matter a governing principle. They said: “If the basis for a person’s right is apparent, he may take from the one who owes him, even without that person’s knowledge. But if it is not apparent, he may not take.”

In this case, the basis of the right is apparent, namely, the marital relationship. But if the basis is not apparent—for example, if you lend someone money and he denies it, while you are able to take something from his property—you may not take it, because the basis of your right is not apparent. Who would know that you had lent him money? Even if you have evidence, this is still the case. Were this door to be opened, great evil and disorder would arise among people—unlike cases in which the basis of the right is apparent.

Does maintenance for relatives fall under the same ruling? Yes. For example, if a relative refuses to support his relative, and the latter is able to take something from his property, he may take without his permission.

Similarly, according to our jurists, if a man stays as a guest with another man and the latter does not provide him with the hospitality due to him, he may take from his property to the extent of his rightful hospitality. This is because honoring a guest is obligatory, and once he has stayed with him, the basis of the right becomes apparent. However, this case is less weighty than that of marriage and kinship.

His statement, “and her inability to borrow against him,” means that she is unable to borrow on his account. Thus, she goes to some people and says, “My husband is absent and has left no maintenance. Sell me food and clothing, and charge it to my husband,” but they refuse. She then goes to a second and a third person, and all of them refuse. In that case, she has the right to annul the marriage.

The apparent meaning of the author’s words is that she must attempt to borrow. Yet there is some reservation about this, for borrowing may be difficult for her