Hadith 3409

(1) The statement: And accompany them in this world with kindness: This indicates that the maintenance of parents is obligatory on a man, as stated in Al-Hidayah.

(2) The statement: And upon the heir is the like of that: This refers to the distant relative, pointing to the beginning of the verse, which is Allah’s statement: And upon the father is their provision and clothing [Al-Baqarah: 233]. This indicates that maintenance is obligatory on the heir, restricted to a relative with a prohibited degree of kinship based on Ibn Mas’ud’s reading, and there is no doubt that his reading was heard from the Prophet (ﷺ) and is well-known, making it equivalent to a widely narrated report. As is known, it is permissible to restrict the generality of the Book with it. [Inayah and Binayah, excerpted from them] It is stated in Al-Madarik: "And upon the heir" is connected to "And upon the father is their provision and clothing," and what is between them explains what is acceptable, meaning upon the heir of the child, in the absence of the father, is the like of what was upon his father during his lifetime in terms of provision and clothing. There is disagreement about this. According to Ibn Abi Layla, it applies to anyone who inherits him. In our view, it applies to a relative with a prohibited degree of kinship based on Ibn Mas’ud’s reading: "And upon the heir with a prohibited degree of kinship is the like of that." According to Ash-Shafi’i (may Allah be pleased with him), there is no maintenance except for lineage. [End quote] In At-Tafsir Al-Ahmadiyyah, Fakhr Al-Islam said: The apparent meaning of this verse indicates that maintenance is obligatory beyond lineage, which is the maintenance of relatives, contrary to Ash-Shafi’i, as Allah’s statement: And upon the heir is the like of that [Al-Baqarah: 233] in its generality includes the brother, uncle, and others, encompassing them by its meaning, as “heir” is derived from inheritance, like “adulterer” or “thief.” It indicates that those other than the father bear maintenance according to the shares of inheritance, so maintenance is obligatory on the mother and grandfather in thirds, based on Allah’s statement: And upon the heir is the like of that [Al-Baqarah: 233], as it is a derived term, and the ruling must be based on its meaning. His point is that Allah’s statement: And upon the heir is the like of that [Al-Baqarah: 233] indicates generality, encompassing beyond lineage relatives, and indicates that maintenance is according to inheritance, containing two indications.

(3) The statement: And give to the near relative his right: The authors of Al-Kashshaf and Al-Madarik explicitly stated that Allah’s statement: So give to the near relative his right [Ar-Rum: 38] is evidence for the obligation of maintenance for relatives with prohibited degrees of kinship, as is our view. It was previously mentioned that according to Ash-Shafi’i, there is no maintenance except for lineage relatives, while in our view, maintenance is obligatory for every relative with a prohibited degree of kinship who is in need and unable to earn, upon every wealthy relative, according to the order of inheritance and agnates, as is known in fiqh. [At-Tafsir Al-Ahmadiyyah]

(1) The statement: Take what suffices for you and your child in a reasonable manner: This contains several benefits, including the obligation of maintenance for the wife. Ibn Al-Humam said: There are many Hadiths on this topic, and there is consensus among the Imams on it. Another benefit is the obligation of maintenance for poor minor children on their father. He said “poor” because if they are wealthy, their maintenance is from their wealth. [Taken from Sharh Al-Wiqayah] Another benefit is that maintenance is measured by sufficiency. In detail: There is disagreement about whether a wife’s maintenance is fixed by Shariah or based on the condition of both spouses. Abu Hanifah, Malik, and Ahmad said: The condition of both spouses is considered, so a wealthy man must provide for a wealthy woman the maintenance of the wealthy, and for a poor woman the least sufficient maintenance. For a wealthy man with a poor woman, a moderate maintenance between the two, and for a poor man with a wealthy woman, the least sufficient, with the rest remaining a debt on him. Ash-Shafi’i said: It is fixed by Shariah, not subject to ijtihad, based solely on the husband’s condition: two mudd for a wealthy man, one and a half for a middle-class man, and one for a poor man. This Hadith is evidence against him. [Rahmat Al-Ummah and Nayl Al-Awtar, excerpted from them] The consideration of both spouses’ conditions and adopting the middle ground when their conditions differ is our view, which might suggest it is agreed upon among our scholars or the core of our madhhab, but this is not so. It is a view chosen by Al-Khasaf and adopted by most scholars. As stated in Al-Walwaljiyyah: This is the correct view, and the fatwa is based on it. The core of our madhhab, as mentioned in the apparent narrations, is to consider the man’s condition alone, like Ash-Shafi’i’s view, but the texts and commentaries follow the first view. It is stated in Al-Bahr: They agreed on the obligation of maintenance for the wealthy if both are wealthy and for the poor if both are poor. The disagreement arises when one is wealthy and the other is poor. According to the apparent narration, the man’s condition is considered, so if he is wealthy and she is poor, he provides the maintenance of the wealthy, and vice versa, the maintenance of the poor. According to the fatwa, a middle maintenance is obligatory in both cases, above the poor’s maintenance and below the wealthy’s. Those who ruled by considering both conditions relied on Allah’s statement: Let a man of wealth spend from his wealth [At-Talaq: 7], and the Hadith of Abu Sufyan’s wife mentioned in the book, as the verse indicates considering the husband’s condition, and his statement: "Take what suffices for you and your child in a reasonable manner" indicates considering her condition, necessitating a combination of both, which is only achieved by considering both conditions. [Taken from Umdat Ar-Ri’ayah and Radd Al-Muhtar] Another benefit is that if someone has a right over another and is unable to claim it, it is permissible to take from his wealth the amount of his right without his permission. The explanation is that if someone takes one hundred from you, you are not unjust in taking one hundred back, especially since Allah said: The recompense for an evil is an evil like it [Ash-Shura: 40]. They agreed that calling the recompense an evil is for linguistic harmony. Abu Hanifah and Ash-Shafi’i said: The disagreement is whether he takes his right from the same type or from another. The Imam said: He can only take from the same type, as taking from another requires assuming a sale, which he has no authority to do. His two companions said: He can take from both prices, as they are equivalent in ruling. Ash-Shafi’i said: He can take from another type, even real estate. Later jurists among us favored this narration due to the corruption of judges and their taking bribes in rulings. [Al-Kawkab Ad-Durri, summarized] It is established in our principle that ruling against an absent party without an opponent is not permissible. His statement to Abu Sufyan’s wife was a fatwa, not a judicial ruling, as evidenced by the fact that he did not specify what she should take, and specifying maintenance is the judge’s role. If it is not specified, it is not a judicial ruling. In summary: Some used this to argue for the permissibility of ruling against an absent party, but this is not so, as this case was a fatwa, not a ruling, according to the most correct view. [Taken from Al-Bahr Ar-Ra’iq] It is stated in Al-Marqah: This indicates that a man is obligated to provide maintenance for his parents and children, as if he is obligated for his child’s maintenance, then providing for his parent, with their greater sanctity, is even more obligatory.