Likewise, if the husband has been away from her on a journey for some time while she remains in her father’s house, and she claims that he neither left her any maintenance nor sent her any, her word is accepted together with her oath. The same applies to comparable cases. Thus, in this matter, distinctions must always be drawn according to the circumstances when considering past maintenance.

Whoever reflects on these considerations will understand the underlying reasoning in this question. Accepting women’s claims that they received no maintenance in the past entails harm and corruption whose extent only the Lord of all servants can count. It would mean that a woman could live with her husband for fifty years, then claim fifty years’ maintenance and clothing, alleging that, despite his wealth and her poverty, her husband had given her no food throughout that period. People can recognize with certainty that she is lying in such a case. Islamic law is far above allowing judgments based on lies and slander, injustice and aggression.

“The fifth argument”

The established principle in Islamic law is that an oath is prescribed for whichever of the two litigants has the stronger case, whether that strength rests on the original presumption of freedom from liability, actual possession, or established practice. Accordingly, when the claimant’s case is stronger, the majority—including Mālik, al-Shāfi‘ī, and Ahmad—hold that an oath is prescribed for him. Examples include the prescribed oaths in homicide cases and a financial claim supported by one upright witness: judgment is given in the claimant’s favour on the basis of that witness and his oath.

The Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—placed the burden of producing evidence upon the defendant when the claimant had no proof lending greater weight to his case. Hence, the majority of scholars say that when spouses dispute ownership of household belongings, each is awarded what customarily belongs to their use. Thus, the wife is awarded women’s belongings