contrary to the revealed text. His conduct was therefore better than that of one whose position remained contrary to the revealed text(1).

Since the dower entails a right due to Allah, it may be that Sacred Law itself fixes its amount, as with zakat, the expiation for harm, and other such obligations. This is why Abū Hanīfa and Mālik held that its minimum is fixed(2) according to the legal threshold for theft. If its minimum may be fixed, its maximum may likewise be fixed. If its amount is fixed, it should be determined by the Sunnah and should therefore not exceed what the Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—practised regarding his wives and daughters.

If it were assumed that this was impermissible, then the excess would(3) have been offered to someone not entitled to it. It should be given neither back to the giver, since he obtained what he sought, nor to the recipient, since the recipient was [not](4) entitled to it. It should therefore be placed in the public treasury. This accords with the view of a group of jurists who hold that anyone who trades with another person’s wealth must give the profit in charity. This is the position of Abū Hanīfa and one of the opinions reported from Ahmad. Similarly, leading jurists hold that anyone who sells weapons during civil strife, or sells juice or grapes for making wine, must give the proceeds in charity.

In short, even if Umar had enforced his independent judgment, it would have been no weaker than many of the independent judgments of others that he enforced. So how can he be censured when he did not even enforce it?!

As for the words of Allah Most High:

“and you have given one of them a great sum”

[Surah al-Nisā’: 20]

many people interpret passages more explicit than this verse by saying, “This was stated by way of hyperbole,” just as they said concerning