varies with time, place, and people’s circumstances.
-
Whoever is obliged to provide maintenance but withholds it out of stinginess may have the amount taken from his property—even without his knowledge—because that maintenance is a binding duty upon him.
-
The ḥadith also shows that when someone is entrusted with an affair, his own assessment is accepted; he is considered trustworthy and therefore has authority over it.
-
The scholars disagreed: was the Prophet’s ﷺ instruction to Hind, allowing her to take from her husband’s wealth, a judicial ruling—thus a judgment passed in the absence of the other party—or was it a legal opinion (fatwa)? They said, “This incident vacillates between being a fatwa and being a judgment, but it is closer to a fatwa, for he did not ask her for evidence or make her swear an oath, Abū Sufyān was in town and not absent, and a judicial ruling is issued only in the presence of both litigants.”
-
This complaint and similar ones are not deemed the forbidden backbiting, because she presented her case to the authority capable of granting her justice and removing her grievance.
-
The narration also permits a woman to speak to an unrelated man when there is a need and safety from temptation.
-
In its general sense, the ḥadith makes the children’s maintenance obligatory even when they are adults. The Exalted says: “And upon the father rests their provision and clothing, according to what is acceptable” (Q 2:233).
-
The ḥadith further indicates that if a person cannot obtain what is rightfully his, he may take it—even covertly. Jurists call this masʾalat al-ẓafar (the issue of self-redress). It is a matter of disagreement: al-Shāfiʿī and Aḥmad permitted it, whereas Abū Ḥanīfah and Mālik forbade it. The stronger view is nuanced: if the right is clear and manifest, he may take it, since no doubt surrounds it; but if the basis of the claim is hidden, it is not permissible, lest he be accused of wrongfully seizing another’s property.
***