The following are some thoughts on ongoing discussions about alimony. I want to make it clear that this is not about Sh Yasir Qadhi’s comments (whom I respect for the many contributions he is making in da’wah)-I have not watched his talk in full, only a short clip. Therefore, what I am writing is not necessarily related to what he said. And to be clear, my subsequent comments about certain writers misrepresenting the Shariah are not directed at him.
I have been thinking about these issues in Muslim family law
for over 15 years-studying, researching, and seeking guidance from my teachers.
One thing I can say about Sh Yasir’s remarks is that they are not new; these
are topics that have been discussed before. People should make a genuine effort
to understand what is being said.
Admittedly, language can always be improved
and clarified, and podcasts are not always the best medium for precise
discussion.
However, if we turn to the classical fiqh books, matters
become clearer. Our scholars were geniuses who examined these issues diligently
and with the correct usul.
The following are some reflections on related
topics; they are not intended to be exhaustive.
The discussion on alimony and related concepts ultimately
hinges on usul-the epistemological foundations that determine how Islamic
rulings are derived. One of the great achievements of the fuqaha was their
clarity in articulating their usul and frameworks, grounding their rulings
firmly in the Qur’an and Sunnah. Their determinations were not arbitrary but
flowed from a coherent methodology that took into account human nature, social
realities, and divine guidance.
Alimony vs. Muta’h
A key example of differing epistemologies is the notion of
“matrimonial wealth” as a basis for post-divorce settlements. This framework is
central in many secular legal systems but is not recognised in classical
Shariah. In Islamic law, discussions about muta’h-a consolatory gift given upon
divorce-are not predicated on the idea of joint matrimonial assets. Rather,
muta’h was understood as a way to protect a woman’s honour and dignity if she
was divorced without valid cause. Is that not a remarkable thing?
Scholars differed on whether mutah’ was obligatory,
recommended, or simply an act of generosity, and they debated its form and
amount-ranging from clothing to animals-depending on context. The wisdom
(hikmah) was to safeguard the woman’s reputation, deter harm (darar), and
preserve social harmony.
By contrast, alimony in the modern secular context is
grounded in entirely different values, often secular notions of equality,
fairness, and property rights-that are loosely defined and vary by
jurisdiction. It can entail one spouse claiming half of the other’s property,
regardless of their contribution, a practice that from the perspective of
Shariah can constitute consuming haram. This applies both ways under secular
law and has led to many social injustices. In other words, a husband who
marries a rich wife upon divorce can claim her wealth.
Misapplication of Maqasid
Some contemporary scholars, when discussing al-kadd wa
siy’at (joint marital effort), base their interpretations on modern notions of
“justice” and “equality,” often without clear definitions. They read these
values into the texts, sometimes misapplying or selectively citing earlier
fuqaha. This approach risks replacing Shariah-based principles with secular
frameworks clothed in Islamic language-a phenomenon that could be called
“cocktail fiqh.”
While it is true that justice is a core objective of the Shariah, justice is defined and operationalised by the Shariah itself. To claim that it is unjust for a spouse to receive nothing after divorce is problematic if the Qur’an and Sunnah do not frame justice in that way. Even those who argued for obligatory muta’h did so within a specific, principled context-not on the basis of modern egalitarian ideals.
Qiwama, Wilaya, and Ideological Readings
A parallel issue appears in the reinterpretation of concepts
like qiwama (male guardianship) and wilaya. Some writers accuse the fuqaha of
misogyny, alleging that they devised these concepts to oppress women. Such
claims betray a misunderstanding of both the Shariah and its legal tradition.
These critics often struggle when confronted with historical
female scholars who affirmed qiwama and wilaya. In such cases, they dismiss
these women as having been influenced or “under the spell” of men-a form of
intellectual gaslighting. Others project modern ideologies onto the Prophet ﷺ,
portraying him as a revolutionary using these concepts temporarily to reform a
corrupt society, with the implication that they should now be set aside in
favour of more “egalitarian” readings.
This reasoning is deeply flawed. It assumes the Prophet ﷺ
did not convey the divine message completely, selectively applies hadith to fit
a preconceived worldview, and raises the question: which contemporary ideology
will serve as the interpretive lens? If global power shifts and another
cultural ethos dominates, will these same interpreters adjust the Qur’an and
Sunnah to match?
The Usul of the Fuqaha
The fuqaha were not blind to social realities. They
recognised that life does not move in a straight line and accounted for
exceptions and changing contexts. Yet they built their rulings on firm usul,
not on shifting cultural tides. Their understanding of men’s and women’s roles
was grounded in the biology, psychology, and sociology of the sexes, and in the
clear guidance of revelation.
As Ibn al-Qayyim (رحمه الله) famously wrote:
"The Shariah is founded upon wisdom and the welfare of
people in this life and the next. It is entirely justice, entirely mercy,
entirely benefit, and entirely wisdom. Every matter that abandons justice for
tyranny, mercy for its opposite, benefit for harm, or wisdom for foolishness,
is not from the Shariah-even if it is introduced therein by
interpretation." (I’lam al-Muwaqqi’in, 3/11)
Fiqh must remain relevant to our lived realities, but it
must also stay true to the usul and principles of the Qur’an and Sunnah. When
secular notions of justice or equality override those principles, the result is
often misapplication of the Shariah and injustice to the very people it seeks
to protect.
Alimony, as formulated in secular systems, rests on an
epistemology foreign to the Shariah. The classical concept of muta’ hprovides an
example of how Islam addresses post-divorce dignity and fairness without
importing alien legal postulates. The challenge for contemporary scholars is
not to dress secular frameworks in Islamic garb, but to articulate timeless
principles in a way that addresses today’s realities-faithfully, coherently,
and with the wisdom of our tradition.
I hope to deliver something more substantial on these topics
soon-not necessarily spurred by these online discussions, but because I engage
in such discussions frequently. We need to protect the honour of women and men
equally, but always under divine guidance.
A. Hasan
Courses
