Islamic Family Rulings: Marriage, Rights & Financial Guidance

We didn't say, "Turn your heart wherever you wish; love is only for the first beloved."

There is a fierce campaign—let's say behind the scenes—

though I imagine it is a very fierce campaign,

aimed at eliminating the extended family home.

Sheikh, the concept of Qada' and Qadar— I won't hide it from you—

I could dedicate a full episode to Qada' and Qadar,

but how do I understand Qadar in the context of family?

How do I get my kids, myself, and my wife to believe in this?

Why live a miserable life?

Constant fights, no understanding, "I don't love her." Why?

It has reached the point where both spouses make Qunut, supplicating against each other.

A wife says, "I pray Qunut at night against you!"

He tells her, "Two kids are enough," or "Two boys and a girl."

When we go to the cemetery, haven't we buried 17-year-olds, 18-year-olds, 12-year-olds, 15-year-olds?

So if I say, "I only want one boy and one girl," and one dies—God forbid—it becomes a true tragedy.

"I pay half the rent, you pay half; I tutor the boy, you tutor the girl."

"If you want private school, you pay. On trips, I cover tickets, you cover lodging."

Then he says, "Men are caretakers"! What kind of caretakers?!

I want this episode to be a reference for people about to marry, those already married, or any family.

Alright. May Allah bless you.

Welcome. May Allah grant you health.

We noticed that most viewers of our episodes forget to like and subscribe to the channel,

and I myself forget to do this when watching YouTube,

so I wanted to remind you at the start of the episode to please like and subscribe,

as this helps us reach more people.

Today's episode is with Sheikh Dr. Othman al-Khamees,

and God willing, there will be another episode with the Sheikh,

We would love for you to leave comments if you have suggestions for a future episode with Sheikh Othman al-Khamees.

May Allah grant you health.

Peace be upon you.

Welcome. Peace be upon you.

Welcome, Sheikh Dr. Othman al-Khamees.

Welcome.

Thank you for accepting.

May Allah preserve you.

May Allah bless your time and your work,

and may He bless this episode, which I hope and believe will benefit many people,

Hundreds, and God willing, thousands of people.

Ameen.

We agreed to discuss family rulings in this episode, God willing.

Family rulings are a rich topic that matters deeply to many people, God willing.

Yes.

Sheikh, I have many questions today, bear with me.

Sure.

I want this episode to be a reference for many who are about to marry,

or are already married, even those married for years, or any family.

Great. May Allah bless you.

Sheikh, the Quran calls no covenant a "solemn covenant" except in two places.

Allah's covenant with His prophets, and marriage.

First, what is the meaning of a "solemn covenant", and why did Allah choose this description for marriage?

“In the name of Allāh, the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful.”

“[All] praise is [due] to Allāh, Lord of the worlds -” (Quran 1:1-2)

Lord of the worlds, ﷺ upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family and companions.

To proceed: First, I am happy to meet with you, Abu Ali.

May Allah keep Ali and his mother safe.

In shaa Allah.

May He protect you and ease your affairs.

A covenant is a pledge. A covenant can be ordinary,

so to speak, or it can be strong.

A solemn covenant (mithaq ghalidh) means a strong pledge.

Since the marital relationship is among the greatest relationships between people,

through which families are connected to one another and society is formed,

establishing mutual rights and duties for both spouses,

as well as what follows of raising sons and daughters, and many other matters—

especially since one spouse might fall short regarding the other's rights—

they are reminded that what took place between them is a solemn, strong covenant that must be upheld.

That is why, when Allah ﷻ mentioned this verse, when He said:

it came with warning, threat, and admonition.

'How can you fall short when there is a solemn covenant between you?'

True, the address was directed to the husband, that he must not wrong his wife because the covenant between him, her, and her guardians is solemn.

However, the wife is also bound by it.

But since the husband holds, in a sense, the choice to retain or release in marriage...

Divorce is in the hands of the man, as Allah ﷻ said,

that is, all divorce is in the hands of the man.

The woman, yes, has one option, which is khula‘,

or divorce due to harm through the judge,

but divorce is fundamentally in the hands of the man.

So Allah ﷻ addressed the man more than the woman,

but the covenant is surely between both parties.

It is indeed a very solemn contract;

in fact, Allah made it one of His signs,

which is why Allah ﷻ made it a solemn covenant.

In fact, this is what pleases Satan the most—the separation of husband and wife.

That is why it is mentioned in the Hadith that Satan sends out his troops,

sending his offspring, saying, "Spread corruption in the land."

One returns saying, "I made him consume usury."

He says, "You did nothing." Another says, "I made him kill."

He says, "You did nothing." Another says, "I separated him from his wife."

Satan says, "You, you! You are the best one!"

"You have done a great job"—for Satan, of course—in separating the spouses.

Therefore, Allah ﷻ emphasized the importance of marriage,

and that injustice must never be committed by the husband, wife, or wife's guardians.

They must fear Allah ﷻ regarding this covenant,

which is why He called it a "solemn covenant." Allah knows best.

- Excellent. Sheikh, I will ask you a basic question. - Go ahead.

Even though it is basic, it has now become necessary to know.

Why does a person get married?

- What? - Why do people get married?

First, to satisfy one's desire.

Allah ﷻ... as Allah ﷻ said:

“It has been made permissible for you the night preceding fasting to go to your wives [for sexual relations]. They are a clothing for you and you are a clothing for them. Allāh knows that you used to deceive yourselves, so He accepted your repentance and forgave you. So now, have relations with them and seek that which Allāh has decreed for you [i.e., offspring]. And eat and drink until the white thread of dawn becomes distinct to you from the black thread [of night]. Then complete the fast until the night [i.e., sunset]. And do not have relations with them as long as you are staying for worship in the mosques. These are the limits [set by] Allāh, so do not approach them. Thus does Allāh make clear His verses [i.e., ordinances] to the people that they may become righteous.” (Quran 2:187)

The man needs this garment, and the woman needs it too,

and it is the instinctual marital relationship that Allah ﷻ created between male and female.

Secondly, so that the human species continues.

If your father and mother had not married, you would not exist.

Likewise, if your grandparents had not married, they would not exist, and so on.

So the continuation of lineage and human existence on this earth can only occur through marriage.

That is one reason, as is fulfilling human innate desire.

Also, a person needs someone close to him, like a wife,

and she needs someone close to her, like a husband; they confide in each other and vent to one another,

sharing their grievances and solving problems together,

even if he or she has problems at work or with family—meaning her family or his family.

He finds someone to talk to, and she finds someone to talk to.

Now, Allah ﷻ mentioned this, but the Prophet ﷺ said:

“Marry the loving and fertile, for I will boast of your great numbers before the nations,”

because as offspring increase, the worship of Allah ﷻ increases.

And Allah ﷻ says:

“And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me.” (Quran 51:56)

So the existence of this family and its growth

multiplies the worshippers of Allah ﷻ, for which He created mankind and jinn.

“And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me.” (Quran 51:56)

And Allah knows best.

Sheikh, today we will mostly discuss the Sharia rulings regarding marriage.

How so?

How important is it, before getting married, to know the Sharia rulings? And can anyone,

can an ordinary person learn the Sharia rulings on marriage?

What's the problem, really?

As Ali ibn Abi Talib (RA) said:

"Knowledge—or religion—was a drop, and people turned it into an ocean."

Matters are simple and easy, and complications come from people.

Yes, one can learn, and matters are much easier than one imagines.

Knowledge is very easy, especially that which is obligatory upon everyone.

I am not talking about specialized sciences,

I mean general knowledge Allah ﷻ made obligatory upon all people.

Yes, it is easy to learn it and even excel in it.

Insha'Allah, in this episode, they will learn...

Insha'Allah.

Sheikh, there are many conditions for marriage, in the marriage contract.

Are there conditions that must be written in the marriage contract?

Sorry, but can these conditions change over time?

If I got married and set these conditions,

can I change them, by removing or adding something, for instance?

Look, there are conditions whose presence or absence makes no difference, because they are implicit to the contract.

Such as?

They don't even need to be stipulated.

Also, there are conditions that contradict the implicit terms of the contract;

whether you include them or not, they hold no value.

Right.

And then there are extra conditions that are legally valid.

Conditions that contradict implicit terms—like marrying her and stipulating, 'I won't spend on you.'

That's not allowed.

It is a void condition, even if she signed with her hands and feet,

and a hundred thousand witnesses testified. It's void; he must spend on her regardless.

'I stipulated it with her!' It's not up to you; this is an unalienable right.

'I don't want kids,' or she says, 'I don't want kids'—it's invalid.

because this is a shared right.

In fact, marriage is fundamentally based on this: procreation.

'I won't provide you housing'— that is not valid.

even if signed and witnessed, the condition is void because it contradicts the implicit terms of the contract.

Or if she stipulates that he cannot advise her or enjoin good upon her—that is invalid.

Conditions contradicting the contract's implicit terms have no value.

Whether written, spoken, or witnessed, they are void because they contradict the implicit terms.

Like saying, 'I sold you my car, but I stipulate that you cannot drive it.'

None of your business! You sold it to me, why can't I drive it?

Invalid condition. "You can't sell it"— not up to you.

I own it now; I can do with it as I please.

So these conditions are worthless. The exact opposite are terms inherent to the contract.

- Like what? - Like stipulating, "You must spend on me." Whether stipulated or not, he must spend on you.

Or a condition, "You must grant me intimacy." Whether stipulated or not, she must do so.

Because these conditions are inherent to the contract, so they need not be stipulated. Understand?

Take a car or a house: "A condition that I live in it." Of course!

I can't tell you not to live in it.

Once you buy the house, you own it and use it as you wish.

"I sell whenever I want." Your right! See how it works?

These conditions are inherent to the contract itself,

so they add no real value, because whether written or not, they are established anyway. Clear?

So the second category of conditions are additional, extra terms,

such as stipulating that he lets her complete her education,

or stipulating that every five years he takes her for Hajj.

These get written in the contract. Yes, written in the contract.

Or stipulating that he gives her 100 dinars monthly, for instance.

He may stipulate to her, for example: "You will live with me at my parents' house."

For instance, you see? But in private quarters, like a private apartment, you see?

Or he may stipulate, for example, that she does not complete her studies,

that she drops out of school and does not work.

These are valid conditions, as long as the second party agrees to them.

However, valid conditions are those made before or during the marriage contract,

and any condition after the contract has no effect.

- Yes. - So the condition must be made before or during the contract,

however, after the contract is concluded and accepted,

if he then says, "I have conditions," they're void.

Not allowed. The contract is done.

I can't add them now. Exactly, it's done.

You see? Valid conditions are only those set before or during the contract.

These are the valid conditions.

Both parties must be prepared, with conditions ready.

Usually people have no conditions; the rule is fairness or kind release.

Yet some people may have conditions, but they must be set before or during the contract.

After the contract, any condition is void.

So Sheikh, sometimes things come up that

one assumes aren't essential enough to write down or even mention,

After marriage, the issue comes up. Like I said, studying—he might be fine with it,

but then he realizes, "No, by Allah, you won't continue your studies."

So, what about studying, work, or whatever it may be?

Yes, here he is within his rights. If the husband feels her studying affects the household,

for instance if she has children and studying distracts her from home and such,

or if the study environment is co-ed or involves something forbidden, he has the right to forbid her.

However, on the condition that he compensates her—meaning he spends on her. You understand?

He shouldn't forbid her from working while failing to provide for her properly.

If he compensates her well, there's no problem.

But if she stipulated she be allowed to study, he must let her finish.

Yes. So Sheikh, there are things people consider trivial, but to a scholar they are not trivial. For instance,

I don't know if this is even valid—she stipulates that he must not travel,

if he travels, he takes her; or that he not smoke—if he does...

Whatever condition it may be. Can she write these down, or are they conditions she shouldn't include?

Well, regarding not traveling, she has no right to prevent him from traveling or insist he only travel with her,

or the like, right? But in any case, if he agrees

to these conditions, he is bound by them.

However, from the start, he shouldn't agree to such conditions;

he should say, "No, it is not up to you to restrict me this way." But since he agreed—

That's it.

Then indeed, "The conditions most deserving of fulfillment are those by which marriage becomes lawful."

He must abide by it; if he agreed to this condition, he must abide by it.

Right? But I do not advise anyone to agree to such conditions, okay?

However, if her father tells him, "On condition that you leave this job," if the job is not good or such,

or stipulates that he stop drinking alcohol or quit smoking—

though originally a drinker shouldn't be married off; but say smoking: "I condition that you quit within a year."

Right? It is a valid condition, nothing wrong with it. If he agreed to it, it is fine.

A question just came to mind—

Go ahead and ask.

If... if there are certain matters like... like you mentioned, drinking alcohol or even prayer,

is there a condition like, "If you do not pray..."

So... can I request a divorce? And this is something...

In principle, one cannot marry off a man who doesn't pray.

He used to pray.

I said it's impermissible to marry off someone who doesn't pray, right?

But if he does pray, why would you stipulate a condition,

"I stipulate that you must continue praying"? It is meaningless, right?

And In Sha Allah, when you marry, they won't stipulate that you shouldn't abandon prayer or the like.

It's strange—a strange condition to say, "You must not abandon prayer," or the like.

Imagine writing in the contract as if he's accused— that he'll abandon prayer or such.

So no, such a thing should not be written, right? But...

if something occurs that harms the marriage,

they have the right to claim that the man stopped praying and request divorce on grounds of harm,

her guardian, or she requests divorce for harm,

saying he doesn't pray. The judge tells him: pray or I divorce you.

Yes, divorce for harm is permissible.

Divorce, yes, of course, absolutely.

Now, as a husband, I am the one who paid the dowry,

and I am the one who spends, and I provide housing,

and I provide clothing—I pay for everything, you see?

And whenever I want to leave, I leave—meaning divorce,

I divorce her, but I lose the money I paid and so on, so I am the loser in the end.

But this is my decision; I decided to separate from this woman.

The woman has taken everything, so she has no right to tell me, "Go on and divorce me!"

"You took my money, you took my property, and so on;

I provided housing, clothing, maintenance, and gave you a mahr."

Clear? The man loses out, so the woman cannot be the one to divorce.

Alright, so when does she have the right? She has the right in two cases: either due to harm—

such as him not praying, beating me severely, disrespecting, insulting, or humiliating me.

So if the woman requests divorce due to harm, and this harm is manifested, for example,

in his abandoning prayer, mistreatment, insult, lack of financial support,

failure to provide housing, or any convincing reason...

and the judge reviews this with him and confirms he is at fault, the judge orders him to divorce.

Called divorce for harm; she gets full rights as if he divorced her.

The second recourse for her is Khul'.

Khul': she doesn't want him, though nothing is wrong with him,

but she doesn't love him or get along with him.

This is possible— I'm talking about divorce—

This is not divorce; this is Khul'. Do you see the difference?

She is the one who does not want him, though he has done no wrong: "I just don't love him."

Even if everything's fine—I don't love him, I want out.

You see? I can't. We're not compatible with each other, I want to divorce.

We can't force her to stay with him if she doesn't want to.

"He placed between you affection and mercy." He says, "I find neither."

"She is a good woman, prays and remembers Allah, but I have no feelings for her. I'll divorce-"

Even the reverse—divorce! You lose your dowry and everything.

Now, if she is the one seeking divorce—she is the one who doesn't want him—

we tell her, "No, he is the one who lost; return his dowry to him." Right.

And that is Thabit ibn Qays ibn Shammas (RA), a righteous man.

It suffices that the Prophet ﷺ gave him glad tidings of Paradise, and he was promised Paradise.

Yet, his wife Habibah came one day to the Prophet ﷺ

She said, "O Messenger of Allah, I don't fault Thabit in religion or character."

He is a man of religion and good character,

"but I hate unfaithfulness in Islam"—meaning, "I cannot give him his rights at all."

She simply didn't love him. At all.

So the Prophet ﷺ asked, "What did he give you as dowry?" She said, "A garden."

He asked, "Will you return his garden?" She said, "Yes." He said, "Return it."

He called Thabit (RA) and said, "Part with her." This is khul'.

Even if married, even if they have children, even if consummated,

she returns his full mahr, or whatever they agree upon.

For example, if he gave her 10,000 as mahr, he might say, "Return 5,000 to me,"

"or return 2,000 to me." Or it is his right to take the mahr in full.

He has the right to take the full mahr, but may concede for the years together—

And this—this divorce or separation—I call it a healthy separation.

Look, divorce is not a good thing;

one of the greatest deeds of Iblis's soldiers is separating a husband and wife.

But we must also realize that divorce is a remedy,

a kind of remedy for the problems between spouses. Sometimes divorce is a mercy for both,

meaning they divorce and each goes their own way. Why live a miserable life?

Full of constant fighting, no understanding—"I don't love her, she doesn't suit me." Why?

Allah ﷻ has provided five solutions.

He ﷻ said: "As for those women..."

“Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allāh has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allāh would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them [lightly]. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allāh is ever Exalted and Grand.” (Quran 4:34)

He gave the man three solutions.

If admonishing them works and the woman corrects herself, that settles it.

If not, then "forsake them in bed"—he avoids sleeping with her, no intimacy.

as a form of discipline. If her matter is resolved, that is the end of it.

If it is not resolved, He said, "and strike them,"

and this is symbolic discipline, not harmful hitting—just to make her feel he is upset.

If it works, praise be to Allah ﷻ, life goes on. If it does not work,

then He gave you the fourth solution.

What is it?

“And if you fear dissension between the two, send an arbitrator from his people and an arbitrator from her people. If they both desire reconciliation, Allāh will cause it between them. Indeed, Allāh is ever Knowing and Aware.” (Quran 4:35)

They bring one from her family and one from his,

and they sit together to evaluate:

They sit with the husband, the wife, then decide if the marriage should continue or not.

They see if the wife is exaggerating her claim or the husband is exaggerating his, and reconcile them.

If reconciliation is possible—'You concede this,

you concede that—it's a trivial issue'—excellent.

If not, and they say, "No, they are not suitable for each other,"

then they separate them through divorce.

These are four solutions. There's a fifth one for the woman.

What is it?

Allah ﷻ says:

“And if a woman fears from her husband contempt or evasion, there is no sin upon them if they make terms of settlement between them - and settlement is best. And present in [human] souls is stinginess. But if you do good and fear Allāh - then indeed Allāh is ever, of what you do, Aware.” (Quran 4:128)

"...a settlement."

That is, the woman wants him, but he is the one who does not want her.

In the first scenario, the man advises her, forsakes her, and strikes her to correct her.

Now, no—he is the crooked one. The husband is the one at fault now.

Here, the woman has the right.

Allah ﷻ said: "And those...

“And if a woman fears from her husband contempt or evasion, there is no sin upon them if they make terms of settlement between them - and settlement is best. And present in [human] souls is stinginess. But if you do good and fear Allāh - then indeed Allāh is ever, of what you do, Aware.” (Quran 4:128)

So what does she do? If the wife wants her husband,

and he says, 'I don't love her, I don't want to stay with her,'

she says to him, 'My good man,

we have children and a life together, and I want you; don't divorce me, where would I go?'

He says, 'No, I just don't love you.'

She says, 'Consider me your sister, let me live with you like siblings.'

'No intimacy required; I forego that.'

'I have housing; I don't need that from you.'

'I have no money.' 'I don't need housing; I'm content.'

She simply waives some of her rights.

'I can't support you; I'm remarrying and can't maintain two homes.'

She says, 'I will support myself.'

'Fine. Just keep me in your marriage.'

Yes, she waives her rights here.

Invalid conditions aren't allowed, but waiving rights later is permitted.

'Keep me as your wife; I'll spend on myself. I'm well-off, I don't need maintenance.'

'just keep me in your marriage. Why divorce me? Where will the children go tomorrow?'

Alright? So this is a reconciliation initiated by the woman.

These are five solutions. If they work, the marriage continues.

If they do not work, comes the sixth solution, which is the statement of Allah ﷻ:

“But if they separate [by divorce], Allāh will enrich each [of them] from His abundance. And ever is Allāh Encompassing and Wise.” (Quran 4:130)

So, if the five solutions do not work, separation comes

through divorce: "If they separate, Allah will enrich each from His abundance."

So, they separate. This is the sixth solution.

So, divorce in itself is neither shameful nor wrong,

but the problem we have nowadays with divorce is that it is hasty,

and for reasons that may be trivial or close to trivial,

that could possibly be addressed. It reaches a point—

How can I put it? I cannot even describe it,

but the spouses end up supplicating against each other! It has reached this level,

A woman tells me, "I pray Qunut at night against him."

I say to her, "A few days ago you slept in the same bed, showered together,

slept together, the only person you uncovered before—and now you make Qunut against him?"

Why does divorce turn into animosity, and an unacceptable hostility,

going from one extreme to the complete opposite? Why?

We want divorce to be a remedy.

If someone divorces, what is the problem? The Messenger ﷺ divorced Hafsah bint 'Umar (RA),

then took her back ﷺ. Divorce is a remedy.

Why have we made it a problem? His mother stops speaking to hers,

which is why some scholars dislike marriage between relatives,

because if a divorce happens, the two families sever ties; sisters stop talking, each taking her child's side.

And so on.

Therefore, the default purpose of divorce is that it is a remedy.

By Allah ﷻ, good woman, I have spent happy days with you and all,

but I feel we aren't compatible. May Allah ﷻ grant you success and a good husband,

And if they have children, they should reach an understanding without going to court.

"Come see them whenever you want," or "Come pick them up" if she wants to see them—

A classy divorce! That is what we want— if there is a divorce, let it be classy,

not a divorce full of fights, cursing, and invoking ill upon each other,

and I seek refuge in Allah ﷻ, which is happening. So divorce is a remedy,

but what matters most? That it be peaceful, without depriving anyone of their rights.

People come to me—Allah ﷻ knows their truthfulness—

where he says, or she says, that the other is keeping them from their children.

One man said, "I haven't seen my kids in three years; she won't let me."

Why? They're her children just as they're yours.

And likewise the opposite: if he has custody, he won't let her see her kids. Why?

We don't want that kind of divorce. If there must be one,

let it be a healthy divorce so life can go on between people. That's the point.

A classy divorce—I liked that term.

But, Sheikh, I actually put divorce as the last option, I didn't...

You get married first, then—

True, wallahi. I put it last; I said we shouldn't discuss it. In sha Allah.

Sheikh, marriage matters are more important than divorce now. We mentioned it, but—

For a reason.

What are the obligatory rights that the husband or wife should fulfill, which people might not know about—Shar'i rights?

Of course, the first shared right is good companionship between the spouses.

She must fear Allah ﷻ regarding him and treat him well, and he must fear Allah ﷻ regarding her and treat her well.

This is the basis of marriage: good companionship.

Between spouses: love, respect, no mistreatment from either side.

He gives her her rights, she gives him his rights—good companionship between spouses: "And live with them in kindness." This is the basis.

As for detailed rights: the wife's right is that he provides housing, financial support, and clothing for her.

He fulfills her marital rights

including intimacy, helps raise the children—these are the wife's rights.

The husband's rights are obedience in reasonable matters:

she obeys his commands as long as he does not command disobedience to Allah ﷻ.

And also to yield herself to him in intimacy,

and so on.

A woman's rights are few compared to the husband's,

however, as the Prophet ﷺ said:

"If a woman performs her obligatory duties, prays her five prayers,

fasts her month, guards her chastity, and obeys her husband,

it will be said to her: Enter Paradise from whichever gate you wish."

This is because the rights of the husband over the wife are not like the rights of the wife over the husband.

Primarily, the man has the final say, and therefore he has more obligations.

A wife's rights over her husband exceed his rights over her,

yet both have rights over each other. In fact, regarding women,

as the Prophet ﷺ said: "Fear Allah regarding women, for they are like captives with you."

You are the one who has the power to divorce, to provide, and so on. So fear Allah regarding her, as is said.

So the rights of a woman are more in number than the rights of a man,

but overall, the man's main right is obedience,

because the man is the maintainer: "Men are caretakers of women." He is responsible for her,

taking care of her affairs and protecting her,

just as Allah ﷻ—exalted far above any comparison—is the Ever-Living, the Sustainer, who takes care of all our affairs,

providing, giving life, healing us, as Ibrahim (AS) said:

peace be upon him,

“Who created me, and He [it is who] guides me.”

“And it is He who feeds me and gives me drink.”

“And when I am ill, it is He who cures me”

“And who will cause me to die and then bring me to life” (Quran 26:78-81)

He is the One who provides for our needs, Glorified and Exalted.

Likewise—and Allah is above comparison—the man maintains the woman,

fulfilling her rights, caring for her, providing medical care for her,

looking after her, spending on her, and providing her with housing.

And the husband's rights over the wife are mostly regarding obedience in good conduct.

Sheikh, you have brought up three important topics for me: qiwamah, obedience,

and... another matter I'll save for later. —Go ahead.

First off, before I get into obedience and qiwamah,

the rights you mentioned are obligatory.

Sheikh, I don't know if stories have reached you or not,

I've been hearing stories about these obligations that are unbelievable.

Don't be surprised. Regarding housing, some say, "I live..."

most likely in Kuwait, the Gulf, or even abroad, living in his family's home.

So is this— She must have separate housing.

It must be separate?

She must have separate housing unless she waives it. —Yes.

If she waives it, there's flexibility. —Yes.

If she says, "I waive it, a room in the house is fine," like the old days.

—Right. —I mean, our elders used to get married, and she would become part of the household.

—Yes. —They'd give him a room for the two of them.

When I married, my wife and I just had a room in the house.

I didn't have an apartment like now. Just a room for the two of us.

We lived with my family—lunch, dinner, everything together.

You know? So she lives with the extended family (hamula).

But that's by her own choice—

Only if she waives her right. —If she waives it.

If she waives it, fine. But if she claims her right, saying: "No, I want separate housing,"

even without stipulating it—especially if she does—

if conflicts arise with his family and she demands separate housing, it's mandatory. —Yes.

"Separate housing" means a private entrance with her own space: her bedroom, kitchen, and bathroom.

Right? That's her privacy. We are required to provide her with this.

If it's at his family's house—an apartment, annex, or section—

provided she has her own entrance and her own private life,

not four rooms—a bedroom, kitchen, and bathroom suffice. —Yes.

Right? If he provides her with that, alhamdulillah, it is sufficient.

But if she doesn't stipulate it, on the contrary, we...

The frenzied campaign—let's say not overt,

its impact is very fierce—

aims to destroy the concept of the extended family house.

There are people striving to eliminate the extended family house,

"Just me, my wife, and my kids." —Independent. —That's it.

"My wife, my children, and I must have our privacy." That is wrong.

In the past, the whole family used to live together.

The paternal uncle was a father, the maternal aunt a mother, the paternal aunt likewise, and the maternal uncle likewise.

Now, no. The uncle cannot even address his brother's children.

"No one should interfere!"

"Isn't he my nephew? I'm his uncle!" "Even so,"

"don't scold him!" Or his wife stirs him up: "Your brother scolded our kids!"

The uncle is a father. "A man's uncle is like his father," the Prophet ﷺ said.

"The maternal aunt is like a mother," said the Prophet ﷺ.

"Sister, don't talk to my daughter!" "I am her aunt!" "So what if you are? You're not her mother."

And they start isolating themselves from society or the family. Right?

"We'll form small nuclear families." From this arose a new innovation:

where a man with a wife and children says:

"I want my inheritance to go only to my wife and children.

I don't want my brothers or parents to inherit—just my wife and kids!" Always "my wife and kids!"

What about the rest of the family?

Especially now, a man with only daughters goes and registers all his property under his daughters' names.

Why? "I don't want my brothers to inherit from me." Why do that to your brothers? They are closest to you after your children.

A child can be replaced, but a brother cannot.

A child can be replaced by another child over a long life,

but as for a brother, the mother has grown old and can no longer conceive;

you won't get another brother,

but you might have another child later—one child replacing another,

whereas a brother cannot be replaced.

So we have started losing our brothers and sisters for the sake of our children

and our wives, and this is wrong.

If I have a problem tomorrow with my wife and divorce her, she becomes cut off from me.

That's it, another life; she marries someone else, and that's it.

You have no claim over her anymore; she is no longer your wife,

she's now someone else's wife.

Fearing for the brother—

She is completely separated from me.

My children are the same thing.

Right? It's true they are flesh of my flesh, right?

But my children aren't like my brothers; children can be replaced—

one goes and another replaces him,

but a brother cannot be replaced,

no brother after him, and no sister after her.

So this fierce campaign telling you, "Leave your parents, leave your siblings,

it's all "my wife and kids, my wife and kids."

He cares for his wife and kids but neglects his siblings,

until the bonds between brothers and sisters have been severed.

Right? Everyone says, "I want my kids, my kids, my kids."

And your kids—fine, we didn't say neglect your kids,

but consider your brothers and sisters too.

Nor are we saying, "Neglect your children," but do not cut off your brothers and sisters—they are your support.

My point is that the decline of the hamoola has turned everything into small nuclear families.

Before, paternal uncles and aunts, maternal uncles and aunts, grandfathers, and grandmothers all raised children.

Now, people sometimes don't even accept grandparents interfering in their lives.

A wife tells her husband, "Why is your father scolding my kids? What right does he have?" But the grandfather is a father!

You see? Prophet Yusuf (AS) said: "I have followed the religion of my fathers,

Ibrahim, Ishaq, and Yaqub." A grandfather is a father!

Therefore, the extended family system must return. I don't mean to boast,

but I admire how—insha'Allah they will keep it up—the Awazim tribe in Kuwait...

...the Awazim still live as extended families much more than others; they are known for this.

Brothers get married and live together in their father's home; they actively maintain this.

So there is much emphasis on keeping the hamoola together.

Even if it has begun to weaken, praise be to Allah, they—and others as well—still preserve it.

My point is that we must care for the extended family just as we care for the nuclear family.

- Sheikh, what about clothing, housing, and food? - What about them?

Regarding food, a story came up recently...

What is the definition of providing food? Is there a specific amount required?

She eats until full. He shouldn't tell her to eat at her family's house. He provides basic food for her.

I don't know what you mean, but food means basic food. He simply provides her with food and drink.

- Like household groceries, for example. - Groceries, yes, exactly.

What if it's something extra? I heard of a case where she wanted a meal plan subscription,

and he refused to get it. Look at how disagreements arise over such simple matters.

I think this is making a mountain out of a molehill. The matter is very simple.

If she says, "I don't feel good with this food,

I want to lose weight, and I'd like a meal subscription,"

if the husband is well-off and it doesn't affect his budget, what's stopping him? Don't be stubborn over trivial things.

He should agree: "What meals? How much? 100 dinars a month? 200 dinars? 300?"

If he can afford it, what's the problem? He should be easygoing.

If he cannot afford it, he tells her, "Wallahi, I don't have the money."

If she says, "I'll pay myself," fine, but he doesn't have it.

There's nothing wrong with that.

But if she insists, "I don't have money, figure it out!"

"I want meal plans!" — that is just foolishness,

unless she is sick.

The point is that such matters should be handled with tolerance between husband and wife,

with taqwa of Allah ﷻ,

by speaking to him kindly, saying, "Wallahi, I'd really like this," approaching him gently

at a time when he's relaxed, not nagging him constantly,

not demanding takeouts while he's upset.

If he says no, don't say, "You don't respect me!" Why?

A woman can get whatever she wants from a man if she approaches him when he is relaxed,

without trying to twist his arm.

If she speaks to him calmly, men usually agree.

The main thing is the way we approach it.

So he is not obligated to buy takeouts or take her to restaurants,

He must provide food and drink, but if she cooks herself, that's fine.

Speaking of the qawamah you mentioned earlier,

I'd like to understand the concept of qawamah, which nowadays

might be somewhat distorted for men or even women.

But Allah ﷻ said: "Men are caretakers..."

“Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allāh has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allāh would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them [lightly]. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allāh is ever Exalted and Grand.” (Quran 4:34)

...from their wealth."

So the man here has two advantages over women:

First, he spends—"because they spend from their wealth."

So if he doesn't spend, he has no authority over her.

He must spend; he cannot refrain from spending on her

and then say to her, "Obey me," and so on. Well, spend on me!

"You are not spending!" "Because they spend from their wealth." You see?

The second is preference: men are better at evaluating matters than women.

Men think more with intellect; women think more with emotion.

This does not mean that a man has no emotion or that a woman has no intellect,

but that a man prioritizes intellect over emotion, and a woman prioritizes emotion over intellect.

That's why Allah ﷻ says, "Bring to witness..."

“O you who have believed, when you contract a debt for a specified term, write it down. And let a scribe write [it] between you in justice. Let no scribe refuse to write as Allāh has taught him. So let him write and let the one who has the obligation [i.e., the debtor] dictate. And let him fear Allāh, his Lord, and not leave anything out of it. But if the one who has the obligation is of limited understanding or weak or unable to dictate himself, then let his guardian dictate in justice. And bring to witness two witnesses from among your men. And if there are not two men [available], then a man and two women from those whom you accept as witnesses - so that if one of them [i.e., the women] errs, then the other can remind her. And let not the witnesses refuse when they are called upon. And do not be [too] weary to write it, whether it is small or large, for its [specified] term. That is more just in the sight of Allāh and stronger as evidence and more likely to prevent doubt between you, except when it is an immediate transaction which you conduct among yourselves. For [then] there is no blame upon you if you do not write it. And take witnesses when you conclude a contract. Let no scribe be harmed or any witness. For if you do so, indeed, it is [grave] disobedience in you. And fear Allāh. And Allāh teaches you. And Allāh is Knowing of all things.” (Quran 2:282)

"...that if one of them strays, the other can remind her."

A woman's emotion is generally stronger than her intellect,

a man's intellect is stronger than his emotion,

though both possess intellect and emotion.

Therefore, Allah ﷻ placed decision-making with the man.

Even in marriage, a woman's guardian must be involved,

and he must be a male.

Why? Because she might marry driven by emotion,

so her guardian assists her by bringing intellect alongside emotion,

to help her decide whether to accept or reject a suitor.

Hence, qawamah was given to the man as decision-maker,

and qawamah means he is responsible for care—

providing for the family, spending on them, protecting and defending them.

This is the nature of qawamah.

That is, he must manage her affairs, look after her, and attend to her needs.

This is the woman's right over the man.

Qawamah doesn't mean simply imposing one's opinion,

or forcing his views—no,

No, no. That is only a small part of qiwamah.

Yes. — Exactly.

So you are saying qiwamah is a duty upon the man more than a right for him.

Meaning, it is a responsibility on him, not a privilege.

It is a responsibility upon him.

Upon him, not for him. Yes.

Well Sheikh, regarding obedience to the husband, you spoke of it earlier, and I noted a hadith

said to be weak: "If a woman prays her five prayers and guards her chastity..." You mentioned—

No, it is authentic.

Correct. Yes.

A while ago, we did an episode with Sheikh Fahad Wasel Al-Mutairi, and he discussed this hadith.

A huge number of people claimed that it is weak.

Some hadiths are disputed among scholars. Al-Dhahabi spoke about this,

saying most disagreements concern hadiths of disputed authenticity.

And there is room for flexibility, in sha Allah. Yes.

But what is the limit of obedience to the husband?

Not disobeying Allah, that's all. Obedience is only in what is reasonable.

There is no obedience to a created being in disobedience to the Creator.

She obeys him as long as she does not disobey Allah ﷻ, within her capability and within reason.

Any command whatsoever, as long as it doesn't violate Sharia?

Doesn't violate Sharia, yes.

Excellent. Now—

And what she is capable of. What she herself can do. If he tells her, "Fly!"—

"How can I fly?" - That's difficult!

"How can I fly?" He says, "Figure it out, it's obedience!"

No, it must be within reason. Yes.

As Allah says: "So fear Allah as much as you are able." Yes.

Sheikh, regarding marriage and love: how is an emotional relationship built between spouses in Islam?

Usually after marriage. The emotional bond between spouses usually starts after marriage.

That is why the Prophet ﷺ says: "Souls are like recruited soldiers; those that recognize one another come together, and those that do not..."

...differed. In the old days, marriages used to be built on suitability—

they would see if she fits, good lineage, good family, and so on. Love would come later.

'Umar ibn al-Khattab (RA) said, "Must every marriage be built on love?"

Right? Marriage is built on respect and appreciation. Love comes later, through daily living together.

And Allah ﷻ says: "And He placed between them affection and mercy." Allah ﷻ instills this between spouses.

As for love before marriage, it requires elaboration.

Sometimes, love happens beyond a person's control.

He saw her, admired her, and she entered his heart. Likewise, she saw him, admired him, and he entered her heart.

Right? This is something a person cannot control.

The Prophet ﷺ said—though debated: "O Allah, this is my share in what I control; do not blame me for what I cannot."

When ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ asked him, "Who is the most beloved person to you?" He ﷺ said, "Aisha."

He loved her more than his other wives, but he ﷺ was never unjust and treated them equally. Love, however, was not in his hands.

Sometimes love enters a person's heart, and sometimes it is admiration rather than love.

So, if love develops, the most important thing is that the remedy for love is marriage.

If you love her, marry her; if you love him, get married—end of story.

As for saying "I love her" while staying attached without getting married—okay?

No! And going beyond that to texting, calls, or going out—we seek refuge in Allah!

This is where we enter the forbidden. If you love someone, knock on the door.

If they marry you to her, praise be to Allah. If they do not,

wish good for her: "May Allah grant her a better husband than me," and move on.

The same for a woman: if she loves a man and he proposes to her, she marries him.

You see? If he did not propose to her and proposed to someone else, forget him.

Marry someone else, live your life, and redirect your love to the other man.

You see? If she says "I cannot," fine, but do not wrong your husband

by pining for the first one. Don't marry if your heart stays attached to a past love.

Is it permissible, Sheikh, if someone is still attached—

"Turn your heart where you wish; love belongs only to the first beloved."

Is it permissible if someone is still thinking about—

One must move past it as much as possible; one must try.

Man or woman, try to get it out of your head.

Okay, I loved her, but she married someone else. I cannot keep loving another's wife.

If she loves him—a man can still marry her.

But once married, you cannot direct your love to a man other than your husband.

That is it, so adjust your course.

Like a job. Suppose you want to get a job in civil aviation, right?

But you didn't get into civil aviation; they sent you to the Audit Bureau, let's say. Right?

Better, Insha'Allah.

Whatever.

You went to the Audit Bureau, but you wanted civil aviation.

Does that mean you won't perform well at the Audit Bureau?

No.

Won't you do the job required of you?

Why? Because we loved civil aviation? Well, civil aviation didn't work out.

You're at the Audit Bureau now; they pay your salary, so work for them.

Attend properly, work properly, be sincere, and fulfill the tasks assigned to you.

No, remaining attached to someone else—that is not acceptable.

Then divorce your husband and wait for the other one.

Let her wait for him to knock on her door again.

But there cannot be any contact between them; it is haram, not permissible,

because she is a non-mahram to him, and he is a non-mahram to her.

Yes. So Sheikh, they say, "Whatever is built on falsehood is false."

- Yes. Is this correct? - Of course.

So how do they get married? How?

What if a man loves a woman, for example?

And what is false about it?

The false part is if he talked to her or something like that. This is debatable, of course.

No, haven't you ever heard of love at first sight?

Right, no, that was before. Now this is new.

No, love—he saw her and she won his heart, you know?

That's the love meant here.

Yes, or the neighbor's daughter, or his aunt's daughter, whom he sees all the time, and she wins his heart and he loves her.

It doesn't have to be mutual.

Yes, it could be unrequited love; that's what's agonizing.

Unrequited love—he loves her, while she might not even pay him any attention,

she doesn't know about him; or vice versa, she loves him and he doesn't notice.

But it's love—she entered his heart, he loves her.

But is the saying... Is it a saying or what?

"Whatever is built on falsehood..." That's a legal maxim.

A sound maxim. Yes, indeed.

Sound in meaning or in another sense?

In everything—meaning and application: whatever is built on falsehood is invalid.

So if even conventional—or traditional, let's say—marriage, though I dislike that term,

could involve wrong things, like talking on the phone during engagement or the like,

does "built on falsehood is invalid" apply here?

Of course, it is not permissible. No, here, no marriage contract has been concluded, you see?

We say this is impermissible. One doesn't say "built on falsehood is false,"

rather, his talking to her was wrong—impermissible.

You see? The woman is weak, and even the man may be weak in this situation,

talking on the phone, saying: 'I want to see her face; I want us to sit together.'

They sat together, he said: 'Someone might see us; let's go out in the car.'

So they went out in the car, he touched her, she touched him, and Iblis was present.

A man is never alone with a woman except Satan is their third. He is still forbidden to her and she to him.

No marriage took place; it's merely a promise of marriage.

What is an engagement? It is a promise: 'We will marry you.' But did they get married?

No, they didn't get married.

So he is still a non-mahram to her; he is neither one of her mahrams nor her husband.

So it is not permissible for him to be alone with her, to touch her, or to kiss her.

Nor is it permissible for him to speak words of love and such to her.

Sheikh, what are the Sharia rules for managing disputes between spouses?

Between spouses? Yes.

Respect. First of all, respect.

There must be respect and proper etiquette between spouses: he listens to her, and she listens to him.

Right? He should respect her, she should respect him, he should appreciate her feelings, and she his.

If you wish to be obeyed, demand what is reasonable. Right?

She should consider his circumstances, and he should consider hers,

meaning neither should make excessive demands.

Discussions should remain reasonable, right?

They should serve the mutual interest of both sides,

not just one side forcing the other despite harm, under the pretext of "This is what I want."

Discussions between spouses—especially with kids— should ideally take place in the bedroom,

and not in front of the children,

because Satan may intervene, voices get raised... And many people call me saying:

"He hit her in front of her kids," "He spat on her," or "She insulted him in front of them."

Imagine this child, or even a slightly older one,

seeing his mother insult his father, or his father hit his mother.

Even if he doesn't react—though some do, stepping in to stop a parent or intervening—

others stay silent, but it stays in their memory. They will never forget it.

So marital disputes or discussions between spouses must take place in the bedroom,

meaning in private, not in front of the children.

And even if there are no children, that's fine, but the main point is that it must be kept private.

No one should be privy to it except the couple.

If they resolve it, great. If not, outside parties can step in by mutual choice.

Right? Namely, an arbitrator from his family and one from hers. They step in,

She might say, "Let my brother talk to you."

Right? Or he says, "Let your brother talk to me," or something like that,

or "Let's bring in a third party to sit with us, listen to both of us, and judge between us."

So the point is there must be mutual respect.

Shaykh, is "white lying"—as they call it—permissible here during disputes?

All lying is prohibited.

The Messenger of Allah ﷺ did not permit lying except in three cases.

Umm Kulthum bint 'Uqbah ibn Abi Mu'ayt said:

"I never heard the Prophet ﷺ permit any lie except in three cases:

In war—for war is deceit—in reconciliation between people,

and between spouses: a man lying to his wife and a woman lying to her husband."

However, scholars noted that this lying between spouses is restricted.

It applies to what placates hearts, not to unrestricted lying. Right?

No, if lying becomes unrestricted, trust between the spouses is lost.

He tells her, "I'm going to my family," but goes out with friends instead.

This is wrong.

He tells her, "I have no money," but she searches and finds money, for instance.

She tells him, "I'm going to my sister's," while she's actually at a restaurant with friends.

No, this is lying that ruins the home and destroys trust between the spouses.

However, the lying that softens hearts,

meaning there are husbands and wives who do not feel great love for each other,

they have children, but she says, "He is a respectable man," just as

Habibah bint 'Abdullah ibn Ubayy ibn Salul said:

"By Allah, I do not fault Thabit in character nor religion."

A man of religion and good character, but she just does not love him.

A husband might be pure gold, but SubhanAllah, she does not love him, and vice versa.

She may be pious, well-mannered, and devoted, but he does not love her; she hasn't entered his heart.

Secondly, "A believing man should not hate a believing woman." If you do not love her, that is your affair, but do not wrong her.

Do not wrong her. The home can continue, even if spousal love is lacking,

as long as there is respect and appreciation.

So if she happens to ask him one day, "Do you love me?"

he is permitted to lie here and say, "Yes, I love you," to bring comfort to her heart,

Since feelings are internal, he says, "Yes, I love you."

Or she asks, "Am I beautiful to you?" when he may not see her that way,

he says, "Yes, Masha'Allah, people envy me for having you, you are beautiful," even if she is not.

And the reverse is true: if he asks her, "Do you love me?"

She says, "Yes, by Allah, I love you," even though she doesn't,

thinking, "Why should I ruin my home? I have children, and my husband doesn't fall short,

he provides and shows respect, but I just don't love him."

You see? "Do you love me?" "Yes, by Allah, I love you."

These are things where lying between spouses is allowed so that life can go on.

As for lying that ruins marital life—

suppose he tells her, "I love you,"

then she hears him talking in his sleep,

or let me say he was chatting with someone and that person recorded it,

"Do you love your wife?" He said, "No, but I deeply respect her."

She says, "Why did you lie to me?" Yes, lying like this is not justified.

Or when he says, "No, I am traveling for Umrah," but he is actually going to Dubai,

or Turkey, or wherever,

She says, "Why did you lie about going for Umrah?"

He says, "I didn't want to upset you." "No, you lied!"

This is lying that ruins the relationship,

unlike lying that improves the relationship.

This is the difference, and Allah knows best.

Even reconciliation between people...

When Um Kulthum (RA) said,

"The Prophet ﷺ only permitted lying in three cases:"

she mentioned reconciliation between people,

Meaning, if you have a disagreement with someone,

and I tell you, "So-and-so speaks well of you," when he does not,

but it is just an attempt to bring you closer—this is permissible.

Some went further, saying, "If lying is permissible for reconciliation between people,"

"then lying to reconcile between a servant and his Lord is even more fitting." How?

Someone comes and says,

"I had a dream about you," to make him draw closer to his Lord ﷻ.

Or he invents a story about something that happened, to move him to repent.

He says, "I lie to him to reconcile between him and his Lord."

"If lying is allowed between people, then between a servant and his Lord too."

This innovation emerged around the time of the Tabi' al-Tabi'in.

A group emerged—some call them the Karramiyyah—

who said, "We lie FOR the Messenger, not AGAINST the Messenger."

"We lie FOR him, not AGAINST him."

One of their figures was Nuh ibn Abi Maryam,

known as Abu 'Ismah.

This Nuh ibn Abi Maryam fabricated a hadith.

He took the surahs of the Quran, from Al-Fatihah to An-Nas,

from Mujahid, from Ibn 'Abbas (RA), from the Prophet ﷺ:

"Whoever recites Surah Al-Fatihah gets such-and-such, and Surah Al-Baqarah..."

Surah Aal 'Imran has such merit.

He went through the Quran from start to finish, surah by surah, assigning a virtue to each.

Some surahs have authentic texts narrated about them,

but for most surahs, he fabricated ahadith.

When they checked on him—and alhamdulillah, Hadith scholars check right away—

they caught him: 'What is this hadith? Did you hear it?'

He confessed: 'No, by Allah, I fabricated it.'

'Why did you fabricate it? You put a chain back to the Messenger—you lied about the Prophet

ﷺ!' He said, 'I lied for him, not against him.'

'I saw people neglecting the Quran, reading only Ibn Ishaq's Seerah and Abu Hanifah's fiqh,

and abandoning the Quran, so I wanted to bring them back to it, so I fabricated this Hadith.'

Bring them back, but not this way!

You see? So he says, 'I lied for the Messenger ﷺ, not against him.'

Likewise, someone lying to preserve marital life or reconcile people must keep this in mind.

Sheikh, here is a question from someone unmarried.

Alright—which is you!

No—well, I'm not married, but I'm asking his question.

He asked about polygyny, and I told him, 'Get married first!'

Yes, exactly! Get the first wife.

Indeed!

He asked me, "Why has polygyny become so difficult nowadays?

Why has the issue become so difficult, and—"

Is it difficult, or is there wisdom?

Wisdom. And why has it become hard?

And I don't know whether it is difficult for women or for men.

Of course, polygyny by scholarly consensus is permissible—

Allah ﷻ says:

“And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphan girls, then marry those that please you of [other] women, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then [marry only] one or those your right hands possess [i.e., slaves]. That is more suitable that you may not incline [to injustice].” (Quran 4:3)

'...or three or four.'

“And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphan girls, then marry those that please you of [other] women, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then [marry only] one or those your right hands possess [i.e., slaves]. That is more suitable that you may not incline [to injustice].” (Quran 4:3)

...your right hands possess.'

So if a person fears that he will not be just, polygyny is not permissible for him,

if he fears he won't be just.

And justice here refers to treatment, not to the love of the heart.

In another verse: 'You will never be able...

“And you will never be able to be equal [in feeling] between wives, even if you should strive [to do so]. So do not incline completely [toward one] and leave another hanging. And if you amend [your affairs] and fear Allāh - then indeed, Allāh is ever Forgiving and Merciful.” (Quran 4:129)

Which is emotional justice; you cannot do it, as it comes from the heart.

The Messenger of Allah ﷺ himself, the leader of the just ﷺ,

the leader of the equitable, yet when asked, "Who is the most beloved person to you?" he said, "Aisha."

He loved her more than his other wives, yet he maintained justice ﷺ.

So emotional love does not negate justice; the intended justice is in outward treatment.

The point is: marrying a second, third, or fourth wife is permissible,

unanimously among scholars, except some later ones who claim it is like eating carrion—only allowed out of necessity.

This is a false claim.

Allah ﷻ says:

“And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphan girls, then marry those that please you of [other] women, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then [marry only] one or those your right hands possess [i.e., slaves]. That is more suitable that you may not incline [to injustice].” (Quran 4:3)

Then look at the Prophet ﷺ—

Abu Bakr (RA) did, 'Umar (RA) did, 'Uthman (RA) did, 'Ali (RA) did, Al-Zubayr (RA) did...

Almost—I won't say no Companion avoided it—

I haven't done statistics nor do I have a tally for this, but the prominent ones practiced polygamy.

The Prophet ﷺ and the four Caliphs suffice.

Al-Hasan ibn 'Ali (RA) married sixty women,

you see? They practiced polygamy; they had no issue with it.

Right. And the correct view is permissibility.

However, sometimes it may not be permissible

if he cannot treat them equally— it is not permissible, it is haram—

or if he is unable and lacks the means.

No, you must have the capability—financial capability.

As the Prophet ﷺ said: 'Whoever can afford marriage...'

meaning he has the financial means and the ability to manage affairs, handle relationships, and so on.

Alright, if you can, then marry more.

If you do not, then stay away from it.

So the point is that polygamy is fundamentally permissible; that is its default ruling.

As for asking whether practicing polygamy is a Sunnah or not, this is a matter of scholarly disagreement.

Some scholars say that polygamy is the Sunnah,

citing Allah's words...

“And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphan girls, then marry those that please you of [other] women, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then [marry only] one or those your right hands possess [i.e., slaves]. That is more suitable that you may not incline [to injustice].” (Quran 4:3)

'...two or three or four'—He started with that, then said: 'If you fear injustice, then [marry only] one.'

And some of them say, "No, it is not a Sunnah, but rather permissible."

Alright. Others say it varies depending on the person.

For a financially and morally capable person who can practice polygamy,

it is a Sunnah.

While for a person who cannot, it is not a Sunnah.

As for why people don't practice polygamy or who refrains,

sometimes it's the man himself.

I know someone we asked, "Why not marry another?" He said, "Take the one I have!

Marriage was a trial for me!

I don't even want one!" The poor guy feels overwhelmed.

Sometimes the man himself doesn't want to; he is comfortable and content as he is.

And if he doesn't want to marry another, that's his right.

Others say,

"I'd like to marry another." But I always say this:

"A woman is a woman's enemy." A woman is a woman's enemy.

Meaning, the man has no problem marrying another; the woman is the one who has a problem.

Even though polygamy benefits both women and men.

It is in women's interest because usually, in most societies, women outnumber men.

Men are more prone to death than women at work, during travel, in jihad...

So women's lifespans are usually longer than men's.

If you look at the proportion of divorced, widowed, or single women, it is higher than men.

Therefore, polygamy is in women's best interest.

A wise woman is one who allows her husband to practice polygyny for her own sake.

A woman may have an unmarried sister, daughter, or cousin,

or a friend who lives sadly because she cannot find a husband.

So let your husband remarry, be content with it, and suggest someone to him.

Let her share in your happiness,

because she may feel lonely, so it is in her best interest.

But who prevents it? The husband has no objection; it is the wife who prevents it.

So the woman is the one who refuses; if a man takes another wife,

the first wife immediately asks for a divorce or causes problems for him.

The point is that women oppose polygyny, not men, even though polygyny is in women's interest.

Imagine if polygyny were widely practiced: the number of unmarried women would decrease,

as well as widows and divorcees, leaving very few divorced women.

...few spinsters, and few widows.

In the past, things were not like this.

She'd divorce, another man would marry her—they just waited out her 'iddah.

Even the Bedouins back then, out of ignorance...

...some Bedouins—not all, but those living deep in the desert...

...didn't even know about the concept of 'iddah.

She'd get divorced and go marry someone else.

That is wrong; it's not permissible.

However, the point here is that polygyny...

...is in the woman's interest, so she does not remain unmarried. In the past, whenever they found a woman, they would marry her.

Once divorced, another man would marry her.

When her husband died, another would marry her.

Look at Asma' bint 'Umays Al-Khath'amiyyah (RA). Her husband was Ja'far ibn Abi Talib (RA), and she bore him children.

When Ja'far (RA) was martyred at Mu'tah, Abu Bakr As-Siddiq (RA) married her, and she bore him children.

Abu Bakr died after some years—I do not know how many years she stayed with Abu Bakr.

Ja'far was martyred at Mu'tah, and Abu Bakr married her after her 'iddah ended.

She stayed with Abu Bakr until he died in 13 AH.

When Abu Bakr died and her 'iddah ended, 'Ali (RA) married her, and she bore him children.

Like 'Abdullah ibn Ja'far and Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr As-Siddiq...

And I think Zayd ibn 'Ali ibn Abi Talib were brothers...

...from the same mother, you see? They had one mother.

So a woman would not remain single.

Even in Kuwait, even among the Bedouins,

she wouldn't stay single; someone would marry her,

especially if she was attractive and capable,

A woman wouldn't stay single; someone else would marry her.

Now, look at the number of unmarried women,

how many divorcées, how many widows...

Right? No one marries them.

Therefore, it is in women's interest for men to practice polygyny.

Meaning, but in reality, people act contrary to that.

That is why I frankly encourage men to practice polygyny and so on,

but one must also be financially capable,

and not ruin his home, and know his wife—

meaning, whether his wife is the type who would accept

such a thing, or might cause him trouble,

maybe divorce, maybe mess things up for him,

so he should evaluate matters.

Excellent. Sheikh, we'll talk now about the family, of course—

Excuse me, you're not married, right?

Yes.

Why not marry two at once?

Even him, I told him, "Marry, then take—"

No, marry two at once!

Yeah, they told me.

Marry multiple, marry multiple!

The fear is the first wife won't agree.

There is no "first wife"! Both would be first! Both would be first!

You're making it harder for me, Sheikh!

No, pardon.

Shaykh, what is the family built upon? We talked about marriage,

and it is the beginning of forming a family.

So if marriage is built upon all these things, the family will be built soundly.

But what is the family built upon? What is the family built upon?

It is built upon mutual respect, love, and religion.

Prioritizing Allah's Word and the Messenger ﷺ; obedience to Allah and His Messenger ﷺ comes first.

After that, each spouse fulfills their obligations and seeks their rights.

This is how the family is built, Allah willing.

Well Shaykh, nowadays families have become small, having only two or three children.

— You mean they have few children? — Yes, few.

And the reason might be financial constraints. Is this exaggerated?

Of course it is exaggerated.

Sometimes some people say,

"I don't want many children so that I can raise

and care for them properly." That is their right.

But others say, "I don't want many children; how can I provide for them?"

If it's about provision, that's impermissible. Allah ﷻ says: "Do not kill your children..."

"from poverty; We provide for you and for them."

And He says: "Do not kill your children for fear of poverty; We provide for them and for you."

So if it says "from poverty", meaning poverty already exists, then "We provide for you and for them."

If it says "for fear of poverty", meaning poverty might occur in the future,

then "We provide for them"—their provision comes with them. You see?

Therefore, a person is not allowed to refrain from having children on the pretext of expenses,

"How will I spend on them?" This is not permissible.

This undermines one's reliance upon Allah ﷻ.

One must trust Allah ﷻ; every child comes with their provision.

The Prophet ﷺ said in a hadith from Abu al-Darda (RA):

"The creation of each one of you is gathered in his mother's womb for forty days,

then a drop for a similar period, then a clot for a similar period, then a lump of flesh for a similar period,

then the angel is sent to breathe the soul into him, and is commanded to write four things:

his deeds, lifespan, provision, and whether he will be wretched or happy."

So a child's provision comes with him. It is not we who provide for him; Allah ﷻ provides for him.

So if provision is guaranteed, worrying undermines our trust in Allah ﷻ.

Yes. That is one issue.

Another issue is when someone says, "No, I want to take care of him, raise him, and attend to his needs."

Or if the woman says, "I get exhausted—

meaning child after child, with only pregnancy between them, nine months of pregnancy and a year between them—

'I'm exhausted; I can't manage this one or that one'—

she may take a break; no harm in that, right?

If she says, "We need to focus on upbringing and care," no harm in that.

But if it's due to fear of provision, that's not permissible, right?

And look, even the issue of saying, "No, two children are enough," or "a boy and a girl," or "two boys and a girl"...

Well, when we go to the cemetery now,

don't you find buried youth aged seventeen, eighteen, twelve, or fifteen?

So if I say now, "I only want one boy and one girl," and one dies—

he dies after fifteen years—

what then? If she had tubal ligation, or grew old, or the like, would you then go adopt?

Have children—two, three, four... What is the problem?

Five, six... Tomorrow, they will support one another,

along with their cousins. The family grows, and worship of Allah ﷻ increases on earth.

So one should not look at it from a material perspective nor a social perspective, but rather look—

meaning, if the woman's health suffers,

Right? If he can raise and care for them, he shouldn't say, 'I'll stop, two or three are enough for me.' That is not right at all.

Mm, excellent. Sheikh, what about fear of the evil eye and envy regarding children?

I see two approaches. One side posts pictures of their kids, takes them everywhere, and thinks it's normal,

'Allah will protect them; it's fine to post their photos.'

Others don't post photos and even avoid visits, fearing for their children.

Between these two, what is your view?

I'm certainly against posting their photos. Against it.

Yes, don't post photos of them at all.

Some even use them for ads and commercials.

That's not permissible. Filming and posting photos is not allowed, you see?

Using them in ads attracts the evil eye; people end up envying them.

Because some people don't have children,

or people whose children are disobedient. When they see someone showing off his children, they might give them the evil eye.

This happens, and the evil eye is real, as the Prophet ﷺ said: 'The evil eye is real.'

However, one should not exaggerate their fear of envy,

nor should they ignore it completely. Just live naturally, live naturally.

Don't showcase them—'my kids, my kids'—posting their photos everywhere.

'They did this, they did that.'

We hear many stories of someone praised like this, but who has now fallen on hard times:

the child went astray, got sick, died, or the like. Why is that?

It may be the evil eye, as the Prophet ﷺ said:

'It puts a man in the grave and a camel in the pot.'

The evil eye is real. Therefore, I never advise anyone

to share news about their children or home. This is sound advice.

However, one shouldn't be so afraid of envy that they keep their kids home. Live normally!

A person should live in moderation,

“Wavering between them, [belonging] neither to these [i.e., the believers] nor to those [i.e., the disbelievers]. And whoever Allāh sends astray - never will you find for him a way.” (Quran 4:143)

Rather, one should live very normally.

His children are there—may Allah preserve them—he prays for them, does ruqyah,

and tells them to do ruqyah on themselves. All is fine, in sha Allah.

Sheikh, is it impermissible to photograph them, or just better not to?

Well, excessive photography nowadays...

Of course, some scholars view all photography as haram,

except video—this is perhaps permissible, yes.

But still photography, which captures a static image...

some say it falls under the Prophet's ﷺ hadith: 'The most severely punished on the Day of Resurrection will be the image-makers,'

and 'Image-makers will be told: Give life to what you created.'

Now, this involves imitating the creation of Allah ﷻ,

and this definitely, definitely includes sculpting and drawing.

But do photographs fall under this or not? Scholars differ,

so one should be cautious and avoid photos as much as possible. That's one point.

The second point: we must distinguish between taking photos and keeping them on a phone versus taking photos and hanging them up.

Hanging pictures up is not permissible.

I remember Sheikh Ibn Jarrah (RH) was asked: "Can we hang pictures in the house?" He said: "It is not permissible."

"What if we put them in a room?" He said: "Also not permissible."

"Throw them out, for angels don't enter a house with a dog or an image."

So one should not take the issue of pictures lightly nowadays.

Now, people take photos of everything.

If a child is sick, they photograph him to remind him, "See, you were sick!"

If he passes, a photo; fails, a photo; eats, a photo; drinks, a photo.

Maybe the only thing left is photographing him in the bathroom!

"Remember when you went to the bathroom?"

It is not right that every single move must be recorded in video or photos.

Live your life naturally.

I don't know about you—you're young, may Allah protect you.

My parents did not photograph me, and my father's parents did not either.

Cameras and such things were not around back then.

What is the problem with living without taking pictures?

Many people have no photos of their grandfathers.

We have no picture of the Prophet ﷺ nor a drawing, though they could draw.

Nor do we have pictures of Companions (RA), Tabi'un, or Muslim scholars.

Some are just imaginary drawings...

As for later scholars, pictures of some might exist, but originally...

Why are people so obsessed with pictures?

Because nowadays, pictures have become almost sacred to people.

Feeling that every single move must be photographed.

I am really against such things.

Shaykh, you meant me! Between us, I have a photo album from childhood.

I know. May Allah protect you. They photographed you. May Allah protect your children.

If Allah wills.

Shaykh, ever since we were young, the talk was always about disobedience to parents.

We know it, in sha' Allah, but the talk was always about parental disobedience.

Indeed.

I read a quote by Ibn al-Qayyim (RH) saying that Allah will question the parent about his child on Judgment Day before questioning the child about his parent.

Your advice to parents about their children, not the other way around?

Well, look, this has unfortunately been taken out of context.

The words of Ibn al-Qayyim (RH) are undoubtedly true.

A parent will be asked about his child: what did you do,

how did you raise him, care for him, spend on him, and discipline him?

He will certainly be questioned about his son, as will the mother, and sons and daughters will all be questioned.

But some use this as a pretext: if his father scolds him, it's parental abuse!

or his mother scolds him, he claims it is parental abuse!

Can't your father speak to or scold you? Can't your mother instruct you?

If his father says, "You can't go out with your friends," he calls it parental mistreatment!

If his mother takes his phone, that is "maternal abuse."

If the father says, "No, we are not traveling today; we are not traveling this year,"

...that is "paternal disobedience"! "Our father is being undutiful to us by not taking us on holiday."

"Our mother imposed her opinion: 'No going out today.'" "Why? Let us discuss!"

"No discussion. This is my decision, and that's final."

"I told you, no going out." "No, that's not fair! Let us discuss and convince her."

That is "maternal abuse"—imposing her opinion! Now a new trend emerged:

"My father is a narcissist! My mother is a narcissist!" Why? "Well, she imposes her opinion!"

"My father imposes his opinion— a narcissist who's always right!"

Well, a father has the right to assert his opinion at home; that doesn't make him a narcissist!

These accusations have become dirt cheap now. A father is instantly accused of being tyrannical,

or narcissistic! They pull this from psychology to diagnose these illnesses at every single gesture.

I remember we had a psychology teacher—may Allah have mercy on him and all Muslims—

He used to say if someone bites their nails...

...he would analyze their personality!

That he wants to do something, or that he lacks affection!

If someone rests their hand like this, it means something else. Every movement had a meaning to him!

Even our colleagues back then used to say he had lost his mind a little, from how much...

Every movement, even if spontaneous at times, had a hidden meaning to him.

So he began suspecting everyone: "This one means this, that one means that..."

Now they reject parents having opinions: "My dad is a narcissist! Only his opinion matters!"

"My mother is unyielding; she doesn't listen!" Well, look here...

A ten- or eleven-year-old demands to be heard! A fifteen- or sixteen-year-old...

Fine, you are not a child, but you do not force your opinion on your parents.

So now parents are accused of refusing discussion, under the pretext of imposing their opinion.

Let him impose his opinion! It's his right, his home! He's the father or mother!

Back in our day—may Allah have mercy on our parents and yours, and all who listen—

they gave us no say in such matters,

and we got our share of slaps, beatings, and scoldings.

Yet we never called them narcissists or criticized them. We lived normally, loving and cherishing them.

Though they imposed their opinions, it never reached this point.

Now parents are accused of all sorts of things, claiming: "They don't give us our rights!"

When in fact, the children want more than their rights.

So this was the point I wanted to start with. Excuse me.

As for the matter of parents needing to fear Allah regarding their children, this is undoubtedly true.

The Prophet ﷺ said—its chain is Hasan, before Ibn al-Qayyim: "Each of you is a guardian and responsible for his charge."

The ruler is a guardian and responsible for his subjects; a man is a guardian in his house and responsible for his charge;

a woman is a guardian in her house and responsible for her charge;

a servant is a guardian of his master's property. Indeed, each of you is a guardian and responsible for his charge."

Ibn al-Qayyim's words are based on this hadith.

the Hadith of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, that the father and mother must fear Allah regarding their children.

Now, I am not saying there are no undutiful parents—there are.

But there has been an exaggeration in attacking the father or mother under the pretext that they impose their opinion.

They don't want parents imposing opinions: "Convince me!" That is not right.

Not everything needs to convince you! "I just don't feel like letting you go out; that's it, I don't want to convince you."

You must obey him, he is your father! Or the mother says, "No, I want you to stay with me today, I don't want you going out."

"You're imposing your opinion!" So what? She is a mother!

If not on you, then on whom should she impose it?

If this were a recurring habit, we could say she has reached narcissism or dominance,

meaning an inability to accept another opinion.

But if it only happens occasionally, what is the problem with a mother or father asserting their opinion?

So there is exaggeration in this regard. But if you ask me if there are bad parents, yes there are.

There are bad fathers, and there are bad mothers,

and there are bad sons, and bad daughters, but the majority are good—

whether parents or children, the majority are good.

But saying they are good does not mean there is nothing bad.

You cannot hide the sun; there is good and there is bad,

but alhamdulillah, goodness and piety are far more common.

These exceptions—whether fathers, mothers, sons, or daughters—do exist,

but we must fear Allah ﷻ regarding them, advise them, remind them of Allah ﷻ, and point out what is wrong.

A father must also grant his children some freedom and room for discussion.

I was just—let me say it again, same thing.

Someone was telling me, "My father posts on Twitter"—

I still call it Twitter, of course.

"It's X! We don't call it Twitter anymore."

He said, "My father posts on Twitter, discussing things with people a lot."

He said, "I interacted with him on Twitter under a pseudonym, so he wouldn't know it was me."

So he was discussing a topic, and I disagreed with what he was presenting.

For instance, my father brought up polygyny, being in favor of it,

while I expressed the opposite view. So we both gave our opinions, like anyone else.

How did he reply, not knowing me? He said, 'I respect your view but disagree.'

Nice.

'Your opinion is respected and you can state it,' not knowing it was his son.

He said, 'I respect your opinion, but I disagree.' And that was it.

Nice. This was on Twitter.

Next day at lunch, I asked, 'What do you think of polygyny?'

He said, 'I support polygyny.' But when I disagreed, he told me to shut up!

And I was the same person from yesterday!

Why say 'I respect your opinion' to a stranger, but tell your own son to shut up?

So the father was wrong here. He should have respected his opinion, just as before.

He's not a stranger—he's your son. Discuss it with him!

Say, 'No, my son, it's actually like this.'

But telling your son like that, you know what I mean?

It carries a belittling tone. Luckily, the boy took it with a laugh,

he accepted it, but someone else might rebel.

Oh Um Sarah, he comes to you,

a stranger gets 'I respect your opinion,' but your own son gets told to shut up?

So the point is that parents must listen to their sons and daughters. And in the end,

it comes down to the phrase: "Say whatever you want, and we will do whatever we wish."

I'll hear you out, but my decision stands.

I respect it, but my decision will prevail.

Sheikh, regarding the concept of Qada and Qadar, I honestly want... I don't disagree with you.

You've moved away from marriage now.

Yes, but within the family.

Go ahead. — Because I could dedicate a whole episode to Qada and Qadar.

But how do I understand Qada and Qadar in the family context?

How do I help my children, myself, and my wife truly believe in this, especially since a family faces many trials, like illness?

It is necessary... As a father, as the Prophet ﷺ said: "All of you are guardians, and all of you are responsible for your wards."

One of the father's responsibilities is to teach his children and wife understanding of the religion, right?

Educating his children and his wife—among these matters is educating them on the pillars of faith and the pillars of Islam,

explaining to them the Hadith of Jibreel (AS),

when he came to the Prophet ﷺ and asked him, "What is Islam?"

He said: "To testify that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger,

perform prayer, pay Zakat, fast Ramadan, and perform Hajj if you are able."

"What is faith?" "To believe in Allah, His angels, His books, His messengers, the Last Day, and decree—its good and bad."

"What is Ihsan?" "To worship Allah as if you see Him; if you don't, He sees you." And so on.

So here, the father's role is to educate his family on the rulings of Sharia, whether in the pillars of faith, the pillars of Islam,

the general duties upon them, the manner of prayer, the manner of fasting—all these things.

So among this, as you mentioned, is teaching them about Qada and Qadar, right?

or how to believe in Qada and Qadar. If he cannot explain it himself, he can read to them the words of the scholars.

Alhamdulillah, explanations abound. He can find a scholar's explanation of Qada and Qadar,

what Qada and Qadar is and its relation to man, explaining it to them, thereby strengthening their faith in Qada and Qadar.

Faith in Qada and Qadar, Abu Ali, is very comforting, right? It makes light...

everything that befalls you, whether good or evil,

right? Because even good things can sometimes hurt, right?

Some people receive good news and die of joy;

they may have a stroke from sheer joy—it overwhelms them.

That is why Allah ﷻ says:

“No disaster strikes upon the earth or among yourselves except that it is in a register before We bring it into being - indeed that, for Allāh, is easy -”

“In order that you not despair over what has eluded you and not exult [in pride] over what He has given you. And Allāh does not like everyone self-deluded and boastful -” (Quran 57:22-23)

Don't over-rejoice, nor over-grieve.

Be moderate. Why? Say: "Allah decreed, and what He willed, He did."

So joy is reasonable, and grief is reasonable.

Neither should exceed its limit.

If we instill this in our children, right?

And even in our wives—belief in divine decree and predestination,

and that everything is written—

“Say, "Never will we be struck except by what Allāh has decreed for us; He is our protector." And upon Allāh let the believers rely.” (Quran 9:51)

gives children a kind of courage, right?

"Nothing befalls you except what Allah has written." The pens are lifted and the pages have dried.

So, I believe faith in divine decree and predestination is very, very comforting.

Any calamity in this life: "Allah has decreed, and whatever He wills, He does."

That is why Allah ﷻ taught the believers who, when calamity strikes,

“Who, when disaster strikes them, say, "Indeed we belong to Allāh, and indeed to Him we will return."” (Quran 2:156)

...we return."

When the Prophet ﷺ lost his son Ibrahim,

he said: "The eye tears, the heart grieves, but we say only what pleases our Lord. To Allah we belong and to Him we return."

That is all.

So belief in divine decree (Qada' and Qadar) is deeply comforting.

I recall an incident with a relative—my cousin, may Allah have mercy on him.

He had a car crash; he, his wife, and children all died—may Allah have mercy on them.

We went to the cemetery to bury them, and his brother—the deceased's brother—

sat alone in a corner weeping for his brother, his wife, and his children.

I sat beside him: "Assalamu Alaikum." I don't recall if he replied—he was deeply devastated.

His name was Ahmad, and the deceased was named Khalid.

So I said, "Ahmad." He replied, "Yeah?" looking at me as he sat on the curb.

I said, "Ahmad." He said, "Yeah?" I asked, "Did Khalid die before his appointed time?"

He looked at me and said, "Huh?" I asked, "Did Khalid die before his appointed time?" He said, "No."

I said, "So Allah decreed that he would die on this day?" He said, "Yes."

I said, "And Allah decreed that he, his wife, and his children would die?" He said, "Yes."

I said, "And Allah decreed they die this way—their car burning with them inside, may Allah have mercy on them?"

I said, "If Allah decreed that they die in this manner..."

He told me—while I spoke, a tear stopped; I was looking at his face—

Right? 'And Allah decreed they die this way.' He said to me,

"Yes." I told him, "Khalid doesn't need your tears; he needs your du'a. Pray for him."

So he stopped weeping and began praying for him.

Belief in divine decree (al-Qada' wa al-Qadar) brings peace to a person.

No matter how great a calamity is, right? It remains: 'To Allah we belong and to Him we shall return.' This is what believers say.

So surely in marital life, whenever any problem occurs, one says: 'Allah has decreed, and whatever He willed has happened.'

This lets us know how to move past it; what has passed is past.

Let us not sit crying over the past, but let us fix the present and the future.

Sheikh, know why I asked? Besides loving to discuss divine decree,

I remembered a few people to whom Allah has given children with disabilities.

So I thought about how I could convey a message to them today,

or advice to anyone whom Allah has given a disabled or sick child, or even a parent? What would you say to them,

especially someone Allah tested with a child who has a condition?

Well, look, some people ask me about this matter,

that every time she is pregnant in advanced months, the doctor tells them that the child—

has something wrong.

—has a disability right now while in the womb,

'he might have Down syndrome, for instance, or have mental impairment,

or be deformed, or turn out like this or like that.'

So some of them ask: 'Can I abort the baby?' and so on.

I issue them a fatwa, telling them: 'Look, this child currently in your womb...

—and sometimes the husband asks—

saying: 'If this newborn turns out as they say, coming about just as doctors predicted...'

and often it will happen as doctors said, though not with certainty, but mostly yes—

well, if this happens, it could be the very reason for you entering Paradise.

Your care for this child and attending to his needs might be your way into Paradise,

'that Allah granted me a disabled child,

and I strived in raising and caring for him...'

This can be the reason for entering Paradise.

So one should praise Allah in all circumstances,

and I tell them: 'It is not permissible to abort it; fear Allah regarding him,

if he is born as doctors say. Yet it may not be exactly as they say, and Allah knows best.'

The point here is that belief in divine decree (al-Qada' wa al-Qadar) eases this matter.

We say: 'Allah has decreed, and all praise be to Allah.'

And when something pleasing came to the Prophet ﷺ,

he said, "Praise be to Allah by Whose grace good deeds are accomplished,"

and if something displeased him, he would say, "Praise be to Allah in all circumstances."

So a person should praise Allah ﷻ, accept what He gives,

take care of it, and strive; and Allah ﷻ is the Preserver. Right.

Sheikh, before I ask the general questions—which are the final concluding questions of the episode—

there's a topic on the family we haven't touched upon.

I'd like this episode to be a reference for every family...

You have the prepared notes... —I'll ask the general questions. —Go ahead.

Sheikh, you talked about money

or the concept of rizq. I recall you saying that people now work morning and evening,

even having their wives work in the hardest jobs, all for rizq,

especially nowadays. The Quran says: "walk through its regions and eat of His provision,"

and trade—Uthman ibn Affan RA and many Companions RA were merchants.

So is there any harm in striving for rizq,

even working morning and evening, especially in these difficult times?

And are you against women working, or do you disapprove of women working?

First of all, sustenance is already written; that is the most important point.

The second issue you raised about changing circumstances—we spend excessively.

We are not living within our means; we are living beyond them,

even though, by Allah's grace, we have plenty. Yet we insist on living like this:

For example, once married, one insists on a separate flat. Live with your family!

Living with your family costs you nothing,

if there is space, of course—and most people, God willing, have space.

So live with your family, or get a small apartment.

Why rent an entire floor? Why rent a huge apartment?

Why pay 500 in rent for two people? Rent for 300 or 250 instead—a small flat,

and that's it, alhamdulillah. Why—why must there be a vacation every year?

"I want my wife to work to take money from her"— even entertaining such a thought...

In my entire life—not to self-praise— I don't recall my wife ever treating me out.

Every 5 outings, I tell her dinner is on her, and then I end up paying for it myself!

It's not that I demand it from her—I just pay because I feel it is my duty.

I am the husband, I am the provider; it is not for my wife to support me.

Now, a'udhu billah, it has truly become: "I pay half the rent, you pay half."

"I pay for the boy's schooling, you pay for the girl's"—meaning paying for private school.

"For travel, I pay for the tickets, you pay for accommodation."

Then they say, "Men are qawwamun." What qawwamun? You ruined that yourself!

And so the wife now competes with her husband, saying, "I am spending just like you.

I am paying half the rent.

I pay for one child's schooling, you pay for the other; you pay for this one, I pay for that one."

You see? She competes with him even in his exclusive duty: financial support,

which is actually his obligation. Why? Because they are going overboard beyond their needs.

Why must they go to private school? Why must there be a vacation trip every year?

Why must it be a long trip? Why must it be to expensive countries?

Why must I shop while traveling?

Unnecessary expenses are incurred.

I find no better phrase: unnecessary.

They border on squandering and extravagance, under the pretext of having fun.

No one said do not enjoy yourself, but not in this manner.

So now, many young men stipulate that the wife must work to help him.

This is impermissible. You are responsible for financial support, not her, for you to stipulate that she work to help you.

Hardly any woman doesn't work now. Even families tell her, 'No, you must work to help your husband.'

Now it has reached even the home: 'We buy a house half and half.' Then if a divorce occurs,

you end up in court with endless problems. Why? By default, financial support and housing fall on you as a man.

If he says, 'I don't have my own place,' live within your means. We are blessed;

the state here in Kuwait gives you—if you want private housing, it provides it for you.

If you want land to build on, they give you land to build on.

If you want a loan to buy land wherever you wish, that is available too.

So the issue is that our demands exceed

we demand things beyond what we actually need.

So if a man stipulates that the woman must work and pay half like him, this is impermissible. This is wrong.

By default, a woman's place is the home, not work. She has come to compete with men in their jobs.

So my view regarding work is that a woman should not work; she stays at home.

And the government, praise be to Allah, here now—I don't know at what age,

56 or something like that—gives a housewife allowance.

At a certain age, they give her a housewife allowance—a monthly sum of 500, 600, or something like that.

They give it to her as a housewife: you stay at home and receive a stipend as a homemaker.

Other than a divorcee... I mean a married woman with children; she gets an allowance, but only at a certain age.

And I wish that this allowance were given beyond just that age group, to any married woman.

If the government has the capacity—may Allah grant them success—to give this same amount to every married woman who doesn't work,

without having to reach a certain age. From the moment she marries: "If you don't work, here is a state allowance for you."

But women don't want that! Even if they offer it, they refuse: "What is 500?"

"My salary is 2,000! My salary is 1,600! 500 is not enough for me!"

That is a different matter altogether.

"What will I do sitting at home? I want to work!"

"I want to work! What will I do at home? It's boring!"

Well, was staying at home boring for my mother? Or my grandmother—

—was staying at home boring for her?

Now, all women—except those upon whom Allah ﷻ has mercy, and how few they are—

find being at home boring. "I must work! I must do this, I must do that, I must do that."

So she needs to bring a maid, to bring a nanny, under what pretext?

"Who raised my kids? She did."

"Now I work, I can't raise them." And this is assuming she works a normal job,

meaning from 7 to 1. But what if she leaves from 7 to 3?

What if she works... let's say, what do they call it? Shifts...

...or night shifts where she's away a full day. Quite a hassle.

Granted, we need women working in certain fields, but in very limited areas: nursing, teaching, you know...

There are reasonable fields. But now, she competes with men in everything,

under the pretext: "I don't want this, I want a salary."

Well, the man at home is spending on you; why do you need a salary?

And we are given a marital allowance and the like. But imagine...

A man earning 2,000 Dinars, and his wife says, "She must work; 2,000 isn't enough." Come on!

Why aren't 2,000 enough for you? He says, "My rent is 600,

and my car is on installments—I bought a car for 40,000, 50,000, 20,000, or whatever.

I have trips, I have this and that." He lives the life of kings!

Live a normal life, and praise be to Allah, nothing will be lacking.

He can live a decent life,

but cut back on expenses.

Unfortunately, we now have exaggerated expenses between spouses,

and this resulted in the woman having to work and help the man,

to the point that the man now commands her to do so:

"Go work! I want a working wife, I want a wife to help me."

"Everything is expensive." No, not everything is expensive.

Rather, you are demanding expensive things.

You demand a trip every year, you demand a car of a specific brand or model, and so on.

You demand an apartment of a certain size or in a certain location, and so on.

You exaggerate: "We want our kids in private schools."

Surely, if these are your expenses, by Allah, even if your parents worked and gave you their salaries,

it wouldn't be enough, because people exaggerate greatly in spending.

I got married while I was still studying.

My stipend... I was at Imam Muhammad ibn Saud University in Qassim.

They gave us 1,300 riyals a month, which is about 100 dinars.

- But 100 dinars back then was... - It was good.

They gave us 1,300, then reduced it to 850. You put an evil eye on me just now!

They reduced it to 850. And Kuwait used to give us 50 dinars—just fifty.

Right? 50 dinars from Kuwait, and there they gave us, let's say, 80 or 100 dinars. Right?

My wife and I were comfortable and getting by, alhamdulillah.

My family helped me from time to time when I asked them.

I'd ask my brother Abdul Rahman, may Allah have mercy on him, or my father,

"I need 100 dinars, 200, this or that," and we managed.

Imagine now if a married man only has 150 dinars—he'd lose it!

Alright? We got by just fine.

Our house back then was simple and modest. Right?

I'm not sure I should say this—Um Muhammad might get upset, but anyway.

Our mattress was on the floor; no bed, just a floor mattress.

That's normal for a bedroom...

A plastic wardrobe—not even wood—a plastic zippered wardrobe.

And I tell you, since I got married, my friends had lunch at my place every day.

Really?

Every day, except Friday of course, or Thursday. During university,

they'd come from campus to my home, and lunch was ready.

Um Muhammad used to cook lunch for all of us. Lunch was ready, and we lived happily.

No pretense or extravagance, alhamdulillah, things were good.

Now things are exaggerated a bit, claiming "It's not enough!" No, by Allah, it is. May Allah help us.

But Shaykh, you seem a bit against them sharing costs. If she is willing to contribute, is that fine?

My problem is you'll get me in trouble with—

No, on the contrary! So that people can benefit.

In my view, a man should borrow from a friend rather than take money from his wife.

Not borrow—take from his friend rather than his wife.

Take from his brother rather than—they have a private school plan.

I don't care about any plan; that's not my concern.

Even if you plan to put your kids in private schools, ask a friend,

ask your brother, but don't take from your wife.

The wife must feel that he is responsible for expenses.

He shouldn't make his wife feel like he's asking for money. Right?

Otherwise, if divorce happens, she'll say, "I spent, I gave, I did this and that."

Alright? Be the one in control. You are the maintainer, the head of the house.

You are responsible for your kids' maintenance. If she says, "I'll help," say, "Please don't help me." Right?

Your money is yours to spend as you wish; it's your right.

Buy gold, buy clothes, give charity, give your family,

give your children, but not as maintenance. Maintenance is my duty. Right?

Give what you want; your money is yours, I won't interfere. Right?

But do not ask your wife. Do not ask her for money.

Make her feel that you are responsible for the house—"I am responsible."

Even if she says, "I'll help you," say, "No thanks, don't help me." Right?

Keep your money and spend it as you wish, or save it.

Work in business, do as you like; I have no problem.

But the house is my responsibility, and I spend according to what I have. That's all.

That is my point of view:

a man shouldn't borrow from his wife or let her contribute.

Not out of bad intentions—no, but tomorrow you might get divorced,

or problems might arise between you tomorrow.

So why put a noose around my neck now, only for resentment to build up tomorrow:

'I gave,' 'I didn't give.' I am not thinking ill of wives,

but I say: you are the man; you are responsible for household expenses.

Just say: 'This is what I have. You married me knowing my salary and job, and accepted it.'

'God willing, I won't fall short in spending on the house, on you, or the children.'

'But your money is yours. May Allah protect you and bless your wealth.'

However, I am against a man taking anything from his wife, let alone making conditions,

such as: 'Tuition is on you, and housing is on me.'

'Ali's school is your responsibility, and Hind's school is mine.'

'Home furniture is your responsibility, and appliances are mine.'

No, everything is your responsibility. Everything is upon the man.

When Allah ﷻ—

"Men are caretakers of women"—

“Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allāh has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allāh would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them [lightly]. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allāh is ever Exalted and Grand.” (Quran 4:34)

"their wealth"—He didn't say "we spent."

Women do not spend; it is the man who spends.

Manage on your own as a man, then tell her, "This is my limit."

If she offers, "Let me help you," say, "No, thank you, do not help me."

She may help you if you face a certain circumstance, she may help you.

But for you to stipulate upon her, "You pay this much, half the rent is on you and half on me"—

—that is not proper at all.

My Shaykh, I was thinking about the Prophet ﷺ when he faced hardship, especially since Khadijah (RA)—

Khadijah (RA) was known to be wealthy.

Was there any financial sharing of the kind that happens nowadays, or not?

What do you mean by sharing?

I mean... sharing—

Many women were wealthy; what is the issue with that?

What's wrong with a woman being wealthy?

She may have inherited wealth or been a merchant,

doing business remotely or conducting it in person.

What prevents a woman from being wealthy? Just as there are rich men, there are rich women.

I mean she doesn't spend on the household—the money...

No, she doesn't spend. The man spends on the household.

Therefore, look at the famous Hadith...

When the Prophet ﷺ mentioned Khadijah (RA) one day,

'A'ishah (RA) felt jealous—she was one of the jealous ones.

"Why do you mention an old woman from among Quraysh, red-gumed, who died long ago?"

Meaning, "Why bring her up?" She was jealous.

Even though 'A'ishah never met Khadijah nor ever saw her.

Khadijah died when 'A'ishah was perhaps four years old,

something like that.

She never saw her nor knew her. The Prophet ﷺ was not even married to her yet.

Yet when the Messenger ﷺ mentioned Khadijah, 'A'ishah (RA) would feel jealous.

When she said that, the Messenger ﷺ stayed silent—women's jealousy.

This narration is in the two Sahihs. But there is an addition outside of the two Sahihs,

that the Prophet ﷺ said about Khadijah (RA):

"She supported me with herself and her wealth, and Allah granted me children through her."

Right? But this addition is not authentic.

Khadijah didn't give the Messenger ﷺ wealth, nor did he ﷺ take from her.

The Messenger ﷺ was not—it is true he was born an orphan ﷺ,

but it appears his father left him an inheritance; he ﷺ was not poor, but rather ascetic,

He ﷺ spent freely.

His grandfather, 'Abdul-Muttalib, was not poor.

And his father, 'Abdullah, it seems he was not poor either.

That is one point. The second point is that

it is not proven that the Messenger ﷺ took anything from Khadijah's wealth.

On the contrary, when the Prophet ﷺ spoke of his Companions one day, saying to 'Umar,

when a dispute arose between 'Umar and Abu Bakr: "Will you leave my companion for me?"

He said his famous statement ﷺ: "He supported me with himself and his wealth."

Abu Bakr (RA) supported the Prophet ﷺ with his wealth, spending it for Allah ﷻ,

and it is not established that he took from Khadijah—and Allah Blessed and Exalted knows best.

Even if he had taken from her willingly, that's fine.

Like 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud (RA)—his wife Zainab said to him: "I have zakah,

can I give it to you?" He said: "Ask the Messenger ﷺ." She asked him, and he said: "Yes."

A woman may give her zakah to her husband. But for her to maintain him—no.

And Khadijah (RA) never maintained the Messenger ﷺ at all.

He worked since he was fifteen, before marrying Khadijah (RA).

He married her after working with her in trade.

So he had financial means, especially since living expenses back then were modest, right?

There were no restaurants, no vacations, nothing of the sort, right?

The Prophet ﷺ worked when he was fifteen; he ﷺ worked with his uncle Abu Talib,

then he managed Khadijah's (RA) trade—peace and blessings be upon him.

So the Prophet ﷺ was not poor such that Khadijah (RA) spent on him.

If you ask me, "Was Khadijah rich?" Yes, Khadijah (RA) was a rich merchant.

But was the Messenger ﷺ living off her wealth? No, he was not.

The Messenger ﷺ said: "No wealth benefited me like Abu Bakr's (RA)."

And that benefited him as voluntary spending, not because he ever asked him for money. No.

In fact, during Hijrah, when Abu Bakr (RA) prepared two mounts, he ﷺ said: "For a price."

He did not just say "Thank you"; he said: "For a price"—meaning, "I will pay you."

That means he ﷺ had wealth. Maintaining nine households confirms that.

However, he ﷺ was generous.

Months would pass with no fire lit in the Prophet's ﷺ home,

because he was generous. Whatever he had, he would immediately give away in charity,

yet abundant provision would come to him ﷺ.

So the point is simply that we shouldn't rely on women's money—that's all, in short.

Borrow from your friend, not from—

Yes, borrow from your friend, not your wife.

Excellent. Now Sheikh, we've talked a bit about money and such; I want to ask about Riba (usury),

and I feel people have become lenient regarding it. What is your view on this issue?

It's all part of the same financial topic. We're returning to the exact same issue,

which is: "We want to live high." Right? Why take out a usurious loan (Riba)?

Why gamble? Why do any of that? "To give our wife luxury." It all comes back to that.

We've reached a point—someone told me... I honestly forgot,

whether the person who told me owns a travel agency or knows someone who does; I forgot.

He said the travel agency provides the man with flight tickets, accommodation, and pocket money.

Suppose he's traveling with his wife, or say with a child or two, whatever the case may be, right?

The tickets cost, say, 1,000 dinars, accommodation costs 2,000 dinars,

and they give him 2,000 dinars in cash for pocket money— 5,000 total—and he pays back 6,000.

That is Riba—taking it from a travel agency, right?

Just so that he and his wife can travel.

Why? You don't have to travel, brother.

You do not have to travel. Go to Al-Khafji, go out to the desert,

spend time in Kuwait; Kuwait is beautiful.

Kuwait is beautiful. Stay here, and praise be to Allah, it has many great places.

You do not have to travel.

Or let's say, you do not have to travel every year.

Right? Travel once every two years, a short trip, and you do not have to stay in a five-star hotel.

Stay in a three-star hotel; what's the problem?

Do not overspend, and for tickets, be smart.

I don't know much about these things, but people tell me:

"Be smart, book early, and your ticket will be cheap." Right?

Organize your affairs—be organized. Right?

And spending over there—do not spend too much. Right?

I mean, you can live happily without taking interest.

Right? Some say, "What can I do? Circumstances, necessity..." It is not a necessity.

To some people, everything is a necessity.

I know someone who was building his house,

and he went and took an interest-based loan.

I asked him, "Why did you take an interest-based loan?" He said, "To clad my house in marble."

Clad the entire house in marble!

I said to him, "Why clad it in marble? Just paint it with regular paint!"

Like Sigma coating, as they call it, or stone, or something.

Why expensive marble?

He said, "Is he going to build every year? This is the house of a lifetime."

So he went and took a usurious loan.

He sees this as a necessity, but is it a necessity? That is the point.

So what should he do?

"I want to take my family on vacation, I must take a usurious loan." That is not a necessity.

"I want to be a merchant, I need a loan." Not a necessity.

Becoming a merchant is not a necessity.

What, should everyone become a merchant? Not everyone needs to become a merchant.

If everyone were a merchant, where would the poor be? Who would we give Zakat to?

Secondly, where are the workers? Where do we find workers if everyone is a merchant?

There must be merchants and poor,

a worker, a laborer, an engineer, a doctor, and a teacher.

That is how society functions. Allah is the One whose help is sought.

No. Riba is absolutely impermissible,

using the excuse that it's a necessity.

Riba is allowed in two cases: one who is imprisoned or about to be imprisoned,

and finds no way out except taking a usurious loan to avoid prison,

or medical treatment that is unavailable,

and can't get treated—he either dies or takes riba.

This is a necessity, and necessity renders the forbidden permissible.

As for other things... He has treatment locally,

but he says, "No, treatment abroad is much better."

This is not a necessity.

"It's a necessity, what can you do?" Private tutoring is not a necessity.

Private tutoring is not a necessity.

Some people claim things are a necessity when they are not; it is just their viewpoint.

But when you discuss it with them, it turns out to be a very ordinary matter.

Sheikh, one last question I have here is about the trend of taking off the hijab.

Unfortunately, judging by the comments, it seems to be treated as something normal.

Yet when a woman puts on the hijab, it doesn't pass by unnoticed.

Why is taking off the hijab becoming widespread?

How can we prevent this, and what is the cause of it?

I hear about this, but I do not think it is widespread at all.

It exists but is not widespread, insha'Allah. But it does exist.

I met a few women regarding marriage requests

who took off their hijab—about two or three.

If you say it exists, I agree. But if you say widespread, I disagree.

You might have info I do not have, but generally, I do not think it is widespread.

If you say it exists, yes, taking off the hijab does exist.

Why does it happen? I think it is phones,

the internet, peer pressure, and misguided fatwas...

that hijab is not obligatory— no Muslim would issue such a fatwa.

It is impossible for a Muslim to issue a fatwa that hijab is not obligatory.

Rather, this is considered among the major sins.

That is why the Prophet ﷺ said: "Two groups from my nation I have not yet seen..."

"Women clothed yet naked, heads like the swaying humps of camels—

they will not enter Paradise nor smell its fragrance."

So this means that not wearing hijab is among the major sins, but she is not a disbeliever.

She is a Muslim, but she is falling short—a sinner.

So we must truly advise these women

to wear the hijab and fear Allah ﷻ,

and to stay away from these things like unveiling and so on.

However, I do not imagine it to be a widespread phenomenon,

though I might be wrong, as you might have information that I do not.

But I hear, of course, people saying there are women who have removed the hijab, and...

Allah ﷻ knows best, but it is strictly impermissible.

It is not allowed. And perhaps we are falling short in calling them and advising them.

Yes, indeed, we are falling very short,

whether she removed the hijab or never wore it at all.

Even those who never wore hijab, we also bear responsibility—

a huge shortcoming on our part in calling them and advising them about this.

We ask Allah ﷻ for guidance for all Muslim women.

Amen, Lord. Amen.

May Allah give you strength.

May He preserve and protect you.

Thanks for accepting the invitation.

And thank you for this preparation and for these questions.

May Allah bless you and benefit others through it.

Amen, Lord. Amen. May Allah protect you.

May Allah keep you safe.