Abu Hanifa said: He is permitted to take the amount of his right if it is a specific object, silver, or of the same genus as his right. If the property is a commodity ('ard), it is not permissible, because taking a commodity in place of his right is a reciprocal exchange (i'tiyad), and a reciprocal exchange is not permissible except with the consent of both parties. Allah the Exalted says: {unless it is trade by mutual consent among you}. Those who permitted taking it cited the hadith of Hind, when she came to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and said: 'O Messenger of Allah, Abu Sufyan is a stingy man and does not give me enough maintenance for me and my child.' He said: 'Take what suffices you and your child according to what is customary.' It is mutaffaq 'alayh (agreed upon). If it is permissible for her to take from his property what suffices her without his permission, it is permissible for the man who has a right against a man. Our evidence is the statement of the Prophet (peace be upon him): 'Render the trust to the one who entrusted you, and do not betray the one who betrayed you.' It was narrated by al-Tirmidhi, who said: It is a hasan (good) hadith. Whenever one takes the amount of his right from the other's property without his knowledge, he has betrayed him, thus falling under the generality of the report. The Prophet (peace be upon him) also said: 'The property of a Muslim man is not lawful except through his own good pleasure.' Furthermore, if he takes something of a different genus from his right, it is a reciprocal exchange without mutual consent. If he takes something of the same genus as his right, he does not have the right to designate the specific property without the consent of its owner, for the designation is up to him; do you not see that it is not permitted for him to say: 'Pay me my right from this bag rather than this one'? Also, all that he is not permitted to own when he does not have a debt, he is not permitted to take when he does have a debt, just as if he were someone willing to pay him. As for the hadith of Hind, Ahmad excused it by saying that her right was incumbent upon him at all times. This is an indication from him of the distinction regarding the hardship of seeking judgment at every moment and the litigation required every day that maintenance is due, unlike a debt. Abu Bakr distinguished between them with another distinction, which is that the subsistence of marriage is like the existence of proof, as if the right has become known through the knowledge of the existence of its necessity. There are two other differences between them: First, the woman has, by virtue of custom, a degree of latitude in his property that affects the permissibility of taking the right and making it accessible according to what is customary, unlike a stranger. Second, maintenance is intended for the preservation of life and the sustaining of the soul, and this is something one cannot be patient without, and for which there is no way to abandon, so it is permitted to take what repels this necessity, unlike a debt; to the point that we would say: if the maintenance had already passed (in time), she would not have been able to take it, and if another debt became due to her from him, she would not be able to take it.