Introduction

Discussions surrounding a wife’s obedience in marriage are often erroneous and misinformed. Certain scholarly articles online have wrongly attributed to the Hanafi madhhab (school of law) the claim that a wife must obey her husband in all permissible matters; whether something as significant as serving his parents or as trivial as replacing a shampoo cap. This article will explain why such claims are incorrect and will clarify the Hanafi school’s actual position using the most authoritative and widely relied upon books of the school.

When a well-seasoned ustadha—who has been serving and educating women for over two decades—approached me with questions about a wife’s obedience, I was dismayed to find that her understanding and research stemmed from the same online articles. This begs the question: If those who dedicate their lives to educating and supporting women still hold misconceptions about such a fundamental matter, how can we truly serve our sisters?

Fiqh, the Sunnah, and our Dīn are our greatest sources of empowerment; we must reclaim them through sound knowledge and take them from those grounded in authentic scholarship.

Important Points to Keep in Mind

Firstly, it was a challenge to write this article in a way that stays true to scholarly, fiqh-based discussions while considering sisters from all walks of life—especially those who have been wronged through misapplication of the fiqh. Additionally, as someone who teaches a six-month course dedicated to expounding these issues, it is of the utmost importance to me that they are given the attention they deserve—something this article alone cannot fully accomplish. Hence, it is important to acknowledge its limitations: this is merely a technical study on the topic of obedience, not a reflection of Islamic marriage as a whole.

Secondly, before discussing the details of obedience in marriage, it is essential to remember that all rulings in fiqh are subject to the broader maxims of the Sharīʿah (qawāʿid fiqhiyyah) and the principles of usūl al-fiqh. This means that rulings are not absolute in every situation but must be applied within the correct context.

For example:

• A wife does not need her husband’s permission to leave the house if staying poses a threat to her safety.
• She is not obligated to engage in intimacy if it would cause her harm.

These exceptions and others are explicitly mentioned in classical fiqh texts, and demonstrate that Islamic law always considers necessity (ḍarūrah) and harm (ḍarar) when applying rulings. Understanding these nuances ensures that we do not misapply legal rulings in ways that contradict the broader objectives of the Sharīʿah (maqāṣid al-Sharīʿah), which emphasize the preservation of essential interests—religion (dīn), life (nafs), intellect (ʿaql), lineage (nasl), and wealth (māl)—together with consideration of human capacity and the prevention of harm.¹Human capacity means that obligations only apply within a person’s ability. For example, if one can’t pray standing, she sits.

Lastly, as this article focuses solely on the issue of obedience, it does not address a wife’s rights in marriage. Women have rights parallel to and in addition to those of their husbands. Just as a husband has the right to intimacy, so does his wife. She also has the right to privacy and personal space, free from anyone who annoys or harms her. In practice, this means that a husband must ensure his wife’s comfort and consent before bringing guests into shared spaces within the home. These are a few examples, and a comprehensive treatment of a wife’s rights requires deeper exploration beyond the scope of this article.

With these points in mind, we begin the topic at hand: 

Our Beloved Prophet ﷺ said, “If a woman prays her five prayers, fasts her month, guards her chastity, and obeys her husband, she will be told: Enter Paradise from whichever of its gates you wish.”²Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad Ahmad, Hadith no. 1661.

This and other narrations like it have been understood literally to mean a wife must obey her husband’s every request. However, fiqh is taken from fuqaha (the jurists/scholars of fiqh) and hadith from muhadithoon (scholars of hadith)³ In a well known narration, Imam al-A‘mash, the exegete and hadith scholar, says to Imam Abu Hanifa, the jurist and founder of the madhhab: “O group of jurists, you are the doctors, and we are the pharmacists.”. So, what is the ruling of obeying one’s husband according to the jurists? 

When we go back to the books of fiqh (Islamic law), we find that obedience to the husband is very specific and can be summarized in two points: 

1. Intimacy and what it entails;
2. Permission to leave the house.

According to the Hanafi school, these are the only domains in which obedience is required. The following discussion presents the textual evidence from authoritative Hanafi works that establishes this position.

I. Intimacy

Zayn al-Din ibn Ibrahim ibn Nujaym al-Misri, a distinguished Hanafi jurist, outlines the limits of a wife’s obedience in his authoritative work Bahr al-Ra’iq (The Clear Sea)⁴Zain al-Din Ibn Ibrahim Ibn Muhammad Ibn Nujaym (d. 970 AH/1563 CE), Bahr al-Ra’iq (The Clear Sea) is a commentary on Kanz al-Daqaa’iq (The Treasure of Subtleties), one of the foundational texts of the Hanafi school by Abū al-Barakāt ʿAbd Allāh b. Aḥmad al-Nasafī (d. 710/1310), a prominent Hanafi scholar.. He says: 

“…a woman is not obligated to obey her husband in everything he commands. Rather, obedience is required only in matters of marriage (nikah) and its related aspects, especially if his command would cause her harm…”⁵Ibn Nujaym, Al-Bahr al-Ra’iq Sharh Kanz al-Daqa’iq, vol. 5, p. 77, Dar al-Kitab al-Islami, 3rd ed.

Obedience, therefore, is obligatory only in marriage-related issues. “Marriage” here—i.e., nikāḥ as used by the jurists—“is used literally for sexual relations.⁶ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Ḥaṣkafī, Al-Durr al-Mukhtār Sharḥ Tanwīr al-Abṣār (The Chosen Pearl on The Illumination of Insights), vol. 3, p. 5, Muṣṭafā al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī, 3rd ed., 1984.” In other words, in the language of fiqh, the word nikāḥ refers to sexual relations, not merely to the contract or to marriage in general. This is further confirmed in Ibn ‘Abideen’s Hashiyah:

“[Sexual relations] is the meaning of [the word nikāḥ] in the Sharīʿah and in the language.⁷Ibn ʿĀbidīn, Ḥāshiyat Radd al-Muḥtār ʿalā al-Durr al-Mukhtār Sharḥ Tanwīr al-Abṣār, vol. 3, p. 5, Muṣṭafā al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī, 3rd ed., 1984.” 

This is demonstrated by the fiqh rulings. For example, it is imperative to seek the husband’s permission when he is home, and the wife wants to fast a nafl (optional) fast, as this may come in the way of his desire for intimacy. Also, if he asks her to take a ghusl (the obligatory purificatory bath) upon completion of her menstruation in order to be intimate, it would be obligatory upon her to do so, as this relates to his right to intimacy.

The aforementioned explicit text (nass) from the Bahr qualifies all general texts on a wife’s obedience in the Hanafi school. Accordingly, the Hanafis interpret all hadith narrations on a wife’s obedience as referring specifically to intimacy-related matters. 

Likewise, this is affirmed in other major Hanafi works. In Badāʾiʿ al-Ṣanāʾiʿ fī Tartīb al-Sharāʾiʿ (The Marvels of the Crafts in the Arrangement of the Legal Codes), Abū Bakr b. Masʿūd al-Kāsānī (d. 587 AH/1191 CE) says in the chapter on the legal consequences of the marriage contract: 

“Section: The obligation of a wife to obey her husband if he calls her to the bed.

(Section): Among [the legal rulings of marriage] is the wife’s duty to obey her husband if he calls her to the bed.⁸Abū Bakr b. Masʿūd al-Kasani, Badāʾiʿ al-Ṣanāʾiʿ fī Tartīb al-Sharāʾiʿ, vol. 3, p. 613, Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 2nd ed., 2003.”

Al-Kāsānī is known for the meticulous detail of his legal analysis. By qualifying obedience specifically to the instance when a wife is called to the marital bed, he indicates that obedience is not intended to be absolute in all matters. Had he understood it as general, he would have simply stated, “Among the consequences of the marriage contract is the wife’s obedience to her husband,” without mentioning any such qualification.

A question may arise here: what about the many other texts that speak of obedience in general terms? Why set those aside in favor of this more specific understanding?

This approach precisely follows the guidelines for issuing fatwas (legal edicts). Muhammad Amin ibn ‘Umar ibn ‘Abideen (d. 1252 AH/1836 CE), known as the “Seal of the Scholarly Verifiers” (خاتم المحققين), outlined these principles in his work ‘Uqud Rasm al-Mufti (The Treatise on the Duties of the Muftī), stating explicitly: “… specifying something in textual transmission implies the negation of anything beyond it.⁹Muhammad Ameen Ibn Umar Ibn ‘Abideen, Majmu’atu Rasaa-il Ibn ‘Abideen, quoting Ghayat al-Bayan, p. 41 (Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-Arabi, n.d.).” 

This means that when an authoritative text qualifies, or places conditions on a general ruling, that qualified ruling becomes the main and definitive position of the madhhab (legal school). It must then be applied consistently, even to other texts that discuss the issue in broader or more general terms.

Hence, no one can argue here that these few texts may not specify the more general texts, as the Bahr al-Raa-iq is an authoritative text and the rules of issuing fatwa (i.e., a formal legal opinion) dictate that this understanding/qualification of obedience is therefore applied to all texts in the Hanafi school¹⁰A more detailed explanation of intimacy and its conditions will be covered in another article, in shā’ Allāh..

II. Permission to Leave the House 

A wife’s obligation to remain in the home unless given permission by her husband to go out is closely connected to the obligation of intimacy, as it is regarded as a means of fulfilling that right.

Imam al-Haskafi says in his al-Durr al-Mukhtar: 

“There is no financial maintenance (nafaqah) for the woman who leaves [her husband’s] house without right…”¹¹Al-Ḥaṣkafī, Al-Durr al-Mukhtār, vol. 3, p. 604-5.

This ruling establishes that if a wife leaves the home without justification, she forfeits her financial rights as a wife, since marital maintenance (nafaqah) is provided in return for her physical presence in the marital home.

There are details to what is considered ‘justified’ in going out, as Imam Ibn ‘Abidīn highlights in his commentary on al-Haskafi’s Durr al-Mukhtar:

[Al-Haskafi’s] statement “so she must not go out, etc.”… meaning: “If she has received (the dowry), then she must not go out, etc.”…According to the apparent implication of the text, if she has received her dowry, she is not allowed to go out—even for necessity or to visit her family without his permission.

However, there are cases where she is permitted to go out, even without his permission¹²Emphasis added., as mentioned by the commentator (shāriḥ). This is explicitly stated in his commentary on al-Multaqa (The Joining of the Two Seas), citing al-Ashbāh (Analogies and Similar Cases): “Similarly, she may go out if she wishes to perform the obligatory Hajj with a maḥram, or if her father is chronically ill and requires her service, for example…”¹³Ibn ‘Abideen, Ḥāshiyat, vol. 3, p.154.

There are also other exceptions to the rule requiring a wife to seek her husband’s permission before going out—such as when she is a midwife or a woman who washes the deceased—as noted by Ibn ʿĀbidīn. The detailed discussion of when a wife must seek permission and when she may go out without it warrants a separate article.

Clarification On Household Duties

Household duties are not from the husband’s rights but may be considered the wife’s responsibility based on customary practice (‘urf) and her socio-economic status.

This is mentioned explicitly by al-Haskafi in his commentary, al-Durr al-Mukhtar (The Chosen Pearl) on Tanweer al-Absaar (The Illumination of Insights):

If the woman refuses to grind flour and bake bread because she is not someone who serves [but is rather served, i.e., has servants], or if she has an illness, then he must provide her with prepared food.

However, if she is someone who normally serves herself and is capable of doing so, then he is not obligated to provide prepared food, and she is not permitted to take payment for it, as it is considered obligatory-religiously (diyānatan) upon her.¹⁴Al-Ḥaṣkafī, Al-Durr al-Mukhtār, vol. 3, p. 608.

Therefore, this duty is tied to a wife’s socio-economic background. If she comes from a wealthy family with servants and is not accustomed to cooking or performing household tasks, she is not obligated to do so in her marital home; rather, her husband must provide her with prepared food. Conversely, if she is accustomed to serving herself, then cooking becomes obligatory upon her. However, even in such a case, if she is ill or in a state in which she would customarily be cared for—such as during the postpartum period—her husband must provide her with prepared food.

The term “obligatory-religiously” (diyānatan) is used in contrast to “obligatory by law”  (qadaa-an), which is enforceable by the courts. When something is ‘obligatory-religiously’, it still means that she must fulfill it, and failing to do so would be sinful, but it is not enforced by a judge in a court of law. 

This is why household duties are not a “right” of the husband; rather, they fall under personal religious obligations, similar to a wife’s duty to nurse her child or pray witr (according to the Hanafis). These are matters between her and Allah , not something the husband can demand. A key implication of this is that the extent and manner in which she fulfills this obligation—how much she cooks and what she prepares—is her decision, as the duty rests upon her, and does not involve her husband.

Further proof that household duties are not the husband’s right is found in al-Kāsānī’s discussion on the legal consequences of marriage. When listing the obligations of the wife and the rights of the husband, he does not include household tasks such as cooking and cleaning.¹⁵Al-Kāsānī, Badāʾiʿ al-Ṣanāʾiʿ, vol. 3, p. 605.

This omission is particularly significant given that al-Kāsānī is highly detailed in this chapter, addressing matters such as inheritance, in-law relations, and even the permission of the spouses to look at and touch one another—yet this so-called “right” is never mentioned.

Conclusion

Misunderstanding obedience in marriage has led to serious consequences. The expectation of absolute obedience places an immense burden on women, resulting in stress, resentment, and, at times, oppressive treatment. For example, some husbands demand that their wives serve their in-laws—visiting their homes to clean—while still maintaining their own homes; a combination that causes significant stress and anxiety. Many women from traditionally rigid fiqh backgrounds who follow this erroneous position find themselves overwhelmed by these supposed “duties.” Sadly, as this has been accepted as the status quo, it is no wonder women are struggling in their marriages, as these expectations are both unrealistic and unfeasible.

Additionally, husbands take their wives’ service for granted, viewing it as an entitlement rather than an act of kindness. Such an understanding can readily lead to an abuse of authority, where the husband’s demands are never-ending, and the wife can never fully satisfy them. This breeds resentment and undermines the very foundation of a healthy marriage.

In conclusion, we see that it is not obligatory to obey one’s husband in matters related to in-laws¹⁶. When it comes to significant matters that affect both spouses, such as in-laws and family dynamics, both partners must exercise due consideration to ensure that each feels valued and fulfilled. Neglecting this balance can lead to resentment, ultimately undermining the maqāṣid (higher objectives) of the Sacred Law in fostering a stable and harmonious marriage., guests, or yes—even the shampoo bottle cap. The reality, as defined by the fuqaha (jurists), grants women far more autonomy than is commonly assumed. The correct understanding of obedience, rooted in legal texts, safeguards against the misuse of religious rulings to justify control, suppression, and injustice. 

As scholars have long emphasized, “rights are for the courts and the miserly,” whereas true companionship is grounded in the sublime Sunnah of our Beloved Prophet ﷺ and his Noble Family; sunnahs of mutual kindness and iḥsān (excellence). Just as a wife is expected to help fulfill not only her husband’s needs but also his preferences, he is equally expected to support hers, honoring her hopes and aspirations beyond mere needs. Ultimately, a marriage that focuses solely on rights and obligations—without regard for each other’s hopes and aspirations—may be doomed to failure or misery.

May Allah grant us the success and ability to follow the Sunnah in our marriages and bless them with love and mercy.

والحمد لله ربّ العالمين

Related:

– Podcast | Happily Ever After (Ep 2) – What Are The Limits Of Wifely Obedience?

– A Primer On Intimacy And Fulfillment Of A Wife’s Desires Based On The Writings Of Scholars Of The Past