What is the reconciliation between the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): “It is not permissible for a woman to spend anything from her wealth without her husband’s permission”?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
Al-Halabi : The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . And in the hadith he said: , ordering the women . And regarding the hadith of the woman who was ordered by him, or who gave the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) a cup of milk, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) [said] in reconciling these hadiths.
The Shaykh : What did the woman give?
Al-Halabi : A cup of milk. Al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) stated the permissibility of a woman giving charity from her specific wealth, reconciling these texts. So what is the explanation of the first hadith in relation to the other hadiths?
The Shaykh : First: I do not currently recall the incident of the woman offering a cup of water to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), but it is one of the many actions of women established in the Sunnah, so it does not concern us to dwell on it now. Second: How is the reconciliation done? The question is directed to the one who transmitted this from al-Nawawi’s *Sharh Muslim*. How is the reconciliation between women’s disposal of their wealth and their giving of charity, and how is this reconciled with the first hadith? Is this a reconciliation, or is it a preference of one text over another without reconciliation? Does the questioner know the answer?
The questioner : It is not present.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : It is not present.
The Shaykh : It is not present.
I say: This is not a reconciliation, but rather it involves the suspension of the text of the first hadith, which explicitly indicates that it is not permissible for a woman to dispose of her wealth without her husband’s permission. If we want to reconcile this hadith with the other hadiths in which women gave charity on one occasion or another with their wealth in the presence of the Messenger (peace be upon him) or in his absence, the reconciliation is to say: The reconciliation is from several angles:
The first angle: If the texts referred to, or others, are explicit in the woman’s disposal of her wealth without her husband’s permission, and they are not explicit in that, then that was before the prohibition of a woman disposing of her wealth without her husband’s permission. This is because the rulings of the Shari'ah always come gradually, not all at once or suddenly; this is a known matter.
And another thing, also known, is that the Shari'ah, when it was first initiated by revelation to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), began with the important matters,[Al-Muddaththir 74:1-5]. The detailed rulings were not present in the early days of Islam, even regarding intoxicants, whose harm is known by observation; before the Shari'ah came with their prohibition, the Shari'ah did not hasten to prohibit them at the outset. They were not prohibited until after ten years and more in Madinah. So what was the ruling on intoxicants before the prohibition? It was based on the original principle of permissibility. If a hadith comes to us that so-and-so drank intoxicants, we interpret this text as having been drunk in the early period before the prohibition. If a text comes to us that so-and-so among the Companions wore silk in the early period, and so on. So when a text comes prohibiting something, it means that this thing was not originally prohibited, but was permissible based on the original principle. And so we say here: The disposal of a woman’s wealth is the original principle. So when many texts come that women gave charity in the presence of the Messenger, and there is no room here for taking permission from their husbands, then the report indicates the woman’s disposal without her husband’s permission. We say: Suppose that is the case, but this disposal was in the early period; that is, the period in which the hadith prohibiting a woman from disposing of her wealth without her husband’s permission had not yet come. This is answer number one.
Answer number two, and this is specific to the hadith of women giving charity in the presence of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him and his family). Here we say something that may be beautiful: The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) is more worthy of the believers than themselves, by the text of the authentic hadith. So if the Messenger ordered them to give charity, and this order was after the Messenger’s prohibition of women giving charity except with their husbands’ permission, then his order takes precedence over the order of the husbands. And this is a very clear answer.
There remains answer number three, which includes all the disposals of women in their wealth in the presence of their Prophet or in his absence (peace be upon him), in that it can be understood in two ways. The first understanding is based on good opinion of the women, namely that they had taken permission from their husbands to dispose of their wealth within certain limits: give charity, for example, with a dirham, a dinar, five, ten, according to the woman’s situation of wealth, abundance, poverty, and the like. This is if we understand the women’s disposal in a good light, and this is what is obligatory.
It is possible—and here is a point I hope you will pay attention to, especially the one in front of me, because we were in a previous discussion with him—that this disposal is from the angle of independent legal reasoning (ijtihad) by one for whom independent legal reasoning is not permissible, okay? So she says: It is true my husband prohibited me, but I see that there is a dire necessity here, and so on, and there is no room for me to take permission from my husband, and so on. So it was an erroneous independent legal reasoning on her part, naturally; because independent legal reasoning is not permissible in the place of an explicit text. It is not permissible for a woman to exercise independent legal reasoning when her husband has prohibited her from something.
And[An-Nisa 4:34] This is the answer regarding this hadith.
And thus it becomes clear that the reconciliation is like this, and not by suspending or invalidating this hadith because of the other hadiths in which women disposed of their wealth, and there is no explicit text that they took permission from their husbands.
Abu Layla : Shaykh, do we pray here or go to the mosque?
The Shaykh : Can the call to prayer be heard from here naturally?
Another questioner : It is not heard.
The Shaykh : It is not heard.
Those present : Through the speaker.
The Shaykh : Their matter is by mutual consultation. The best thing is that it becomes chaos, one person speaks and has not been given permission. What is the opinion of the brothers here regarding this issue? First, from the legal perspective...
It is not permissible for a woman to spend anything from her wealth without her husband’s permission
لا يحلُّ لامرأةٍ أن تنتهكَ من مالها شيئًا إلا بإذن زوجهاGive charity
تصدَّقْنَGive charity and seek forgiveness often
تصدَّقْنَ وأكثرْنَ الاستغفارThe Shaykh : What did the woman give?
Al-Halabi : A cup of milk. Al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) stated the permissibility of a woman giving charity from her specific wealth, reconciling these texts. So what is the explanation of the first hadith in relation to the other hadiths?
The Shaykh : First: I do not currently recall the incident of the woman offering a cup of water to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), but it is one of the many actions of women established in the Sunnah, so it does not concern us to dwell on it now. Second: How is the reconciliation done? The question is directed to the one who transmitted this from al-Nawawi’s *Sharh Muslim*. How is the reconciliation between women’s disposal of their wealth and their giving of charity, and how is this reconciled with the first hadith? Is this a reconciliation, or is it a preference of one text over another without reconciliation? Does the questioner know the answer?
The questioner : It is not present.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : It is not present.
The Shaykh : It is not present.
I say: This is not a reconciliation, but rather it involves the suspension of the text of the first hadith, which explicitly indicates that it is not permissible for a woman to dispose of her wealth without her husband’s permission. If we want to reconcile this hadith with the other hadiths in which women gave charity on one occasion or another with their wealth in the presence of the Messenger (peace be upon him) or in his absence, the reconciliation is to say: The reconciliation is from several angles:
The first angle: If the texts referred to, or others, are explicit in the woman’s disposal of her wealth without her husband’s permission, and they are not explicit in that, then that was before the prohibition of a woman disposing of her wealth without her husband’s permission. This is because the rulings of the Shari'ah always come gradually, not all at once or suddenly; this is a known matter.
And another thing, also known, is that the Shari'ah, when it was first initiated by revelation to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), began with the important matters,
(1) O you who covers himself [with a garment], (2) Arise and warn (3) And your Lord glorify (4) And your clothing purify (5) And uncleanliness avoid
يَا أَيُّهَا الْمُدَّثِّرُ * قُمْ فَأَنْذِرْ * وَرَبَّكَ فَكَبِّرْ * وَثِيَابَكَ فَطَهِّرْ * وَالرُّجْزَ فَاهْجُرْAnswer number two, and this is specific to the hadith of women giving charity in the presence of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him and his family). Here we say something that may be beautiful: The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) is more worthy of the believers than themselves, by the text of the authentic hadith. So if the Messenger ordered them to give charity, and this order was after the Messenger’s prohibition of women giving charity except with their husbands’ permission, then his order takes precedence over the order of the husbands. And this is a very clear answer.
There remains answer number three, which includes all the disposals of women in their wealth in the presence of their Prophet or in his absence (peace be upon him), in that it can be understood in two ways. The first understanding is based on good opinion of the women, namely that they had taken permission from their husbands to dispose of their wealth within certain limits: give charity, for example, with a dirham, a dinar, five, ten, according to the woman’s situation of wealth, abundance, poverty, and the like. This is if we understand the women’s disposal in a good light, and this is what is obligatory.
It is possible—and here is a point I hope you will pay attention to, especially the one in front of me, because we were in a previous discussion with him—that this disposal is from the angle of independent legal reasoning (ijtihad) by one for whom independent legal reasoning is not permissible, okay? So she says: It is true my husband prohibited me, but I see that there is a dire necessity here, and so on, and there is no room for me to take permission from my husband, and so on. So it was an erroneous independent legal reasoning on her part, naturally; because independent legal reasoning is not permissible in the place of an explicit text. It is not permissible for a woman to exercise independent legal reasoning when her husband has prohibited her from something.
And
Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other
الرِّجَالُ قَوَّامُونَ عَلَى النِّسَاءِ بِمَا فَضَّلَ اللَّهُ بَعْضَهُمْ عَلَى بَعْضٍAnd thus it becomes clear that the reconciliation is like this, and not by suspending or invalidating this hadith because of the other hadiths in which women disposed of their wealth, and there is no explicit text that they took permission from their husbands.
Abu Layla : Shaykh, do we pray here or go to the mosque?
The Shaykh : Can the call to prayer be heard from here naturally?
Another questioner : It is not heard.
The Shaykh : It is not heard.
Those present : Through the speaker.
The Shaykh : Their matter is by mutual consultation. The best thing is that it becomes chaos, one person speaks and has not been given permission. What is the opinion of the brothers here regarding this issue? First, from the legal perspective...
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.