upon his liability, whether he abandoned it for an excuse or without an excuse, according to the more evident of the two narrations. This is the opinion of al-Hasan, Malik, al-Shafi'i, Ishaq, and Ibn al-Mundhir. The other narration states: her maintenance is forfeited so long as the judge has not decreed it for her. This is the school of Abu Hanifa, because it is maintenance that becomes obligatory day by day, so it is forfeited by delaying it if the judge has not decreed it, like the maintenance of relatives; and because the maintenance of the past has already been dispensed with by the passing of its time, so it is forfeited, like the maintenance of relatives. Our argument is that Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, wrote to the commanders of the armies regarding men who were absent from their wives, ordering them to either provide maintenance or divorce them, and if they divorced them, to send the maintenance for what had passed. Also, because it is a right that becomes obligatory during wealth and insolvency, it is not forfeited by the passing of time, like the rent of property and debts. Ibn al-Mundhir said: This is maintenance that became obligatory by the Book, the Sunnah, and consensus, and what became obligatory by these evidences is not removed except by their equivalent. Furthermore, it is an obligatory compensation, so it resembles wages. It differs from the maintenance of relatives, for that is a charitable gift (sila) in which the wealth of the provider and the insolvency of the recipient are considered; it is made obligatory to ease one's condition, so when its time passes, one has become independent of it, thus it resembles a case where one has become independent of it due to wealth, whereas this is otherwise. Once this is established, if he abandons maintenance for her while he is wealthy, he owes the full maintenance; but if he abandons it due to his insolvency, he is only obligated for the maintenance of an insolvent person, because the excess is forfeited by his insolvency.

Section: It is valid to guarantee maintenance, both what has become obligatory of it and what will become obligatory in the future, if we hold that it is fixed as a liability. Al-Shafi'i said: It is valid to guarantee what has become obligatory, but there are two views regarding guaranteeing future maintenance, based on whether maintenance becomes obligatory by the contract or by the availability for intimacy. The basis of the disagreement is on the guarantee of