or to deny him (1) access to her, or to go wherever she pleases. Most of the harm arising from [A/Q 68] marriage results from a woman’s excessive demands for the deferred portion of the dower.

Anyone who reflects on people’s circumstances will recognize the corruption involved—corruption that no rational policy, let alone Islamic law, could sanction. Ordinary people instinctively reject it, especially when this is compounded by accepting her claim that she received no maintenance during the fifty years she lived in his home, even though she had no known source of support other than him. The same applies to similar rulings in which some scholars have erred, thereby giving rise to evils incompatible with Islamic law.

As for maintenance, it is (2) determined according to what is customary in that place and at that time. According to the majority of jurists—including Abū Hanīfa, Mālik, and Ahmad—the revealed law has not assigned it any fixed amount [or] limit (3). Rather, it is determined by custom and increases or decreases according to the husband’s circumstances. Within the school of Ahmad and others, there is disagreement over whether the woman’s circumstances should also be considered.

Must the woman be given ownership of this food provision as a formally assessed allowance, or is it enough to provide her with food in the home, as has been customary (4) among people from ancient times to the present? The jurists have two views on this matter, and the second is more consistent with the Quran and the sunnah. No woman was known during the time of the salaf to have received her food through a formally assessed allowance, and this is the customary standard that