Benefits of the Hadith: (That Sawdah bint Zam'a gave her day to 'A'ishah . . . ) .
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : The following benefits are derived from this hadith:
First: The permissibility of a woman relinquishing her right to the division of nights, and the evidence for this is that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) approved of Sawdah's doing so, and if this had been prohibited, the Messenger (may Allah praise him and grant him peace) would not have accepted it.
And among the benefits of this hadith: that a release of obligation is valid with the wording of a gift. From where is this derived?
From the fact that she said: "I have given my day," and this is not a gift in reality, but rather a release from the obligation of the division of nights.
And based on this, if you said to your debtor who is demanding payment: "I have given you your debt," then it is valid and he is released from it, good.
And among the benefits of this hadith: the indication of the perfection of Sawdah's (may Allah be pleased with her) intellect, in that she relinquished her right to the division of nights in order to remain among the Mothers of the Believers.
And among the benefits of this hadith: the indication that if the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) divorced a woman, she would not be among the Mothers of the Believers, and this is indeed the case. So the woman who sought refuge with the Messenger (may Allah praise him and grant him peace) when he entered upon her and he granted her safety, is not among the Mothers of the Believers, because she was divorced during the lifetime of the Messenger (may Allah praise him and grant him peace).
And among the benefits of this hadith: that it is permissible for a woman to relinquish her right to a specific woman. From where is this derived?
She relinquishes her right to a specific woman, yes, it is derived from the fact that Sawdah gave her day to 'A'ishah. Is it valid for her to relinquish it to one of his wives in a general sense?
The apparent view is that it is valid. And based on this, if the one relinquishing her right does not specify a woman, then the husband has the right to assign it to one of his wives, and the husband has the right to make it shared among his wives; he can assign it to one of them or make it shared. However, if she said: "Make it for one of your wives," it is possible that it is as we said, that he has the choice, and it is possible that he makes it shared.
And based on this, we return to the ruling of this issue and say: If the wife relinquishes her right to a specific wife among the wives, it is specified to be assigned to her.
If she relinquishes it to one of his wives, then he has the right to specify whomever he wishes because it is unspecified.
If she relinquishes it absolutely, then it becomes shared among the wives. Do you understand this?
The student: The second one is shared!
The Shaykh : Good, the first one is clear. She said to her wife Hind: "I have given my day to my co-wife Zaynab." Clear? Good, it belongs to Zaynab and it is not permissible for him to transfer it to anyone else.
She said to her wife Hind: "I have given my day to one of your wives, choose whomever you wish." Here he assigns it to whomever he wishes, and he has the right to make it shared.
The third scenario: that she relinquishes her right to no one. Then he has the right to make it shared, and we may even say: it is specified that he must make it shared. But what does the word "shared" mean?
Shared. For example, if he has four women, then the right of each one is one night out of four. So if she relinquishes it to no specific person and no unspecified person, then it becomes shared, and the division of nights revolves around three. So he is absent from each of the three?
The student: He is absent for two nights.
The Shaykh : Yes, two nights.
The student: Three.
The Shaykh : No, two nights. He is absent from each one for two nights.
The student: Three.
The Shaykh : He is absent from each one for two nights, if we make it shared. And if it is for one specific person among the three, then he comes to the specified one twice, and he comes to the second and third one once each. So he is absent from the second and third for three nights. This is the difference. Yes, is the time over? Good.
First: The permissibility of a woman relinquishing her right to the division of nights, and the evidence for this is that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) approved of Sawdah's doing so, and if this had been prohibited, the Messenger (may Allah praise him and grant him peace) would not have accepted it.
And among the benefits of this hadith: that a release of obligation is valid with the wording of a gift. From where is this derived?
From the fact that she said: "I have given my day," and this is not a gift in reality, but rather a release from the obligation of the division of nights.
And based on this, if you said to your debtor who is demanding payment: "I have given you your debt," then it is valid and he is released from it, good.
And among the benefits of this hadith: the indication of the perfection of Sawdah's (may Allah be pleased with her) intellect, in that she relinquished her right to the division of nights in order to remain among the Mothers of the Believers.
And among the benefits of this hadith: the indication that if the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) divorced a woman, she would not be among the Mothers of the Believers, and this is indeed the case. So the woman who sought refuge with the Messenger (may Allah praise him and grant him peace) when he entered upon her and he granted her safety, is not among the Mothers of the Believers, because she was divorced during the lifetime of the Messenger (may Allah praise him and grant him peace).
And among the benefits of this hadith: that it is permissible for a woman to relinquish her right to a specific woman. From where is this derived?
She relinquishes her right to a specific woman, yes, it is derived from the fact that Sawdah gave her day to 'A'ishah. Is it valid for her to relinquish it to one of his wives in a general sense?
The apparent view is that it is valid. And based on this, if the one relinquishing her right does not specify a woman, then the husband has the right to assign it to one of his wives, and the husband has the right to make it shared among his wives; he can assign it to one of them or make it shared. However, if she said: "Make it for one of your wives," it is possible that it is as we said, that he has the choice, and it is possible that he makes it shared.
And based on this, we return to the ruling of this issue and say: If the wife relinquishes her right to a specific wife among the wives, it is specified to be assigned to her.
If she relinquishes it to one of his wives, then he has the right to specify whomever he wishes because it is unspecified.
If she relinquishes it absolutely, then it becomes shared among the wives. Do you understand this?
The student: The second one is shared!
The Shaykh : Good, the first one is clear. She said to her wife Hind: "I have given my day to my co-wife Zaynab." Clear? Good, it belongs to Zaynab and it is not permissible for him to transfer it to anyone else.
She said to her wife Hind: "I have given my day to one of your wives, choose whomever you wish." Here he assigns it to whomever he wishes, and he has the right to make it shared.
The third scenario: that she relinquishes her right to no one. Then he has the right to make it shared, and we may even say: it is specified that he must make it shared. But what does the word "shared" mean?
Shared. For example, if he has four women, then the right of each one is one night out of four. So if she relinquishes it to no specific person and no unspecified person, then it becomes shared, and the division of nights revolves around three. So he is absent from each of the three?
The student: He is absent for two nights.
The Shaykh : Yes, two nights.
The student: Three.
The Shaykh : No, two nights. He is absent from each one for two nights.
The student: Three.
The Shaykh : He is absent from each one for two nights, if we make it shared. And if it is for one specific person among the three, then he comes to the specified one twice, and he comes to the second and third one once each. So he is absent from the second and third for three nights. This is the difference. Yes, is the time over? Good.