the rulers grew bold in flouting the Sacred Law and trespassed the limits set by Allah in this matter, and the mutual ignorance of both parties concerning the true Sharīʿah led people to stray from it into various kinds of political innovations.
Second ḥadīth
ʿĀʾishah (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Hind bint ʿUtbah, the wife of Abū Sufyān, came to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and said, “Messenger of Allah, Abū Sufyān is a miserly man; he does not give me enough maintenance for myself and my children, except for what I take from his wealth without his knowledge. Do I incur any sin for that?”
The Messenger of Allah ﷺ replied, “Take from his property, in a reasonable way, whatever suffices you and your children.”
Lessons derived from the ḥadīth
Drawing on Imām al-Nawawī’s commentary on Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim—together with such additions as Allah has enabled me to collect or understand—the ḥadīth yields the following points:
1- The husband is obliged to provide for his wife and for his impoverished minor children.
2- The amount of maintenance is set according to what adequately meets the recipient’s needs and takes his circumstances into account.
3- It is permissible, when necessity dictates, to listen to the speech of a non-maḥram woman. Allah is the One whose help is sought.
4- It is permissible to mention a person in terms he dislikes for the purposes of complaint or seeking a fatwa, provided that backbiting is not intended.
5- The ḥadīth addresses the issue known as mas’alat al-ẓafar (taking one’s due by stealth): if someone has a right over another who withholds it, and he is able to obtain it without the other’s knowledge, may he do so? There are three opinions:
- absolute prohibition;
- absolute permission;
- a qualified position: when the right is manifest—such as maintenance—it is permissible to take an amount equal to one’s entitlement; but when the basis of the right is hidden, as in the case of a deposit, it is not permissible to take anything, because of his ﷺ saying, “Do not betray the one who betrays you.” Opening the door to wrongdoing must be prevented, and blocking the means to evil is required. This third view is the correct one.
6- The scholars disagreed: was the Prophet’s ﷺ ruling for Hind a judicial judgment (qaḍāʾ) or a legal opinion (fatwa)? The legal consequences of each possibility are as follows:—