; rather, it must be accompanied by a rejection of reductionist solutions and a demand to abolish imprisonment in dowry cases that clearly indicate financial incapacity—not bad intent or shirking responsibility.

The path of change in the form of dowry in Iran provides a clear image of the relationship between economic crisis, judicial policies, and class divides. In this context, dowry is no longer just a marital commitment; it is a symbol of resistance against economic instability, legal insecurity, and gender injustice. Any policymaking in this area must be done with a structural, class-aware, and rights-based perspective—not merely with a reductionist and control-oriented outlook.