—the sound Sunnah, fully consonant with the Book of Allah, supported by analogy, and upheld by the jurists who are specialists in hadith.
As for the two leading Imams, Mālik and al-Shāfiʿī, they hold that she is entitled to lodging but not to maintenance.
3 – This disagreement concerns only the irrevocably-divorced woman who is not pregnant. A pregnant woman, as well as one whose divorce is revocable, is entitled to both maintenance and lodging by unanimous agreement of the scholars; fuller discussion will follow shortly, Allah willing.
Disagreement among the jurists
The scholars differed over whether an irrevocably-divorced woman receives maintenance and lodging during her waiting-period.
Imam Aḥmad maintained that she is entitled to neither maintenance nor lodging. This was also the view of ʿAlī, Ibn ʿAbbās, and Jābir, and was adopted by ʿAṭāʾ, Ṭāwūs, al-Ḥasan, ʿIkrimah, Isḥāq, Abū Thawr, and Dāwūd. Their evidence is the hadith under discussion.
The Ḥanafīs, on the other hand, hold that she is owed both maintenance and lodging. This opinion is reported from ʿUmar and Ibn Masʿūd and was taken up by Ibn Abī Laylā and Sufyān al-Thawrī. They cite as proof the report from ʿUmar: “We will not abandon the Book of our Lord for the statement of a woman.”
Mālik and al-Shāfiʿī take the middle course, saying that she is entitled to lodging but not to maintenance. This is also the position of ʿĀʾishah, the seven jurists of Medina, and one narration from Aḥmad. Their evidence is the divine command, “House them where you dwell, according to your means” (al-Ṭalāq 65:6).
The strongest view is the first, because its proof is weightier and faces no valid counter-evidence.
As for the second view, it is answered that the statement they rely upon is not authentically established from ʿUmar. Imam Aḥmad was asked, “Is this report from ʿUmar sound?” He replied, “No.” Even if it were sound, the explicit wording of the Prophet ﷺ takes precedence over anyone’s independent reasoning.
Regarding the third view, their reliance on the cited verse is unsound, for the verse addresses the case of a revocably-divorced woman, not one whose divorce is final.