Islamic Fiqh > Marriage and family > Couple life in the Sunna: daily benevolence > The division of the sick husband
Contents
Updated on 25 September 2026 at 3:23 PM
This part belongs to the full section: All sections of this part.
The jurists of the four schools are agreed: the sick husband divides among his wives like the healthy one, for the division is for companionship, obtained from the sick man as from the healthy one. Urwa reported from Aisha that the Messenger of Allah, during the illness of which he died, would ask: "Where shall I be tomorrow? Where shall I be tomorrow?", meaning Aisha's day; his wives permitted him to stay wherever he wished, and he remained in Aisha's house until he died there. Aisha said: he died on the day on which he used to come to me, and Allah took him with his head between my chest and my neck, and his saliva mixed with mine (reported by al-Bukhari, 4919, and Muslim, 2443). From her likewise:
When the Prophet grew heavy and his pain intensified, he sought his wives' permission to be nursed in my house, and they granted it.Reported by al-Bukhari (2448) and Muslim (418)
He did so because she was the most compassionate and gentlest in nursing. The scholars differed on what he does if the illness worsens. Ibn Nujaym, of the Hanafis, said: the sick man is attached to the traveler, for his illness does not void the division; it is authentic that the Prophet, having fallen ill, asked his wives to be nursed in Aisha's house and that they permitted it. I have not seen the mode of his division in his illness when he cannot move to the other's house; the apparent meaning is that his division in illness means: once healed, he goes to the other for as long as he stayed with the first, unlike the man who travels with one and, staying, makes no make-up to the one who stays (Al-Bahr al-ra'iq, 3/236). And he said in Al-Nahr: the choice of the length of rotation is his when healthy, and more so in illness; if he stays once with the first, he stays the like with the second; if he falls ill in one of his houses, he calls each wife in her turn, for that would be accepted from him were he healthy (Al-Nahr al-fa'iq, 2/293; Ibn Abidin, 3/204).
The Malikis said: if the illness is grave, such that he cannot move about, the division lapses; if he is ill yet able to go between them, he must be equitable in the division; if his illness overcomes him, he may stay wherever he wishes, without inclination; once healed, he acts with equity, with nothing counted against the wife with whom he did not stay. It has been said: if the illness overcomes him and only one of them is fit to nurse him, she is designated; if they are equivalent, the drawing of lots, unless they consent (Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari by Ibn Battal, 7/344; Al-Taj wa-l-iklil, 3/6; Tahrir al-mukhtasar, 3/88; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 4/3; Al-Sharh al-kabir with the gloss of al-Dasuqi, 3/204-205).
The Shafi'is said: whoever has spent the night with some of his wives, by lot or otherwise, must spend the night with those who remain, even if ill, per the Prophet's words concerning the one who has two wives and comes on the Day of Resurrection with one of his sides paralyzed, and in one version with his side leaning (authentic hadith: Abu Dawud, 2133; Ibn Majah, 1969; Ahmad, 8549 and 10092; Ibn Hibban, 4207). The Prophet divided among his wives and was carried from one to another during his illness, until they consented to his being nursed in Aisha's house: proof that excuse and illness do not void the division (Mughni al-muhtaj, 4/411).
The Hanbalis said: if the division is hard upon the sick man, he asks his wives' permission to stay with one of them, as the Prophet did. From Aisha: the Messenger of Allah sent for the women during his illness; they gathered and he said:
I cannot make the rounds among you. If you see fit to permit me to stay with Aisha, do so.Authentic hadith: reported by Abu Dawud (2137) and Ahmad (25883)
They permitted it. If they do not permit him, he stays with one by drawing lots, or withdraws from them all if he so wishes: in equity between them (Al-Mughni, 7/230; Kashshaf al-qina, 5/226; Sharh Muntaha al-iradat, 5/321; Matalib uli al-nuha, 5/277).
The jurists stated that the minimum duration of the division is a full night, the day following the night; he may not grant one wife a night without a day and another a day without a night, for the night of the division is what is intended and the day follows it; a part of a night is not admitted, because of the disruption it brings to life and the difficulty of fixing the fractions of the night (Al-Hawi al-kabir, 9/582; Sharh Sahih Muslim, 8/103; Rawdat al-talibin, 5/214-215). There is no dispute: the best is a night for a night, following the Messenger of Allah, so that his nearness to each remains recent; and they do not differ on the lawfulness of a long period with their consent.
May he exceed a night for a night without their consent? The Malikis, the Shafi'is on one view (the choice of Ibn al-Mundhir) and the Hanbalis in the madhhab hold that he may not exceed a night per night for each wife without their consent: the Prophet only divided night by night; equity is obligatory; beginning with one is only admitted because gathering is impossible; once he has spent a night with one, the next night is an established right of the other, which he cannot give to the first without her consent; it is a delay of some rights, not permitted without their consent, as in exceeding three nights; with four wives at three nights each, the last would wait nine nights: too much, not permitted, as with two wives at nine nights each. Delay carries harms: not permitted when advancing is possible without the consent of the one entitled, like the fallen debt; limiting to three nights is an arbitrary ruling without proof; staying within smallness does not permit delaying the right, as with fallen debts and other rights. If they accept more than one night, it is permitted: the right does not exceed their consent.
The Malikis said: if his wives are in distant lands, the division of the week or the month is permitted according to his ability, so that no harm reaches him from the brevity; he may stay with one of them for trade or a craft (Al-Taj wa-l-iklil, 3/9; Mawahib al-jalil, 5/224; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 4/6; Tahrir al-mukhtasar, 3/93; Al-Sharh al-kabir with the gloss of al-Dasuqi, 3/208). The Hanbalis said: if his wives are in distant places, he divides according to his ability, with equity between them, except with their consent (Al-Mughni, 7/236; Kashshaf al-qina, 5/224-225; Sharh Muntaha al-iradat, 5/319; Matalib uli al-nuha, 5/275).
The Shafi'is in the madhhab, and al-Qadi among the Hanbalis, hold that two by two and three by three are permitted without their consent, a near period; beyond three, only with their consent, even if dispersed across lands, to avoid migration and to spare the resident wives the estrangement of the long stay with the co-wife; he may die within the long period and their right vanish; if they accept more than three, it is permitted without reservation. One Shafi'i view holds: beyond three is permitted; according to the author of al-Taqrib: not beyond seven, the period deserved at a virgin's wedding; according to al-Shaykh Abu Muhammad and others: so long as it does not reach four months, the waiting period of the freed slave. And it has been said: there is no limit, it is up to his choice, without however going as far as five years on this view (Rawdat al-talibin, 5/214-215; Al-Najm al-wahaj, 7/406; Mughni al-muhtaj, 4/417-418; Al-Dibaj, 3/361; Al-Mughni, 7/236).
The Hanafis hold that the choice of the length of rotation belongs to him: what he owes is equity, not a particular path: a day for a day, two for two, three for three or four for four. Al-Sarakhsi said: a man, free or slave, who has two free wives stays with each a day and a night; if he wishes to grant each three days, he may: what he owes is equity, and the choice of the length belongs to him (Al-Mabsut, 5/217). Ibn al-Humam said: this unrestricted statement cannot be taken at face value; were he to want a rotation year after year, that would not be thought permissible; better not to exceed the period of the ila, four months; the obligation being for companionship and the dispelling of estrangement, the near period must be considered; I think more than a week is harmful, unless the two consent (Sharh Fath al-Qadir, 3/434). Ibn Nujaym answers him: the apparent meaning is the unrestricted one: no harm where the path of the division is followed, the wife being reassured by the coming of her turn; he is entitled to begin with whomever he wishes (Al-Bahr al-ra'iq, 3/235). Al-Haskafi said: he stays with each a day and a night; if he wishes three days with their nights, it is permitted; no more with one, except by the other's specific permission (Al-Durr al-mukhtar with the gloss of Ibn Abidin, 3/207-208; see Al-Ikhtiyar, 3/144; Al-Jawhara al-nira, 4/369).
The jurists of the four schools are agreed: a woman may gift her night of division to her husband, to some of her co-wives or to all of them, but it is only valid with the husband's consent, for he holds the right of enjoyment; she cannot alone waive his right except with his consent. If he accepts her gift, he waives his right of enjoyment with her, and the status of the gift falls into three cases: the gift to one specific wife; the gift to all of them; the gift to the husband.
First case, agreed by all four schools: she may give her division to one specific wife, as Sauda gave her day to Aisha; the consent of the recipient concerning the husband's enjoyment of her is not taken into account, just as it is not taken into account in her own time: the husband's right of enjoyment is established at all times, barred only by the competition of the holder of the time; once the competition disappears through the gift, his right of enjoyment stands, even if the recipient dislikes it, as if he had her alone.
This gift is valid at all times: Sauda gave her day definitively. Aisha reported that Sauda bint Zam'a gave her day to Aisha, and that the Prophet allotted to Aisha her day and the day of Sauda (reported by al-Bukhari, 4914, and Muslim, 1085). It is also valid for a part of time: Aisha reported that the Messenger of Allah was displeased with Safiyya bint Huyayy about something. Safiyya said: "O Aisha, would you please the Messenger of Allah concerning me, in exchange for my day?" She said: "Yes." Aisha took a kerchief dyed with saffron, sprinkled it with water so that it would give off scent, then sat beside the Messenger of Allah. The Prophet said: "O Aisha, move away from me, this is not your day." She said: "That is the favor of Allah; He gives it to whom He wills." She informed him of the matter and he was appeased concerning her (weak hadith: reported by Ibn Majah, 1973, and Ahmad, 24684).
They are likewise agreed: if the giver's night immediately follows the recipient's night, the two nights are joined for her. They differ if the nights are not consecutive: may the husband join them without the consent of the other wives? The Hanafis, the Shafi'is in the madhhab and the Hanbalis in the madhhab hold that he may not: the recipient stands in the giver's place, save by the consent of the others; he assigns her the time that was the giver's, for the recipient has taken her place in her night, and it may not be moved, as if the night remained the giver's; for that delays the right of another and changes her night without her consent. The same ruling applies if she gave her night to the husband and he reserves it for one specific wife. On one view of the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis: he may join the two without separating them, just as he does not separate her own day, and there is no benefit in separating them (Bada'i al-sana'i, 2/333; Al-Hidaya, 1/222; Sharh Fath al-Qadir, 3/436-437; Tabyin al-haqa'iq, 2/181; Al-Bahr al-ra'iq, 3/226; Al-Nahr al-fa'iq, 2/296-297; Al-Jawhara al-nira, 4/371-372; Al-Lubab, 2/60; Mukhtasar al-Wiqaya, 1/380; Durrar al-hukkam, 4/176; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, 3/207; Mawahib al-jalil, 5/225; Al-Taj wa-l-iklil, 3/9; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 4/6; Al-Sharh al-kabir with the gloss of al-Dasuqi, 3/209; Tahrir al-mukhtasar, 3/94; Hashiyat al-Sawi on al-Sharh al-Saghir, 5/227; Al-Hawi al-kabir, 9/570-571; Al-Bayan, 9/525; Al-Najm al-wahaj, 7/414-415; Mughni al-muhtaj, 4/422; Al-Mughni, 7/237; Al-Kafi, 3/133-134; Zad al-ma'ad, 1/153; Al-Mubdi, 7/210; Al-Insaf, 8/371-372; Kashshaf al-qina, 5/233).
Second case: the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis stated it explicitly, and it is what the Hanafi and Maliki madhhabs imply: when a woman gifts her day to all of her husband's wives, without reserving it for one, the gift is executed for the benefit of all the wives. If the giver's night and the recipient's night are not consecutive, the husband may not change the position of the received night without the others' consent: the recipient stands in the giver's place in her night, and its position may not be moved, as if the night remained the giver's, for that delays the right of another and alters her night without her consent. The same applies if the gift was made to him and he reserves it for one specific wife. On one view of the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis: he may join the two without separating them, just as he does not separate her own day, and there is no benefit in separating them.
The Malikis hold that if the wife gives her day to her husband, he may not reserve it for a single one of his wives: the giver is deemed nonexistent; the man who has four wives and slept with one, then one of them gave her turn to the husband so that it lapses: if she is the one following the one with whom he slept, he sleeps with the next, and so on. It is said in Al-Tawdih: the giver should be asked about her intent: did she intend waiver or transfer of ownership? If she meant the latter, the husband may reserve the day (Mawahib al-jalil, 5/225; Al-Taj wa-l-iklil, 3/9; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 4/6-7; Al-Sharh al-kabir with the gloss of al-Dasuqi, 3/209; Tahrir al-mukhtasar, 3/94; Hashiyat al-Sawi, 5/227).
The revocation of the gift: the jurists of the four schools are agreed that the woman who gave her day to her husband, to her co-wife or to her co-wives may revoke her gift: she waived a right not yet due, which is not binding, like the loan of use that the lender takes back whenever he wishes; and because jealousy touches her, she has no strength to fulfill it. If she revokes her gift and demands the division, her right to the past lapses, for it was a gift with effective delivery; he divides for her in the future, for she has revoked a gift whose delivery had not taken place. If she revokes part of her day after part of it has elapsed, she is more entitled to the rest, and the husband must go to her during that rest. If the giver revokes and the husband only learns of it after a time has passed, he makes no make-up for what passed before his knowledge, and she is owed the division from the moment of his knowledge: he did not intend to favor another (preceding sources).
The jurists have differed: may the woman sell her day to her husband or to her co-wife? May the husband buy the day of one of them, paying her compensation, and spend the night with another? The majority of the jurists, the Hanafis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis in the madhhab, hold that it is not permitted: her right to have him with her is not property and cannot be offset by property; if she took property from him, she must return it, and he owes her the make-up, for she gave up her right in exchange for a compensation not delivered to her.
The Hanafis said: if one of them spends property with the husband to obtain more division, or if the husband pays her property so that she abandons the division, or gives her day to her co-wife, or renounces her right to intercourse, or if she herself spends property with her co-wife to obtain her day, none of that is permitted: it is consuming property unjustly, or a right for which no compensation may be taken, since it does not lapse so long as its cause, the marriage contract, subsists. The property is returned to its owner: it is a bribe, and the bribe is unlawful (Ahkam al-Quran by al-Jassas, 3/270; Al-Jawhara al-nira, 4/371-372). The Shafi'is said: if she takes compensation from the husband for her night, it is not valid: it is neither property nor benefit for her; the compensation is returned, and the husband makes up her right, for she gave up her right in exchange for a compensation not delivered (Al-Bayan, 9/526).
The Hanbalis said: if the compensation is not property, such as appeasing her husband or appeasing another on her behalf, it is permitted: Aisha appeased the Messenger of Allah concerning Safiyya and took her day, informed him of it and he did not disapprove, as reported by Imam Ahmad and Ibn Majah from Aisha (weak hadith: Ibn Majah, 1973; Ahmad, 24684) (Al-Mughni, 7/237; Al-Kafi, 3/133-134; Zad al-ma'ad, 1/153; Al-Mubdi, 7/210; Al-Insaf, 8/371-372; Kashshaf al-qina, 5/233). The Malikis and Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya hold the giving of compensation permitted.
The Malikis said: a co-wife may buy from her co-wife the day that stands in for her in her husband's division, there being no obstacle to it; likewise a wife may give her husband something so that he keeps her in his marriage bond and does not divorce her, or so that he improves his companionship with her. Likewise a man may buy the day of one of his wives and give her something for the permanence of her bond with him, without her leaving him of her own accord. Calling this a purchase is a leniency: in reality it is the waiver of a right. If a co-wife buys her co-wife's day, she alone is favored by it over his other wives; if the husband buys his wife's day, he favors with what he bought whomever he wishes.
Imam Malik, asked about the man who gives his wife something for her day so as to be with another, said: people do it, and refraining from it is more beloved to me; I do not approve of a woman buying her companion's day from her husband, and I detest it; I hope that the purchase of a single night, no more, is light. Ibn Rushd said: the apparent meaning is that the purchase by the woman is more objectionable than the purchase by the man: the woman does not know what she will obtain for what she gave, perhaps not that very night, whereas the man knows what he obtains (Al-Taj wa-l-iklil, 3/7-8; Mawahib al-jalil, 5/222; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 4/5; Al-Sharh al-kabir with the gloss of al-Dasuqi, 3/207; Tahrir al-mukhtasar, 3/90).
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya said: our companions hold that a wife may not take compensation for her right of staying with him, nor for intercourse; the Qadi's words imply its permissibility. Abu al-Abbas said: the analogy of the madhhab, in my view, permits taking compensation for all her rights of division and others: if the husband may take compensation for his right over her, she may take compensation for her right over him, both being bodily benefits. Ahmad stated elsewhere that a woman may spend compensation so that her matter is in her own hands: she is entitled to her husband's marriage bond as he is entitled to hers, a form of bondage for which compensation may be taken; this matter resembles the amicable settlement over the right of preemption and over the fixed punishment of slander (Al-Fatawa al-Kubra, 4/563-564; Al-Insaf, 8/371-372; Kashshaf al-qina, 5/234).
The jurists are agreed that obligatory equity concerns only the night spent together, not love nor intercourse: these are only recommended, not obligatory, for no one possesses them: the heart is between two fingers of the Most Merciful, who turns it as He wills; and in intercourse a man may be full of vigor with one and not with another: absent intent on his part there is no sin, for it is beyond his ability and does not fall under obligation (Al-Jawhara al-nira, 4/368; Al-Ikhtiyar, 3/144; Al-Lubab, 2/58; Mukhtasar al-Wiqaya, 1/379; Ahkam al-Quran by Ibn al-Arabi, 1/364-365; Al-Muhadhdhab, 2/299; Al-Bayan, 9/515; Al-Kafi, 3/130-131). Allah said:
"You will never be able to be perfectly equitable between your wives, even if you strive to be so"
Surah An-Nisa, 129
That is: you men cannot equalize your wives in the love of your hearts, for it cannot be possessed; "even if you strive to be so" in equalizing between them in that. Ibn Abbas said: you cannot be equitable in desire between them, however hard you strive. Ibn Battal reported from Ibn al-Mundhir: this verse shows that equity in love is not obligatory; the Prophet informed that Aisha was dearer to him than his other wives. "Do not incline entirely toward one of them" through your inclinations, to the point of being unjust in the division against the one you do not love; "leave her suspended", that is, neither divorced nor with a husband; "if you set things right and fear Allah, Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful": if you set right your relations by striving for equity and fear inclination, Allah forgives what your strength cannot reach of perfect equity (Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari by Ibn Battal, 7/335-336). From Aisha:
The Messenger of Allah would divide with equity and say: O Allah, this is my division in what I possess; do not blame me in what You possess and I do not possess.Reported by Abu Dawud (2134), al-Tirmidhi (1140), al-Nasa'i (3943) and Ibn Majah (1971)
He meant the heart. Imam Ibn Qudama said: we know of no disagreement among the people of knowledge that equity in intercourse between women is not obligatory; it is the madhhab of Malik and al-Shafi'i: the path of intercourse is desire and inclination, and there is no way to be equitable in it, the heart inclining to one. Ubayda al-Salmani said: in love and intercourse; were equity in intercourse possible, it would be better and more fitting, more eloquent for justice. The Prophet divided among them with equity then said: "O Allah, this is my division in what I possess; do not blame me in what I do not possess." It is reported that he equalized even in kisses. Equity in enjoyment below intercourse, kisses, touches and the like, is not obligatory: if it is not obligatory in intercourse, all the more here (Al-Mughni, 7/234-235).
Imam al-Ghazali said: only equity in giving and lodging is obligatory upon him; as for love and intercourse, they do not fall under choice, per Allah's words on the impossibility of equity between wives, that is, in the desire of the heart and the inclination of the soul, from which follows the difference in intercourse. The Messenger of Allah acted with equity in giving and in lodging night after night, saying: "O Allah, this is my effort in what I possess; I have no power over what You possess and I do not possess," meaning love. Aisha was the dearest of his wives to him, and his other wives knew it (Ihya Ulum al-Din, 2/48).
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya was asked about a man married to two women who loves one, clothes her, gives to her and keeps her company more than her co-wife. He answered: praise be to Allah, equity between the two wives is obligatory upon him by the consensus of the Muslims; in the four Sunan collections, from Abu Hurayra, the Prophet said: "Whoever has two wives and inclines toward one over the other will come on the Day of Resurrection with one of his sides leaning"; he must be equitable in the division: a night, two or three with one, the same with the other, without preferring either in the sharing. If he loves one more and has more intercourse with her, there is no harm in it: Allah revealed concerning it "You will never be able to be perfectly equitable between your wives, even if you strive to be so," that is, in love and intercourse; in the four Sunan collections, from Aisha, he divided and acted with equity, saying: "this is my division in what I possess; do not blame me in what You possess and I do not possess," meaning the heart (Majmu al-fatawa, 32/269).
Imam Ibn al-Qayyim said: equity in love between women is not obligatory, for it cannot be possessed; Aisha was the dearest of his wives; it is deduced from this that equity in intercourse is not obligatory, for it depends on love and inclination, which are in the hands of the Turner of hearts (Zad al-ma'ad, 5/151). Imam al-Nawawi said: as for the love of the heart, he loved Aisha more; the Muslims are agreed that there is no duty in their love nor any obligation of equity: no one has power over it except Allah; the command of equity concerns only deeds (Sharh Sahih Muslim, 15/205).
The jurists have differed concerning the man married to several women: must he equalize between them in maintenance and clothing, or does each wife have what suits her, it being permitted for him to be generous with whomever he wishes beyond what suits her like? One Hanafi view, the choice of al-Kasani and Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya, makes the equalization in maintenance and clothing obligatory. Al-Kasani said: the man who has more than one wife must act with equity between them in their rights: division, maintenance and clothing, an equality that holds even for two free wives or two slave women: food, drink, clothing, lodging and rotation.
Its foundation is Allah's words "If you fear you will not be equitable, then only one" following "Marry what pleases you of women, two, three or four": if you fear not being equitable in the division and maintenance when marrying two, three or four, then only one; the Prophet recommended the single wife in case of fear of failing in equity in the addition, and what is feared is neglecting the obligatory: equity in the division and maintenance is therefore obligatory. "That is more likely to keep you from injustice": injustice is unlawful, equity is therefore necessarily obligatory; and equity is commanded in general terms: "Indeed, Allah commands justice and excellence" (Surah An-Nahl, 90), except what is specified or restricted by evidence (Bada'i al-sana'i, 2/332; Al-Jawhara al-nira, 4/368; Majma al-anhar, 1/548).
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya said: equity in maintenance and clothing is also sunna, following the Prophet: he was equitable among his wives in maintenance as in division, even though people debate the division, whether obligatory or recommended, and debate equity in maintenance: its obligation is stronger and closer to the Book and the Sunna. This equity is commanded as long as she is a wife; if he wants to divorce one of them, that is his right; if he settles with the one he intends to divorce that she stay with him without division and she consents, that is permitted, per Allah's words:
"If a woman fears from her husband contempt or aversion, there is no sin upon the two of them if they reconcile by an agreement; and agreement is best"
Surah An-Nisa, 128
In the Sahih, Aisha said: this verse came down concerning a woman with a man whose companionship grew long; he wants to divorce her and she says: "do not divorce me and keep me, and you are quit of me"; the verse then came down. The Prophet intended to divorce Sauda, who gifted her day to Aisha, and he kept her without division; the same happened to Rafi ibn Khadij, and it is said the verse came down concerning him. He also said: the husband must equalize between the wives in maintenance, as the Qadi's words in the commentary indicate, and likewise in clothing (Majmu al-fatawa, 32/269; Al-Fatawa al-Kubra, 4/563).
The majority of the jurists, the Hanafis per the fatwa, the Malikis per the widespread view, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis in the madhhab, hold that the husband is not obliged to equalize between his wives in maintenance and clothing once he provides each one's due: he may prefer some of his wives with supererogatory gifts, equalization being better. Ibn Nujaym reports from Al-Bada'i: he must equalize between the two free women or the two slave women in food, drink, clothing, lodging and rotation, as al-Walwaliji also mentioned. The truth is that, on the view that considers only the man's state, equalization is obligatory as well; on the fatwa view that considers the state of both, it is not: one may be rich and the other poor, and absolute equalization in maintenance is not owed by him. In Al-Ghaya: they agreed on equalization in maintenance; the commentator said: this is debatable, for in maintenance the state of both is considered per the chosen position; how can unanimity on equalization be claimed? That holds only on the view that considers the man's state alone (Al-Bahr al-ra'iq, 3/234-235; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, 3/202).
The Malikis said: equity in maintenance is not obligatory, nor in clothing: each wife has what suits her according to her state, and he may be generous with whomever he wishes beyond what suits her like. Ibn Arafa reports from Ibn Rushd: the madhhab of Malik and his companions is that, if he provides each with what is due to her according to her state, there is no harm in being generous with whomever he wishes as he wishes. Al-Hattab reports from Ibn Nafi: he must act with equity between them in his property after providing each with her due; the first is more apparent. I say: the obligation according to Ibn Nafi is reported by al-Mutiti; and something of this is transmitted in Al-Tawdih from al-Lakhmi, and Allah knows best (Mawahib al-jalil, 5/218-219; Tafsir al-Qurtubi, 14/217; Hashiyat al-Dasuqi on al-Sharh al-Kabir, 3/204; Hashiyat al-Sawi, 5/218).
The Shafi'is said: he is not obliged to equalize between them in material gifts nor in clothing; he may prefer some of his wives with supererogatory gifts even if they find it strange; equalization is better in that and in the other enjoyments (Mughni al-muhtaj, 4/412; Tuhfat al-muhtaj, 9/189; Nihayat al-muhtaj, 6/439; Tuhfat al-Habib, 4/232). The Hanbalis said: the husband is not obliged to equalize between his wives in maintenance and clothing if he provides each one's due. Ahmad said, concerning the man with two wives: he may prefer one over the other in maintenance, pleasures and clothes if the other is in sufficiency; he may buy for this one a finer garment than for that one, that one remaining in sufficiency. For equalization in all of this is burdensome: were it obligatory, he could only fulfill it with hardship; the obligation lapses as with equity in intercourse (Al-Mughni, 7/232; Al-Insaf, 8/364).
The jurists have differed concerning the woman: does she owe her husband service in the house, kneading and cooking? Or is it not owed by her, it being his duty to serve her by providing a servant? Some made it obligatory in conscience, not before the judge, like the Hanafis; others made it obligatory absolutely, like Ibn Taymiyya and some Malikis; others considered her state: if she is from a people whose women do not serve and her husband can afford it, no service is owed by her, and if she is from a people whose women serve, service is owed by her, as in the Maliki madhhab; others say no service is owed by her at all, like the Shafi'is, the Hanbalis and some Malikis.
The Hanafis hold that the husband's service is owed by the wife in conscience, not before the judge: if the husband brings food requiring cooking and baking and the wife refuses to cook, she is not compelled before the judge, although it is owed in conscience; the husband is ordered to bring prepared food or provide someone to do that work; hiring her for cooking is not permitted, nor may she take a wage for it: she would be taking a wage for work owed by her per the fatwa, which would be like a bribe, not lawful for her. Al-Faqih Abu al-Layth specified: this when an illness prevents her from cooking, or she is one of the daughters of the notables; but if she is capable and is among those who serve with their own hands, she is compelled and providing a substitute is not owed by the husband; and this includes the daughters of the notables as well. If the service is owed in conscience, it is because the Prophet divided the tasks between Ali and Fatima: the outer tasks to Ali and the inner tasks to Fatima, even though she is the mistress of the women of the worlds and her father the best of creation (Bada'i al-sana'i, 4/24; Al-Bahr al-ra'iq, 4/199; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, 6/62; Durrar al-hukkam, 1/433).
The Malikis said: the husband must provide domestic help for his household if he can afford it: he provides for his wife someone to serve her if she is entitled, because she is of high standing whose household service falls under command and prohibition, or because he himself is of a standing that his wife's service would demean; similar to the entitled ones, the case where the price of a servant is found in her mahr: if she demands it, it is granted her, whether the servant be a woman or a man incapable of enjoyment. If domestic help is stipulated in the body of the contract, it is owed whether she or he is entitled, otherwise the contract is voided before consummation, and valid after it with the condition cancelled. If she is not entitled to the help because she is not of the nobles, or if she is entitled by wealth and standing while he is poor, the inner service is owed by her: kneading, sweeping, making the beds and cooking for him, not for his guests apparently, drawing water in the house or outside it, even from the sea, according to the custom of her like, and washing his clothes. Unlike the outer service such as weaving, spinning, sewing and embroidering for him: that is earning for maintenance, owed by him to her, not by her to him (Iqd al-Jawahir al-Thamina, 2/597; Al-Taj wa-l-iklil, 3/232-233; Sharh al-Zarqani on Mukhtasar Khalil, 4/441-442; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 4/186-187; Tahrir al-mukhtasar, 5/2026).
Ibn al-Arabi, the Maliki, said: this matter follows custom and usage, which is a foundation among the foundations of the Sharia: the women of the Bedouins and the dwellers of the countryside serve their husbands, even to drawing water and tending the animals; among city dwellers, the weaker man serves his wife in the lighter tasks and assists her; as for the wealthy, they serve their wives and the wives live in comfort if they have standing for it; if the matter is difficult, the wife stipulated it, bearing witness that he knew she is among those who do not serve with their own hands: domestic help becomes obligatory upon him, it is executed and the claim ends: this is the correct view (Ahkam al-Quran by Ibn al-Arabi, 3/143). Abu Bakr ibn Abi Shayba, Abu Ishaq al-Jawzajani and Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya hold the wife's service to her husband obligatory, based on the story of Ali and Fatima: the Prophet ruled for his daughter Fatima the inner service of the house, and for Ali what is outside; al-Jawzajani transmitted it by several chains. Al-Jawzajani reports that the Prophet said:
Were I to command anyone to prostrate to anyone, I would command the woman to prostrate to her husband; and were a man to command his wife to move from a black mountain to a red mountain, or from a red mountain to a black mountain, she would have to do it.Reported by al-Jawzajani with his chain
That is her obedience in what brings no benefit; what then of the burden of his livelihood? The Prophet commanded his wives to serve him: "O Aisha, give us water to drink; O Aisha, give us food to eat; O Aisha, bring the knife and sharpen it on the stone." It is reported that Fatima came to complain to the Messenger of Allah of what her hands suffered from the millstone and asked him for a servant (Al-Mughni, 7/225; Kashshaf al-qina, 5/221; Matalib uli al-nuha, 5/263-264; Manar al-sabil, 3/56). Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya said: serving her husband with kindness is owed by her, like for like, varying with circumstances: the Bedouin woman's service is not the villager's, nor the strong woman's that of the weak one; al-Jawzajani, of our companions, and Abu Bakr ibn Abi Shayba said it (Al-Fatawa al-Kubra, 4/561).
Some Malikis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis in the madhhab hold that no service is owed by the wife: kneading, baking, cooking, sweeping the house, drawing water from the well or grinding; for what is contracted from her side is enjoyment, nothing else being owed by her, such as watering his animals or harvesting his crop: he owns no other benefit from her, and he must provide her someone to serve her and attend to this service. As for the Prophet's division between Ali and Fatima, it accords with pleasing manners and the course of custom, not by way of obligation; it is reported of Asma bint Abi Bakr that she looked after al-Zubayr's horse, gathered date pits for him and carried them on her head, without that being obligatory upon her. For this reason nothing is owed by the husband of the tasks outside the house, nor of increasing what is owed to her of maintenance and clothing. But it is better for her to do what custom assigns her, for it is custom: circumstances do not hold together without it, and livelihood is not organized without it (Al-Mughni, 7/225; Kashshaf al-qina, 5/221; Matalib uli al-nuha, 5/263-264; Manar al-sabil, 3/56).
The Shafi'is said: the husband must provide a servant for the one whose personal service is unseemly, for this is part of kind companionship; her state in her father's house is what is considered: if, upon moving to her husband, providing help becomes fitting to her state, it is not owed on the correct view. The Imam said: it is owed if she is of the women of the cities, not of the countryside. A single servant is owed, even if the husband can afford it, on the correct view, the purpose being attained; it applies to the wealthy and the destitute, the slave as with other upkeeps, and it remains on him until he can afford it. It has been said: help is only owed by the wealthy, for the Prophet did not oblige Fatima of a servant upon Ali, who was destitute (Al-Najm al-wahaj, 8/246-247; Mughni al-muhtaj, 5/160; Al-Dibaj, 3/623-624).
Ibn Battal reports from Ibn Habib: for the destitute husband, even if the wife is of rank and nobility, the inner service is owed by her: kneading, cooking, sweeping and the like; thus Ibn al-Majishun and Asbagh made it clear to me. Ibn Habib said: thus the Prophet ruled for Fatima the inner service, and for Ali the outer service. One of my shaykhs said: we know of no established report in which the Prophet ruled the inner service for Fatima; their marriage was according to the custom between them, in simplicity and good companionship; compelling the woman to any service has no basis in the sunna, but consensus stands that the wife's entire upkeep is upon the husband. Al-Tahawi said: they do not differ: no service is owed by her, the husband must attend to it; and if a servant is with her, the husband may not expel the servant from his house: the servant's upkeep is owed by him according to her need of him. Ibn al-Hakam reports from Malik: no service of the husband is owed by the wife.
Al-Tabari said: the story of Fatima makes clear that every capable woman must serve herself, baking, grinding and the like of the household tasks requiring no going out, and this is lifted from the husband if it is known that her like does it themselves; the husband is not charged with providing it as he is in case of incapacity through illness or menstruation. Fatima, complaining to her father that her hands suffered from grinding and kneading, asked for a servant to help her; he did not order her husband Ali to attend to it, nor oblige him to relieve her of it by a servant or a wage; it is even reported that he said to her:
O my little daughter, be patient, for the best of women are those who benefit their families.Reported by al-Tabari
These words of the Prophet clearly show that Fatima, while serving herself, bore part of Ali's upkeep burdens; had it been owed by Ali, the Prophet would have gone to him about it as he went to him about the mahr, saying to him: "Where is your armor of Hutama?". It is not permissible that the Prophet taught his community fine manners yet neglected to teach them the obligations Allah imposed upon them; and beyond doubt, delivering the mahr to the woman at the time of marriage is not obligatory if she accepts its postponement by her husband.
Were it said: you oblige the wealthy man to bear the cost of his wife's service when she is among those whose like do not serve; the answer: the ruling of such women is the ruling of the menstruating and the disabled incapable of service, with no dispute: the man must attend to those; that is why we oblige him with the cost of the service unseemly for her, and with the cost of a servant if he is well off. The Quran came down with something like what we said: "Let the man of abundance spend of his wealth" (Surah At-Talaq, 7), and on this the scholars of the community are agreed. Others said: the people of the literal school departed from the community in claiming that it is not owed by him to serve her, whether he be wealthy or she among those whose like do not serve; the community's proof is "And live with them in kindness" (Surah An-Nisa, 19): when she needs a servant and he does not provide one, he does not keep companionship with her in kindness.
Malik, al-Layth and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan said: a servant is assigned to her, and two if she is of high standing. The Kufans and al-Shafi'i said: maintenance is assigned to her and to her servant. The jurists in general agree: the man unable to afford the servant's upkeep is not separated from his wife, even if she is of high standing, for the Prophet did not oblige Ali of a servant for Fatima in his hardship, nor command him to cover what she complained of from the millstone. Al-Muhallab said: in this report lies a lesson in fiqh: the woman of high standing may be excused the hardships of serving her husband, such as grinding, for none is nobler than the daughter of the Messenger of Allah; yet they preferred the Hereafter and did not abstain from their service, seeking Allah's reward and humility in His worship (Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari by Ibn Battal, 7/539 and 541).