Islamic Fiqh > Marriage and family > Couple life in the Sunna: daily benevolence > 1. Spending the night with one's wife
Contents
Updated on 25 September 2026 at 3:23 PM
This part belongs to the full section: All sections of this part.
The fiqh of married life defines the reciprocal rights of the spouses: what the husband owes his wife (staying with her at night, conjugal relations, refraining from withdrawal without her consent), and what the wife owes her husband (obedience in what is lawful, answering his call to bed, abstaining from voluntary fasting and from admitting visitors without his permission). The four schools are compared on every point, with their Qur'anic and prophetic evidence and their classical references. The series closes with the rights shared by both spouses and with fairness in the division of nights among co-wives.
The jurists discussed whether a man married to a single wife is obliged to spend his nights with her, and what measure applies. The majority, namely the Hanafis according to the sound position, the Malikis according to the madhhab, the Shafi'is, and Ahmad in one narration, hold that it is recommended, not obligatory: it is part of kind companionship, and abandoning it may lead to immorality. The best course is not to leave her alone more than one night in four, in consideration of the man who has four wives.
The Hanafis specify: if a man has only one wife and is kept away from her by worship or private affairs, the apparent position of the school is that no fixed measure applies, since division is a relative concept whose requirement depends on the existence of other claimants. He is rather encouraged, without any fixed timing, to sleep with her and keep her company from time to time. Al-Tahawi first adopted the narration of al-Hasan from Abu Hanifah (a day and a night of every four for her, the rest for him), then retracted it, saying this opinion "is nothing": if he married four wives and they all demanded their due, each would take one night of four and he could never attend to his own affairs. He is therefore not given a fixed time; she is granted a night according to what he does well with it ("Sharh Fath al-Qadir" 3/435, "al-Jawhara an-Nayyira" 4/371, "al-Bahr ar-Ra'iq" 3/236-237, "Hashiyat Ibn Abidin" 3/203).
The Malikis of the madhhab: a man is not obliged to spend the night with his only wife, though it is recommended for him, provided he does not intend to harm her by his absence; if she fears loneliness she should be joined by others, unless he married her on that condition and settled her among righteous people. A group such as Ibn Arafa, al-Hattab and others held that staying with her, or bringing her a companion, is obligatory: leaving her alone harms her, especially in a place where corruption is feared or the danger of thieves ("Mawahib al-Jalil" 5/219, "at-Taj wa-l-Iklil" 3/7, "Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil" 4/4, "ash-Sharh al-Kabir" with the gloss of ad-Dasuqi 3/205, "at-Tahrir" 3/90, "al-Fawakih ad-Dawani" 2/34).
The Shafi'is: the man with a single wife is not obliged to spend the night with her and commits no sin, for staying is his right which he may waive, just as he may not live in a rented house; his natural inclination suffices. Yet it is recommended that he stay with her and protect her, for this is part of kind companionship, while abandoning it may lead to immorality. The highest rank is not to deprive her of one night in four; better still, that both sleep in one bed when neither has an excuse for solitude, especially if he knows her eagerness for this ("Rawdat at-Talibin" 5/208, "an-Najm al-Wahhaj" 7/399, "ad-Dibaj" 3/356, "Mughni al-Muhtaj" 4/412, "Tuhfat al-Muhtaj" 9/189).
The Hanbalis, in the narration of al-Hasan from Abu Hanifah, hold that he must spend one night of every four with her. They cite the story of Ka'b ibn Sawwar before Umar ibn al-Khattab: a woman came complaining of a husband who prayed all night and fasted all day; Umar asked forgiveness for her and praised her, and she left in shame; Ka'b pointed out to Umar that he had failed to read the complaint, then ruled that she was like a fourth co-wife: three days and nights for the husband's worship, and a day and a night for her. Umar approved his judgment and appointed him judge of Basra; in another wording: "You are a good judge." This case became famous and was never disputed, to the point of counting as a consensus ("al-Musannaf" of Abd ar-Razzaq 7/149, no. 12587; "at-Tabaqat" of Ibn Sa'd 7/92).
Your body has a right over you, and your wife has a right over you.Narrated by al-Bukhari (4903) and Muslim (1159), from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to Abdallah ibn Amr ibn al-As
This obligation is reinforced by the fact that, without it, marriage could not be annulled for castration, impotence or the oath of abstinence (ila'); and were it not a right of the wife, the husband could freely favour one of his two wives, just as he might increase her maintenance beyond the obligatory amount. This duty binds him toward a free wife only if she demands it, for it is her right. The remaining nights are his own, alone or with a slave-concubine; with two wives he may keep two or three nights to himself, but he spends one night with one of them. Imam Ahmad said: "He should not sleep alone; I dislike that, unless he is compelled." Al-Mirdawi reports that al-Qadi and Ibn Aqil held that he must spend with her whatever removes the harm of loneliness and achieves the companionship intended by marriage, with no fixed timing, the judge ruling by ijtihad; the author concludes that this is the sound view. Ahmad is also reported to have said that night-stay is not required where the absence involves no harm ("al-Insaf" 8/353, "al-Mughni" 7/230-231, "al-Kafi" 3/126, "al-Mubdi" 7/196, "Kashshaf al-Qina" 5/216-217, "Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat" 5/311-312, "Matalib Uli an-Nuha" 5/266, "Manar as-Sabil" 3/59).
The jurists asked whether a husband must have relations with his wife, whether within a fixed period, or once in a lifetime, or according to his ability and her need. The Hanafis hold that a wife may demand intercourse: its lawfulness is her right, just as the lawfulness of her person is the husband's right. When she demands it, he owes it once, enforced by the judge if necessary; anything beyond that lies between him and Allah, as part of kind companionship and the stability of the marriage. Whether the judge may compel more: two opinions within the school. It cannot be said that every request binds him, for it depends on his desire for her; the husband, for his part, may demand her whenever he wishes, except where prevented by legal impediments (menstruation, post-natal bleeding, zihar, consecration) ("Bada'i as-Sana'i" 2/331, "al-Bahr ar-Ra'iq" 3/253).
The Malikis: intercourse is obligatory on the husband when no excuse exists; if she complains of its scarcity, she is granted one night of every four, since he may marry four wives, just as a healthy wife complaining of scarce relations is granted what she can bear, like a hired worker on the preferred view, contrary to those who say four times a day and night, given the differences among people. If the husband has relations so often that she is harmed, she is treated like a hired worker: she manages what she can. Demanding intercourse before a judge contradicts neither the praised modesty nor good character, for it is the very purpose of marriage ("Mawahib al-Jalil" 5/219-220, "al-Fawakih ad-Dawani" 2/34, "al-Qawanin al-fiqhiyya" 1/141, "Hashiyat al-Adawi" 2/84).
The Shafi'is: intercourse is not obligatory. Imam ash-Shafi'i said: "Intercourse is a matter of pleasure; no one is compelled to it" ("al-Umm" 5/189). It depends on desire and sincere love, which cannot be feigned; hence he is not compelled to lie beside her, to kiss her, to talk with her, nor even to sleep in the same bed ("al-Hawi al-Kabir" 9/572-573). He must nonetheless not deprive her of relations, for her protection; and it is recommended not to leave her alone one night in four. Al-Ghazali: coming to her once every four nights is the most equitable, since the maximum number of wives is four; he may increase or decrease according to her need for chastity, protecting her being obligatory, though a legal claim is hard to prove ("Ihya ulum ad-din" 2/50). Izz ad-Din ibn Abd as-Salam: leaving the man to choose between intercourse and abstaining from it while doing what is best for both spouses is preferable; and if it is asked why the man chooses while the woman is compelled: were women given the choice, men would be unable to answer them, strength failing in many cases, whereas a woman can respond at any time ("Qawa'id al-ahkam" 1/209).
The Hanbalis: intercourse is obligatory, based on the Prophet's words to Abdallah ibn Amr: "your wife has a right over you" (al-Bukhari 4903, Muslim 1159), and because it is a recognized right: if he swears to abstain (ila'), intercourse becomes obligatory even before the oath; marriage was legislated for the benefit of both spouses and the removal of harm, for the woman as for the man; without this right, her consent to withdrawal would not be required. The obligation is once every four months, absent an excuse and upon her demand, for Allah set four months for the man under the ila'. If he persists in refusing without excuse and she asks for separation, the judge separates them; this is stated explicitly in the transmission of Ibn Mansur concerning a man who married a woman and deferred consummation, saying "tomorrow, tomorrow" for a month: four months, otherwise separation, like the man under the ila'; annulment here requires a judge's ruling ("al-Mughni" 7/231, "al-Mubdi" 7/198-199, "al-Insaf" 8/354-356, "Kashshaf al-Qina" 5/217-218, "Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat" 5/311-313, "Matalib Uli an-Nuha" 5/265-266, "Manar as-Sabil" 3/60).
If he travels beyond six months without an obligation (obligatory hajj, jihad, the pursuit of necessary earnings) and she demands his return, he is bound to it; otherwise, separation at her request. Ahmad was asked how long a man may be absent: six months; he is written to, and if he refuses to return the judge separates them; this rests on the account of Umar, transmitted by Abu Hafsh from Zayd ibn Aslam:
While Umar ibn al-Khattab was on patrol in Medina, he passed by a woman saying: the night has grown long and its darkness deep; the waiting weighs on me, with no confidant to relieve it. By Allah, were it not for fear of Allah alone, I would toss the sides of this bed. Umar asked about her: her husband was away on campaign; he sent her a female companion, summoned the husband, then asked Hafsah: "How long can a woman bear the absence of her husband?" She answered: "Five or six months." He therefore set six months for the people's campaigns: one month of travel out, four months stationed, one month of travel back.Transmitted by Abu Hafsh, from Zayd ibn Aslam
Ahmad was further asked how long a man may stay away from his family: six months, though he may be away longer for a necessity. For a legitimate journey, her right to intercourse and the division lapse, however long, just as the marriage of a missing husband is not dissolved so long as he leaves his wife's maintenance. Others have held that absence of intercourse is not grounds for separation, which is the view of most jurists: were a term set for that purpose, the ila' would have no effect, while its legal recognition is undisputed; and there are indications from Ahmad that intercourse is not obligatory.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah: her intercourse is obligatory on him according to most scholars; others said it is not, the natural urge sufficing; the correct view is that it is obligatory, as shown by the Qur'an, the Sunnah and the principles; then it was said: obligatory once every four months, or according to his ability and her need, like maintenance; this last view is the closest to the truth ("Majmu al-Fatawa" 28/383-384, 29/173-174).
Ibn al-Qayyim sums up the debate: one group held that intercourse is not obligatory, being a right of the husband like a hired house: the weakest opinion, refuted by the Qur'an, the Sunnah, custom and analogy; a second group said once in a lifetime to establish the mahr: false, the purpose being kind companionship, the mahr having been instituted to dignify the bond; a third said once every four months by analogy with the ila': the closest of the previous views yet incorrect, the four months being a concession granted to husbands; a fourth said intercourse with kindness, like maintenance: this is the essence and purpose of marriage, and his master (Ibn Taymiyyah) preferred it. The Prophet encouraged this remedy and attached reward to it:
And in the intercourse of any one of you there is charity.Narrated by Muslim
An-Nasa'i entitled a chapter "Encouragement to intercourse" before citing this hadith: in it lies the fullness of pleasure, kindness to the beloved, the reward of charity, the joy of the soul and the dispelling of its dark thoughts, lightness of body and balance of temperament. This is why daytime intercourse is preferred to nighttime: the night is when the senses rest, and the day is the time of activity: "It is He who made for you the night as a garment, and sleep for rest, and made the day a time of rising" (Surah Al-Furqan, 25:47); "It is He who made the night for you that you may rest in it" (Surah Yunus, 10:67). The fullness of this blessing brings the joy of Allah's good pleasure and the hope of a heavy scale; and this is why the dearest thing to Satan is to separate a man from the one he loves, so that each replaces the other with what is unlawful ("Rawdat al-muhibbin" 215, 218, "Zad al-ma'ad" 5/140-146).
Withdrawal (azl) is for a man to pull back as ejaculation approaches and ejaculate outside the vagina. The jurists of the four schools agree that it is permitted, and that it is not lawful with a free wife except with her consent, based on the report from Umar ibn al-Khattab: "The Messenger of Allah forbade withdrawing from a free woman without her consent" (a weak hadith: Ibn Majah 1928, Ahmad 212), and because she has a right to offspring and suffers harm from withdrawal.
Ibn Battal: Malik, ash-Shafi'i and the majority of scholars: withdrawal is not practiced with a free woman without her consent; if she forbids her husband, he must not withdraw. They differed over a slave wife: Malik and the Kufans: no withdrawal without her master's consent; ath-Thawri: not without her own consent; ash-Shafi'i: withdrawal is permitted without her consent or her master's ("Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari" by Ibn Battal 7/331). Ibn Abd al-Barr: the scholars do not disagree that a free woman is not withdrawn from except with her consent, intercourse being her right and claimable by her, and perfect, proper intercourse being only without withdrawal ("at-Tamhid" 3/148). Ibn al-Qattan al-Fasi: I know of no disagreement that a man does not withdraw from his wife without her consent ("al-Iqna" 3/1238, no. 2267).
Ibn Qudamah: withdrawal is disliked; its meaning is to pull back as ejaculation approaches and ejaculate outside; its disapproval is reported from Umar, Ali, Ibn Umar and Ibn Mas'ud, and also from Abu Bakr as-Siddiq, for it diminishes offspring and cuts off the wife's pleasure. The Prophet encouraged the means to offspring: "Marry, procreate, multiply," and "A dark-complexioned, fertile woman is better than a beautiful barren one," except in case of need: being in enemy territory and needing relations, or the wife being a slave woman and he fearing enslavement of his child, or owning a slave woman he needs and wishes to sell; Ali used to practice withdrawal with his slave women. Without need, withdrawal is disliked though not unlawful. The dispensation is reported from Ali, Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas, Abu Ayyub, Zayd ibn Thabit, Jabir, Ibn Abbas, al-Hasan ibn Ali, Khabbab ibn al-Aratt, Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, Tawus, Ata', an-Nakha'i, Malik, ash-Shafi'i and the people of opinion.
Withdrawal was mentioned before the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), who said: "Why should any one of you do that? There is no created soul but Allah creates it."Narrated by al-Bukhari and Muslim, from Abu Sa'id al-Khudri
A man said: "Messenger of Allah, I have a slave girl with whom I practice withdrawal, for I fear she may conceive, yet I desire what men desire; the Jews claim that withdrawal is the killing of the buried infant." He replied: "The Jews lied: if Allah wills to create him, you cannot prevent it."Narrated by Abu Dawud
Chapter: withdrawal with a slave wife without her consent is permitted, stated explicitly by Ahmad, and it is the view of Malik, Abu Hanifah and ash-Shafi'i, for she has no right to intercourse or to offspring; she therefore cannot demand division or separation, still less forbid withdrawal. As for the free wife, he does not withdraw without her consent; al-Qadi notes that the apparent sense of Ahmad's words is that asking the wife's consent is obligatory, though it may be only recommended, her right covering intercourse and not ejaculation. The Shafi'is have two views, the first being preferable, based on the report of Umar from the Prophet; for she has a right to offspring and is harmed by withdrawal. As for the slave wife, withdrawal without her consent is possible, per ash-Shafi'i, by implication of the hadith; Ibn Abbas said: "The free woman is asked, the slave is not asked," the husband fearing enslavement of his child; yet it may be held that withdrawal requires her consent, since she is a wife who may demand intercourse up to annulment, and withdrawal prevents its fulfillment ("al-Mughni" 7/226-227, "al-Hidaya" 4/87).
Abu al-Walid Ibn Rushd al-Qurtubi: the majority of scholars in the major cities, namely Malik and his companions, ash-Shafi'i and Abu Hanifah, permit withdrawal on the hadith of Abu Sa'id al-Khudri: "We set out with the Messenger of Allah on the campaign of Banu al-Mustaliq; we took captives and desired the women, hoping for ransom, and we wished to withdraw while the Messenger of Allah was among us, before asking him; he said: 'It does not matter that you do not do it: there is no soul destined to exist until the Day of Resurrection but it will exist.'" A man thus withdraws from his slave wife without her consent, from his free wife with her consent, and from a slave wife with her master's consent; it has also been said: with her own consent ("al-Bayan wa-t-tahsil" 18/151-152).
Ibn al-Qayyim ("Zad al-ma'ad" 5/140-146) devotes a long section to the Prophet's ruling on withdrawal: the authentic hadiths establish its lawfulness. In the Sahihayn, Abu Sa'id reports that the Prophet, when asked, said three times: "Would you really do it? There is no soul destined to exist until the Day of Resurrection but it will exist"; in the Sunan, the account of the Jews already cited; in the Sahihayn, Jabir: "We practiced withdrawal during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah while the Qur'an was being revealed"; in Muslim's Sahih: "We practiced withdrawal during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah; the news reached him and he did not forbid us"; again: "It does not prevent anything Allah has willed," and when the man returned announcing the pregnancy: "I am the slave of Allah and His Messenger"; in Muslim's Sahih, Usamah ibn Zayd: "If it were harmful, it would have harmed the Persians and the Byzantines"; in the Musnad of Ahmad and the Sunan of Ibn Majah, Umar: "The Messenger of Allah forbade withdrawing from a free woman without her consent"; Abu Dawud heard Ahmad cite it, adding: "which he disapproved." These hadiths are explicit on its lawfulness, and the dispensation is reported from ten Companions: Ali, Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas, Abu Ayyub, Zayd ibn Thabit, Jabir, Ibn Abbas, al-Hasan ibn Ali, Khabbab ibn al-Aratt, Abu Sa'id al-Khudri and Ibn Mas'ud.
Ibn Hazm writes that its lawfulness reached us soundly from Jabir, Ibn Abbas, Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas, Zayd ibn Thabit and Ibn Mas'ud; yet a group forbade it, among them Abu Muhammad Ibn Hazm. Some distinguished: withdrawal is permitted with a free wife's consent, or with the master's consent for a slave; this is Ahmad's explicit text. Those who permit it without restriction rely on the cited hadiths and on the fact that the woman's right covers the enjoyment of the seminal fluid, not ejaculation.
Those who forbid it absolutely invoke the hadith of Judamah bint Wahb, sister of Ukashah, narrated by Muslim from Aishah: asked about withdrawal in the presence of people, the Prophet said: "That is the hidden killing of children; it is the one of whom it is said: 'when the girl buried alive is asked'" (Surah At-Takwir, 81:8). They infer from it the abrogation of the reports of lawfulness, which, on their view, accord with original innocence, while the rulings of the Law override that innocence. They are answered: the Prophet did forbid withdrawal in saying "it is the killing of the buried infant," all such killing being unlawful; al-Hasan al-Basri understood disapproval from the hadith of Abu Sa'id: "It does not matter that you do not do it: it is only predestination," which Ibn Awn conveyed to al-Hasan, who said: "By Allah, this sounds like a rebuke"; withdrawal indeed cuts off the offspring sought through marriage, spoils companionship, and cuts off pleasure when nature calls for it.
For this reason Ibn Umar did not withdraw and said: "If I knew that one of my children practiced withdrawal, I would punish him"; Ali disliked withdrawal (reported by Shu'bah, from Asim, from Zirr); it is established from Ibn Mas'ud that withdrawal "is the killing of the buried infant"; Abu Umamah, when asked, said: "I never saw a Muslim do it"; Nafi' reports from Ibn Umar: "Umar flogged one of his sons for withdrawal"; Yahya ibn Sa'id al-Ansari reports from Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib: "Umar and Uthman used to forbid withdrawal." None of this contradicts the hadiths of lawfulness in their explicitness and authenticity; the hadith of Judamah, though narrated by Muslim, is contradicted by numerous hadiths. Some declared it a matter of mere remonstrance; others weakened it: how could the Prophet deny the Jews and then report their very claim? Others reconciled: the Jews claimed that withdrawal prevents pregnancy altogether, and the Prophet denied this with "if Allah wills to create him, you cannot prevent it," while affirming that it "is the hidden killing of children" since it diminishes offspring without preventing it. Still others held that the hadith of prohibition abrogates those of lawfulness, their demand for a precise chronology remaining unanswered.
Umar and Ali agreed that the embryo is not a "buried infant" until the seven stages have passed: the judge Abu Ya'la and others report from Ubayd ibn Rifa'a from his father that Ali, az-Zubayr and Sa'd, in the presence of Companions, discussed withdrawal and declared it lawful; someone said: "they claim it is the killing of the buried infant"; Ali replied: "It is not such killing until seven stages have passed: an extract of clay, then a drop of sperm, then a clinging clot, then a lump of flesh, then bones, then flesh, then another creation"; Umar said: "You have spoken the truth; may Allah prolong your life"; on this basis some pray for a man's long life.
As for those who require the free wife's consent: the woman has a right to offspring just as the man does, and the consent of slave women is not considered since they have no right to division. For a slave wife, the husband may withdraw to protect his child from enslavement, taking account of the master's consent, who has a right to the child; Ahmad said, in the transmission of Abu Talib, regarding a slave wife: he asks her people's permission, for they want the child; his concubine he does not ask. In the transmissions of Salih, Ibn Mansur, Hanbal, Abu al-Harith, al-Fadl ibn Ziyad and al-Marwazi: withdrawal with a free wife is with her consent, with his slave woman without hers. In the transmission of Ibn Hani: if he withdraws, a child may still come; one scholar used to say: "I have children only by withdrawal"; in al-Marwazi's transmission regarding the mother of his child: if he wills; if she says "it is not lawful for you," she has no such right.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah was asked about a woman who placed, during intercourse, a medicine preventing semen from entering the channels of pregnancy: is this permitted? And if that medicine remains in her after intercourse, may she pray and fast after the major ablution? He answered: as for her fasting and prayer, they are valid even if that medicine is inside her; as for the lawfulness of the practice, the scholars differ, and the safer course is not to resort to it, and Allah knows best ("Majmu al-Fatawa" 32/271-272).
The husband holds many rights over his wife; among the most important the Shari'ah has granted him is obedience. Muslim jurists agree: a wife must obey her husband in everything that involves no disobedience to Allah; she does not leave her home without his permission, and must answer him if he calls her to intercourse. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah: a woman with her husband is like a slave and a captive: she does not leave his dwelling without his permission, whether her father, her mother or others command her otherwise, by agreement of the imams; if a husband wishes to move elsewhere while fulfilling his duties and guarding Allah's limits, and her parents forbid her this obedience, she must obey her husband rather than her parents, for in this they are the wrongdoers ("Majmu al-Fatawa" 32/263).
Numerous hadiths of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) establish the wife's obligation to obey her husband in all the affairs of life, short of disobedience to Allah:
There are many other hadiths to this effect ("al-Muhadhdhab" 2/66-67, "al-Mughni" 7/223, "al-Kafi" 3/124).
A wife must answer her husband's call to bed, unless this prevents her from obligatory duties or harms her. The Prophet indeed forbade a woman to fast voluntarily without the permission of her present husband, fasting depriving him of part of his due; how much more if she refuses his request ("al-Fatawa al-Kubra" 4/149; Ibn Abidin: "he has the right to intercourse with her by compulsion if she refuses without a legal excuse," "Hashiyat Ibn Abidin" 4/3).
If a man calls his wife to his bed and she refuses and does not come, he spends the night angry with her, and the angels curse her until morning.Narrated by Abu Dawud (2141), a sahih hadith
When a man calls his wife to his need, let her come, even if she is at the oven.Narrated by at-Tirmidhi (1160) and Ibn Hibban (4165), from Taliq ibn Ali
Al-Qari comments: even if she is baking bread at the oven, an all-absorbing task if ever there was one; Ibn al-Malik adds the condition that the bread be for the husband, since by calling her in that state he has accepted the loss of his property, and losing property is lighter than the husband falling into adultery ("Mirqat al-mafatih" 6/369, see also "Tuhfat al-ahwadhi" 4/272). The variants abound: "If a wife spends the night fleeing her husband's bed, the angels curse her until she returns" (al-Bukhari 4898, Muslim 1436); "By Him in Whose hand is my soul: no man calls his wife to his bed and she refuses, but He who is in the heaven is angry with her until he is pleased with her" (Muslim 1436; the first version al-Bukhari 4897).
Imam an-Nawawi: this is the proof that her refusal of his bed without a religious excuse is forbidden; menstruation is no excuse, for he has the right of enjoyment above the waist-wrapper; the meaning of the hadith is that the curse continues upon her until the disobedience ceases at dawn, or until she repents and returns to the bed ("Sharh Sahih Muslim" 10/7-8).
Ibn Taymiyyah was asked about a man whose wife fasted by day and prayed by night, refusing every call to bed and preferring night prayer and fasting to conjugal obedience. He answered: this is not lawful for her by the agreement of the Muslims; answering the call to bed is an obligation, while night prayer and fasting are voluntary: how can a believing woman prefer the voluntary to the obligatory? The Prophet said: "It is not lawful for a woman to fast while her husband is present without his permission, nor to admit anyone into his house without his permission" (al-Bukhari and Muslim); Abu Dawud and Ibn Majah: "a woman does not fast a day outside Ramadan while her husband is present without his permission." In the Sahihayn: "If a man calls his wife to his bed and she refuses, the angels curse her until morning"; in a version: "He who is in the heaven is angry with her." Allah says: "Righteous women are devoutly obedient and guard, in absence, what Allah has entrusted to them" (Surah An-Nisa, 4:34): the righteous woman is the one constantly obedient to her husband; when she refuses to come to bed she is disobedient and rebellious, which renders her correction lawful by Allah's word:
"And those from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them, and leave them alone in their beds, and discipline them; then if they obey you, seek no way against them."
Surah An-Nisa, 4:34
After the right of Allah and His Messenger, nothing is more binding upon a woman than the right of her husband; the Prophet said: "If I were to command anyone to prostrate to anyone, I would command the wife to prostrate to her husband, given the greatness of his right over her." The women complained that the men strive in jihad and give charity; he replied: "The good conduct of one of you equals that": meaning that kind companionship with her husband earns Allah's good pleasure and His bounty for her, without her doing what is specific to men ("Majmu al-Fatawa" 32/274-275).
The scholars agree: a wife is forbidden voluntary fasting while her husband is present, except with his permission, for the husband's right is an obligation not to be abandoned for a recommended act; her fasting costs him part of his right and dims his joy in her cheerfulness (al-Bukhari 4899; Muslim 1026; Abu Dawud 2458, Ibn Khuzaymah 2168).
It is not lawful for a woman to fast while her husband is present without his permission, nor to admit anyone into his house without his permission.Narrated by al-Bukhari (4899)
A woman does not fast while her husband is present without his permission, and does not admit anyone into his house without his permission.Narrated by Muslim (1026)
Ibn Battal, citing al-Muhallab: this fasting forbidden to a wife without her husband's permission is voluntary fasting according to the scholars, as shown by the title al-Bukhari gave it, with agreement that a husband cannot prevent her from performing the obligatory duties binding upon her ("Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari" by Ibn Battal 7/315-316). The jurists differed on the nature of this prohibition: forbearance or mere disapproval? Shafi'is and Hanbalis: forbearance. An-Nawawi: the hadith concerns voluntary fasting without a fixed time; the prohibitive force is explicit among our companions, for the husband has the right to enjoy her every day, an immediate right lost neither to the voluntary nor to the deferrable obligatory act. If it is objected that fasting without permission should be lawful since the husband may break her fast: the answer is that her fasting usually prevents him, for he fears violating the fast; "while her husband is present" means residing in the town; while traveling, she may fast, since he cannot enjoy her ("Sharh Sahih Muslim" 7/115, "al-Iqna" 1/245, "Kashshaf al-Qina" 5/213, "Matalib Uli an-Nuha" 2/258, "Manar as-Sabil" 3/52). As-Suyuti conveys the same meaning ("ad-Dibaj" 3/102).
Imam Zayn ad-Din al-Iraqi: the phrase "it is not lawful" is explicit as a prohibition, stated plainly by the Shafi'is; an-Nawawi reports it from them in "ar-Rawda," "Sharh Sahih Muslim" and "Sharh al-Muhadhdhab" on the part of the majority; some of our companions said disapproved, but the sound view is the first: if she fasts without permission, her fast is valid by agreement though sinful, the prohibition attaching to something other than the essence of the fast, like prayer in a usurped house; the school requires the withholding of reward for its likes. Whoever holds mere disapproval must interpret "it is not lawful" as meaning "it is better to abstain": a far-fetched and objectionable interpretation; and even without that phrase, the prohibition in Muslim's Sahih is explicit as a prohibition, as is the author's wording, the report being replete with emphasis ("Tarh at-tathrib" 4/134-135).
Ibn Battal and some Shafi'is take it as a prohibition of counsel: the words "except with his permission" bear on recommendation, not obligation; it belongs to kind companionship and the fear of discord, which breeds hatred; she may do what does not harm him and does not prevent his obligatory duties; he cannot nullify her obedience to Allah ("Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari" by Ibn Battal 7/315-316). If the husband is away: an-Nawawi: voluntary fasting during the husband's absence from her town is lawful without dispute, by implication of the hadith and the disappearance of the reason for the prohibition ("al-Majmu" 6/419, "adh-Dhakhira" 2/532, "Kashshaf al-Qina" 5/213). Al-Ayni specifies that "present" means residing in the town; al-Kirmani reports the prohibitive view of our companions; an-Nawawi in "Sharh al-Muhadhdhab" cites those who say disapproved: fasting without permission is valid with sin; al-Muhallab: the prohibition is remonstrance, not obligation ("Umdat al-Qari" 20/184).
The same prohibition applies to admitting people into the house: the hadith already cited from al-Bukhari and Muslim (4899; 1026) adds: "nor to admit anyone into his house without his permission." Al-Muhallab: these words mean that she admits neither man nor woman whom her husband disapproves, for this breeds ill opinion and stirs jealousy, the cause of estrangement; the Prophet also said: "See what your sisters do." Permission granted to women is lighter than permission granted to men ("Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari" 7/317).
Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar: Muslim added, by the chain of Hammam from Abu Hurayrah, "while he is present"; this restriction carries no legal implication, but reflects the most common situation; the husband's absence does not authorize a woman to admit whoever wishes to enter, prohibition being rather confirmed by the hadiths forbidding entry upon women whose husbands are away. An implication may be seen: when he is present, permission is easy; absent, it becomes difficult; if necessity imposes entry, she no longer needs a permission that has become impossible. All this concerns entry upon her; as for entry into the house itself, the apparent view is that it is included ("Fath al-Bari" 9/296, "Sharh Sahih Muslim" 7/115). An-Nawawi adds: the hadith shows that she admits no one into her house without his consent, in what she does not know pleases him; if she knows his approval, there is no blame, as with the custom of ushering guests into a place prepared for them, whether he is present or absent; his consent must therefore be considered, explicit or general, and it is debated whether an indication of his approval stands in place of explicit permission ("Fath al-Bari" 9/296).
It is also your due upon them that they admit no one onto your beds whom you disapprove; if they do so, discipline them with a discipline not severe.Narrated by Muslim (1218)
An-Nawawi comments, citing al-Maziri: some understood it as forbidding a wife to confide in men, not adultery, which would entail stoning and is unlawful whether the husband approves or not; al-Qadi Iyad reports that it was the custom of the Arabs to converse with women without seeing therein any suspicion, until the verse of the veil was revealed. The chosen view: she may not admit into their homes anyone they disapprove, whether a strange man, a woman, or even one of the wife's mahrams; the prohibition embraces all of this. Such is the rule among the jurists: she may not admit into her husband's home any man or woman, mahram or not, except one she knows or believes the husband does not disapprove; for the principle is the prohibition of entering another's home until permission is given by the owner, explicitly, by delegation, or as known by custom; doubt about approval, without predominance or indication, renders unlawful both entry and permission. Necessities remain excepted ("Sharh Sahih Muslim" 8/183-184, "Umdat al-Qari" 20/185-186).
There is no disagreement among the scholars: it is the husband's right to enjoy his wife, to look at her and touch any part of her body, at all times and moments; the details were treated in volume fourteen of the book of marriage.
The husband may also prevent his wife from anything that prevents enjoyment or its perfection. He may compel his Muslim wife to the major ablution after menstruation and post-natal bleeding, for this impedes an enjoyment that is his right: Allah forbade intercourse with a menstruating woman until purification:
"And do not approach women during menstruation; then, when they have purified themselves, go to them as Allah has commanded you."
Surah Al-Baqarah, 2:222
The same applies to a dhimmi wife: this is the explicit text of the Shafi'is, of the Malikis in one view, and of the Hanbalis; the Hanafis and the Malikis of the madhhab hold that he cannot compel her to the ablution after menstruation ("al-Bahr ar-Ra'iq" 3/111). If ablution is valid only with intention for prayer, it needs none for the husband's right: it is an act of worship performed upon another, like washing the deceased or washing a vessel seven times after a dog's lick; the one who performs ablution upon another bears no intention. If the wife refuses to wash, the husband may compel her and intercourse with her is then valid; she must nonetheless repeat the ablution with intention for prayer. Her ablution carries two rights: a right of Allah requiring intention, and a right of the husband valid without intention.
The husband may compel a Muslim wife to the ablution after major ritual impurity (janabah) according to all four schools. For a dhimmi, two views: the Shafi'is and Hanbalis hold that he may compel her, the Muslim soul being capable of revulsion, the missing ablution preventing perfect enjoyment; the Hanafis, the Malikis, the Shafi'is in one view and the Hanbalis in another: he does not compel her, for he may permit himself intercourse with the impure woman ("al-Bahr ar-Ra'iq" 3/111, "Sharh Fath al-Qadir" 3/437, "al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya" 1/341, "al-Bayan wa-t-tahsil" 1/120-121, "adh-Dhakhira" 1/378, "ash-Shamil" 1/68, "Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil" 1/208, "al-Hawi al-Kabir" 9/227-228, "al-Bayan" 9/497-498, "Asna al-matalib" 3/161, "al-Mughni" 7/224, "Ahkam ahl adh-dhimma" 2/818, "al-Furu" 5/249, "al-Insaf" 8/350, "Kashshaf al-Qina" 5/214-215, "ar-Rawd al-murbi" 2/344-345, "Matalib Uli an-Nuha" 5/263).
Al-Mawardi cites ash-Shafi'i: "cleanliness through hair removal and nail trimming." He classifies the impediments to enjoyment in two categories: what prevents it in principle, such as ablution after menstruation and bleeding, for which the husband compels even a dhimmi wife; and what prevents its perfection, such as ablution after janabah, which is disputed. As for hair removal (istihdad), the pulling of pubic hair: if it has grown so long as to prevent enjoyment, the husband compels his wife, Muslim or dhimmi; if it is ordinary but displeasing to souls, two views; if it is not displeasing, no compulsion, by agreement. Ahmad said: the Sunnah is that a bachelor remove it every forty days and a married man every twenty days; if this is a transmitted tradition, it is acted upon; if it is personal reasoning, this estimate has no basis, given the varying growth of hair among people, and custom is the better criterion. The same applies to nails that become displeasing, to washing the head in case of lice, and washing the body in case of odor ("al-Hawi al-Kabir" 9/228, "al-Bayan" 9/498).
Ibn Qudamah: removing dirt, trimming nails and hair removal carry two views according to the two narrations concerning janabah ablution; this applies equally to the Muslim wife and the dhimmi, the revulsion being equal. The husband may compel hair removal beyond the norm according to one transmission; likewise nails that become displeasing. May he prevent her from eating what leaves a foul breath, such as onion, garlic and leek? Two views: he prevents her, for it prevents kissing and perfect enjoyment; or he does not, for it does not prevent intercourse. He may, however, prevent her intoxication, even for a dhimmi: intoxication removes the mind, makes her like an inflated wineskin, and offers no guarantee against her wrongdoing. If she wants to drink that which intoxicates, he prevents the Muslim wife since both hold it unlawful; for a dhimmi, he cannot prevent her, stated by Ahmad, for she holds it lawful in her religion; he may, however, compel her to rinse her mouth of all impurity so as to enjoy her mouth; better still: prevent it for the foul odor, like garlic. The same ruling if he marries a Muslim wife who holds a little nabidh lawful: two views; and the madhhab of ash-Shafi'i covers this whole chapter ("al-Mughni" 7/224).
The jurists agree: the husband may compel his wife to remove dirt, to remove armpit and pubic hair, to trim nails, to abstain from pork, wine, nabidh and all intoxicants even if she deems them lawful, and to wash the soiled parts of her body so that he may enjoy her, unlike her soiled garments lacking visible color or smell. He may prevent her from wearing untanned leather or a foul-smelling garment. On foul-smelling food, the Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi'is of the madhhab and Hanbalis of the madhhab hold that he may prevent her, for it prevents perfect enjoyment. The Hanafis add that he may compel her to perfume and hair removal, prevent what offends by smell and spinning, prevent her adorning herself with what offends by odor, such as scented henna; and that he may discipline her for neglecting adornment when he desires her ("Sharh Fath al-Qadir" 3/437, "al-Bahr ar-Ra'iq" 3/111, "al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya" 1/341). The Malikis: the husband is entitled to prevent her from any food whose odor displeases him (garlic, onion, radish and the like), unless he eats it with her or has lost his sense of smell; she cannot reciprocally prevent him; he may also prevent crafts that weaken her body, and spinning, unless intended to harm her ("Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil" 4/187, "at-Tahrir" 3/409). The Shafi'is in one view and the Hanbalis in one aspect: he cannot prevent her, for it does not prevent intercourse ("al-Muhadhdhab" 2/66, "Asna al-matalib" 3/161, "al-Mughni" 7/224, "Ahkam ahl adh-dhimma" 2/818, "al-Furu" 5/249-251, "al-Insaf" 8/350, "Kashshaf al-Qina" 5/214-215, "ar-Rawd al-murbi" 2/344-345, "Matalib Uli an-Nuha" 5/263).