I had actually compiled an article on this topic some time ago, but it still requires further editing and review. With current commitments- particularly the editing of a forthcoming book- it may be some time before it is published. I do hope to share it in the future, in shā’ Allāh.
In the meantime, I thought it might be useful to share some
basic notes from a discussion that took place in a global scholars group. These
notes are largely taken from our internal conversations and are shared here for
reflection and further exploration. If anything is unclear, feel free to ask
for clarification.
Key Points on Nafaqah and the Working Wife
1. Importance of Precision in Fiqh Discourse
It is crucial to be precise in how we articulate legal and
ethical rulings. The traditional Islamic legal tradition is consistent in
laying out default principles while also accommodating contextual application
and exceptions. When the Sharī‘ah says that the husband is responsible for
nafaqah, this is a general principle, not an unqualified absolute.
Classical scholars have outlined various scenarios where
nafaqah may be reduced or forfeited, and the four major madhāhib contain rich,
nuanced discussions reflecting diverse views.
2. The Role of Context and Individual Circumstances
The husband is recognised as the qawwām
(maintainer/protector), a role that entails both rights and responsibilities.
While qiwāmah includes financial responsibility, it is not a one way
relationship. Scholars have discussed its reciprocal dimensions, especially
when considering changing social and economic contexts.
3. Classical Discussions on Working Women
Contrary to popular belief, the question of women working is
not purely modern. Classical jurists engaged with this issue centuries ago-
even if their social realities differed. Women have historically worked in
various capacities, and classical scholars debated the implications for
nafaqah, obedience, and the marital contract. The real issue is how modern work
arrangements (e.g., remote work, full-time employment) fit into classical legal
frameworks, not whether the topic is new.
4. Legal Minimums of Nafaqah
Scholars agree that a husband’s legal obligation includes
providing:
• Basic food
• Adequate clothing
• Suitable housing
• There are others
The specifics of each (quantity, quality, and context) were
discussed in detail in classical texts, with variations based on the couple’s
standard of living.
Differences Among Scholars on the Legal Basis (‘Illah) of
Nafaqah
Scholars have differed on what legally triggers a husband's
obligation to provide nafaqah. Some of the key positions include:
Ḥabs – The wife remaining in the marital home
Tamkīn – Similar to the above
‘Aqd – The existence of a valid marriage contract
Istimtā‘ – Private marital rights
While many scholars upheld ḥabs, tamkīn, and istimtā‘ as the
basis for nafaqah, it is important to note- in my understanding- that they
approached these from an operational perspective: that is, they viewed these
conditions as consequences of the marital contract rather than stand-alone
justifications. This is a nuanced point that will be explored later.
Additionally, these terms may not resonate with modern
secular worldviews, and should be understood within their traditional context.
They are part of a broader legal and moral framework that differs fundamentally
from liberal or gender-based ideologies. Islam’s approach to marriage, gender
roles, and maintenance is not based on secular notions of equality or
individualism, but rather on justice, mutual responsibility, and divine
guidance.
Each of these positions has real legal consequences. For
instance, those who view ḥabs as the cause for nafaqah may hold that if a wife
is frequently absent from the home (e.g., working long hours outside), her
entitlement to nafaqah may be partially or fully forfeited.
Further Nuanced Discussions in Classical Fiqh
Classical jurists explored a wide range of related scenarios, including:
• Whether the husband’s consent to his wife’s work changes
the ruling. For example, some held that if the work serves a communal need
(e.g., teaching), the husband should not prevent it.
• Whether remote work or part-time employment affects
nafaqah entitlements differently than full-time jobs.
• Whether the wife’s absence from the home invalidates her
claim to nafaqah, and to what extent (fully or partially).
Dozen of context-specific rulings depending on mutual
agreement, financial capacity, societal norms, and whether the work harms the
marital relationship.
Scholars have also discussed whether, if a wife works and
contributes financially to the household, her contribution is considered
voluntary (i.e., charity) or an obligation. The majority opinion is that it is
voluntary, while a minority view holds that it can become obligatory under
certain circumstances. As previously mentioned, if the couple agrees in the
marriage contract that the wife will contribute financially if she works, then
fulfilling that condition becomes wājib (obligatory) due to the binding nature
of agreed-upon terms in contracts. In the same way, some scholars argue that if
a wife stipulates in the marriage contract that her husband may not take a
second wife, he must honour that condition, and it becomes obligatory for him
to do so. However, there are also scholars who argue that such conditions are
not valid.
What This Shows
The classical fiqh literature presents detailed, case-based,
and context-aware discussions- far more nuanced than the binary or ideological
positions often promoted online. There is no one-size-fits-all ruling, and
scholars have always emphasised the importance of circumstance, context, and
niyyah (intention).
What I now normally advise is that these matters should be
discussed before marriage with a qualified scholar- someone who understands
both traditional fiqh and the realities of modern life, including psychology,
sociology, and family dynamics.
I do not impose any single position on others because I
understand that life, relationships, and human needs are complex. One couple’s
solution may not work for another. But what’s crucial is that marriage
contracts and expectations are clear, honest, and realistic- not based on
romantic ideals or online ideologies.
We must avoid falling into the traps of modern gender wars,
whether from feminist or “red pill” perspectives. Criticising feminist ideology
does not mean ignoring women’s rights, and rejecting the red pill movement does
not mean neglecting men’s responsibilities or struggles.
These ideologies are
rooted in secular frameworks and reactionary worldviews- not in revelation.
Instead, we must return to the balanced, compassionate, and justice-oriented ethics of Islam, where rights and duties are honoured through trust, cooperation, and God-consciousness.
Further notes:
One of the most misrepresented and misunderstood concepts in
modern discourse is qiwāmah. Many people today reduce it to something as
superficial as “who earns more” or “who pays the bills.” But classical Islamic
fiqh offers a much deeper, more holistic understanding. Qiwāmah is not just
about who has the higher salary or who brings home the groceries. It is the
moral, spiritual, and legal responsibility entrusted to the husband by Allah.
As mentioned in the Qur’an (4:34), this responsibility is
based not just on his role as the financial maintainer of the family, but also
on the natural, divinely-ordained roles and obligations that promote harmony
and stability within the family structure.
Classical scholars, as far as I am aware, never stated that
if a woman earns more than her husband, the mantle of qiwāmah switches to her.
They discussed numerous scenarios where the wife was wealthier either before or
during marriage, and still concluded that qiwāmah remains the husband's
responsibility. The reason for this is that qiwāmah is not rooted solely in
financial provision. It is grounded in fitrah, responsibility, and divine
assignment—not in salary brackets or economic status. These recent ideas that
suggest qiwāmah switches if the wife earns more reflect assumptions rooted in
liberal secular ideologies, where gender roles are seen as a contest of power
and where equality is defined by sameness. The Islamic framework, however, is
rooted in complementarity, justice, and divine wisdom. It is not about
competition between the sexes, but about fulfilling divinely assigned roles
with mutual respect and responsibility.
Closely tied to qiwāmah is the concept of nafaqah- financial
maintenance- which is also often misunderstood. It is not a transactional
“payment for access,” as some wrongly describe it. Rather, it is a noble
obligation and part of the system of responsibility that the husband assumes
when he enters into a marriage.
According to the view that the ʿillah (legal cause) of
nafaqah is the marriage contract itself, the wife becomes entitled to
maintenance from the moment the contract is valid. However, this view does not
negate other explanations which many scholars also held. I should have
clarified that although I personally adopt the view that the marriage contract
is the primary cause, this does not mean that the other rationalisations are
irrelevant or baseless. In fact, when the evidences are looked at holistically,
it becomes clear that the other causes—like ḥabs and Tamkin are themselves
derived from the general indications of the texts.
In practical terms, the outcomes of these views are often
quite similar. The scholars were not necessarily creating contradictory legal
effects but were rather trying to identify the operational principles behind
why nafaqah is obligated. This is why there’s often overlap between their
positions regarding when nafaqah applies or when it may be forfeited- such as
in cases of nushūz, refusal of marital access, or abandonment. My own thought
process has been shaped by going behind the assumptions and reasoning (taʿlīl)
found in the fiqh texts. I found the view that anchors the obligation in the
contract itself to be more consistent with the overall framework, especially
when considered alongside the other explanations.
Going a little further, we can consider whether these
different ʿilal (legal causes) actually function together, rather than in
competition. When we reflect on the general purport of the texts and principles
found in them, we see that the marriage contract, ḥabs, and tamkīn all play a
role in establishing the husband's financial obligation and general Qiwamah.
Confusion arises when these causes are viewed in isolation.
This leads to a crucial question: what exactly is the
specific legal obligation of the wife within the marriage contract? Is it
childbearing? That’s not unique to her; legally, both spouses are involved. Is
it looking after the children? That too is a shared responsibility: the husband
provides sustenance (rizq), and the wife traditionally offers emotional support
and care. What about breastfeeding? Even this is not necessarily obligatory on
her, since many scholars held that if she chooses, she may request a wet nurse.
On a side note, it’s become common to hear people select
isolated rulings like they’re choosing from a Haribo sweet mix, devoid of
understanding the fiqh methodology or Islamic legal framework. You hear things
like: “The wife can work because Khadijah was a businesswoman”- not denying she
can work- but using this selectively. Or, “The wife doesn’t have to help
financially, that’s the husband’s job, even if he has no income.” Or, “The wife
doesn’t have to serve her in-laws.” Or, “She doesn’t have to cook for her
husband or look after the children as an obligation.” Some even go as far as
saying, “If the wife is a housewife, she should be paid a salary.”
This kind of selective fiqh (and misuse) overlooks the
deeper principles and reasoning found in the Islamic tradition. The notion of
rights and responsibilities within Islamic marriage comes from a thorough
engagement with scriptural texts and the rational explanations of jurists.
These scholars didn’t arrive at their rulings randomly or by cultural whim-
they derived them through legal reasoning based on evidence, consensus,
analogy, and juristic analysis.
Marriage is not just a contractual arrangement. It is built
on justice (ʿadl), equity (qisṭ), and fairness. If the husband is fulfilling
his obligations by paying all the bills, supporting the household, and striving
to provide emotional and spiritual guidance, but the wife is working 40+ hours
and refuses to participate in the shared responsibilities of the home or family
life, then something is out of balance. In such cases, the conditions described
in the traditional causes of nafaqah- like ḥabs and tamkīn- are arguably being
overlooked or unfulfilled. There’s even empirical and sociological research
that backs this reality: when mutual responsibilities are abandoned,
relationships deteriorate.
In other words, the default structure in the Sharīʿah is
that the husband is the financial provider, and the wife is responsible for
managing the home. These are normative- not rigid- roles. Life is complex, and
there are always exceptions due to illness, hardship, or mutual agreement. But
the legal and philosophical baseline in classical fiqh remains consistent
across the schools. Therefore, when people claim that the wife has no
responsibility in marriage except marital access and childbirth, they reduce the
Islamic vision of marriage to a dry, transactional exchange. This diminishes
the spirit of marriage in Islam, which is meant to be the foundation of a
healthy family and a cohesive ummah.
Reducing a wife’s role to these specific duties also falsely
assumes that only men biologically, psychologically, or spiritually benefit
from marriage. That is an incorrect premise. The ʿaqd al-nikāḥ is a mutual
contract, built on reciprocal rights and responsibilities. To say that a
woman’s only value in marriage is reproductive is to fall into the same
problematic thinking that plagued medieval societies in Europe. Islam- and its
jurists- never took such a one-dimensional view. While fiqh may appear legalistic,
the scholars viewed marriage holistically, recognising its emotional,
spiritual, and social dimensions alongside its legal aspects.
Before I close, I want to address something important.
Anyone who suggests or implies that the scholars of Islam were misogynists is,
knowingly or unknowingly, making a serious accusation- one that indirectly
targets Allah and His Messenger ﷺ. This type of thinking often comes from a
colonised mindset or ideological framework that prioritises secular liberal
assumptions over divine revelation. Yes, scholars, like all human beings, lived
in cultural contexts and were not immune to societal influences. But to act as
if modern Euro-American ideals are morally superior is deeply flawed. These
same secular societies that mock Islamic values continue to exploit, commodify,
and objectify women in the name of freedom.
So when someone claims that traditional Islamic gender roles
are rooted in “toxic masculinity,” they are, in effect, insulting the example
of our Prophet ﷺ- who perfectly embodied mercy, strength, and justice. His
character was the balance we all aspire to. And if any Muslim is genuinely
struggling with these issues—whether due to bad experiences, confusion, or
ideological pressure- I sincerely recommend a balanced, faith-based,
therapeutic approach. I'd even be happy to offer a discount (for sessions) if it
helps!
At the end of the day, this is not about taking sides in
culture wars. It is about understanding what Allah has revealed with honesty,
depth, and integrity. Let us rise above the ideological noise and return to the
timeless, balanced, and prophetic framework that has guided our ummah for
centuries.
As I mentioned, these are notes from discussions. I hope
people read them with empathy and reflection. I may edit this post here and
there if needed. My purpose is to encourage thoughtful discussion- without
whataboutism. I'm simply inviting people to study the topic seriously, and if
you wish to disagree, then disagree respectfully and constructively- provided
you have studied the matter properly and through formal channels.
There are many points I haven’t included due to time
constraints.
Courses
