Azami 4187

Nasai (3757) and Abu Dawud (3547) both narrated it through Khalid bin Harith, from Husayn Muallim, from Amr bin Shuayb, that his father informed him, from Abdullah bin Amr, who mentioned it within a long sermon, this being one part of it. Ahmad (6681) likewise narrated it through another route from Husayn Muallim within a long context. What is meant by this spending is the two currencies (gold and silver), not food.In another wording, "A woman's authority over her wealth is not valid once her husband possesses her marriage tie." Nasai (3756) and Abu Dawud (3546) both narrated it through Hammad bin Salama, from Dawud bin Abu Hind and Habib Muallim, from Amr bin Shuayb, from his father, from his grandfather, who mentioned it. Ibn Majah (2388) narrated it through another route from Amr bin Shuayb, from his father, from his grandfather, who mentioned it, similarly. Hakim graded it sahih (2/47).This is to be understood as recommendation, for otherwise a woman does not need permission regarding her own wealth. Most scholars take it to mean maintaining good companionship and pleasing one's husband. Otherwise, Sindi relates in his marginal notes on Nasai, from Shafii, "This hadith is not established. How could we act upon it when the Quran indicates the opposite, then the sunnah, then the precedent of the companions, then reason? It is possible that this applies in a matter of preference, like how a woman may not fast while her husband is present except with his permission, yet if she does, her fast is valid, and if she goes out without his permission and sells something, her sale is valid. Maymuna freed a slave before the Prophet ﷺ knew of it, and he did not fault her for that. This, along with other evidence, indicates that this hadith, if established, is to be understood as a matter of courtesy and preference rather than obligation."I say, as for the hadith, it is hasan. As for reconciling it with other evidence, it is as Shafii said, the matter is to be understood as courtesy and preference.