Should we say: this is a right belonging to them which they have waived, and thus it is forfeited and cannot be reclaimed? Or should we say: the ruling follows its effective cause, so that if estrangement and jealousy arise between them, he must house them separately?

The answer is the latter, for they may initially agree to this arrangement as a trial, to see how things turn out, and then find that remaining in one dwelling gives rise to jealousy, estrangement, and hardship in living. They therefore have the right to withdraw from it and demand that each be given separate accommodation. Moreover, a wife’s right is renewed day by day. In this case, he cannot argue against her by saying that she had given her permission—just as when she gives her allotted day to one of the other wives and then later withdraws it: she has the right to do so.

His statement: “He may prevent her from leaving his house,” means that the husband may prevent his wife from leaving his house, even to visit her parents, because he is her master, as indicated by the saying of Allah, the Most High: “And they both found her master at the door” [Joseph 12:25], and by the Prophet’s saying: “Fear Allah concerning women, for they are like captives in your hands” (1).

But is this permission unrestricted, or is it conditional upon her suffering no harm as a result?

The answer is that the matter requires further detail:

First: if her leaving causes him no harm, then he should not prevent her, because preventing her is, in one respect, a restriction of her freedom, and because it may cause her to become estranged from him. So long as there is no harm, he should permit her. She may be a woman who calls