Note: This session was held to comparatively examine jurisprudential and legal perspectives on economic support for couples unable to pay maintenance due to non-willful reasons, with detailed discussions on the obligation of economic support by the ruler and the role of judicial divorce.

The 224th scholarly session of the Family and Women’s Jurisprudence Group at the Research Institute for Contemporary Jurisprudence Studies was held with a novel and challenging topic in the field of family jurisprudence. Titled “The Role of the Islamic Government Regarding Couples Unable to Pay Maintenance,” the session took place on Sunday, 6 Mehr 1404 (September 28, 2025), both in-person and virtually, with significant participation from professors, researchers, and active contributions from members of the Family and Women’s Jurisprudence Group, including Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Dr. Hossein Bostan and Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Sajedi Amin.

At the beginning of the session, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Mahdi Davoudabadi, the secretary of the Research Center for Social Jurisprudence, Culture, and Health, outlined the objectives and framework of the series of scholarly sessions held by the Family and Women’s Jurisprudence Group. He emphasized the group’s specialized approach to addressing emerging issues in family jurisprudence, noting that these sessions provide a valuable opportunity for the exchange of scholarly opinions and comparative examination of jurisprudential, legal, and contemporary perspectives.

Subsequently, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Dr. Mahdi Saadatinasab, a member of the Specialized Family and Women’s Jurisprudence Group at the Research Center of the Institute of Advanced Jurisprudence and Islamic Sciences, presented his scholarly discussion, focusing on the jurisprudential analysis of the Islamic government’s role in addressing the phenomenon of “a husband’s subsequent inability to pay maintenance.”

Distinguishing between cases where a husband is unable to pay maintenance due to willful fault or without willful fault, he stated that the focus of this session was on the latter, i.e., “without willful fault.” He emphasized the duties that Islamic jurisprudence assigns to the government in such cases and whether the ruler’s role is limited to enforcing judicial divorce or extends to providing economic support.

Dr. Saadatinasab, reviewing the opinions of early and later jurists, discussed perspectives that consider judicial divorce as the sole jurisprudential solution in such cases. However, in his analysis, utilizing jurisprudential sources, Quranic verses, narrations, and jurisprudential principles, he argued that the Islamic government not only can but is obligated to play an economic supportive role in such situations.

Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Dr. Mahdi Saadatinasab, citing verses on zakat, khums, and fay’ (spoils of war), as well as excerpts from the letter to Malik al-Ashtar, elaborated that in Islamic sources, the poor, destitute, and those unable to provide for their family’s livelihood are entitled to economic support from the Islamic ruler. He further reinforced this view with narrations, such as those from Imam Ali (peace be upon him) to Malik al-Ashtar and the authentic narration of Musa ibn Bakr, stating that if a husband is unable to provide lawful sustenance for his family, his debt falls upon the Imam, and the ruler is obligated to pay it from the public treasury (bayt al-mal).

A key point in Dr. Saadatinasab’s discussion was the distinction between “intrinsic inability” and “relative inability with respect to others.” The member of the Specialized Family and Women’s Jurisprudence Group at the Research Center of the Institute of Advanced Jurisprudence and Islamic Sciences deemed this distinction crucial for determining the applicability of evidence for judicial divorce or financial support by the ruler, concluding that if the husband’s inability falls within the framework of intrinsic inability and economic support from the ruler is feasible, the ruling for judicial divorce may be entirely negated.

Referencing Martyr Sadr’s book Our Economy, he explained that the Islamic government can intervene in the economic issues of individuals in two ways: first, through “social solidarity,” where all members of society bear responsibility toward one another, and the government plays a supervisory and supportive role; second, through direct intervention in providing for the livelihood of those in need using available resources. These two approaches indicate that the Islamic government not only can but is obligated to act in providing economic support for couples unable to pay maintenance.

Following Dr. Saadatinasab’s presentation, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Dr. Majid Dehghan, a member of the Family and Women’s Jurisprudence Group at the Research Institute for Contemporary Jurisprudence Studies, provided critical and complementary remarks as the scholarly critic.

Expressing appreciation for the scholarly and jurisprudential structure of the presentation, he noted the depth and breadth of Dr. Saadatinasab’s dissertation, stating: “I had access to his full dissertation and know that the discussion is far more extensive than what was presented here, thoroughly addressing various jurisprudential, principle-based, and narrational aspects. Therefore, I would like to focus on two key areas: jurisprudential points and policy-making issues related to the topic.”

In the jurisprudential section, Dr. Dehghan highlighted two significant points that he considered central to the discussion:

The first point concerned the authentic narration of Musa ibn Bakr, which specifically addresses the issue of a husband unable to provide maintenance. He explained that, unlike other verses and narrations with general or absolute applicability, this narration is particularly significant and requires more precise examination.

The second point was about comparing the jurisprudential evidence, some of which establish the obligation of the ruler to provide economic support for the incapacitated husband, while others mandate judicial divorce. Dr. Dehghan analyzed these two sets of evidence, stating: “You mentioned that they are general and specific in a certain way, and there is a customary reconciliation at their intersection, which is that the evidence for the obligation of economic support, with the intent of the Lawgiver, entirely negates the subject matter of the evidence for judicial divorce.”

He further added: “Your general evidence primarily addresses the permissibility of spending alms and similar resources, not the obligation to make the incapacitated husband self-sufficient, so the conflict between these two sets of evidence is not particularly strong.”

Dr. Dehghan then analyzed the text of the narration of Musa ibn Bakr, quoting it directly: “Whoever seeks this sustenance lawfully to provide for himself and his family is like a warrior in the way of Allah… If he is overcome [by inability], let him borrow in the name of Allah and His Messenger to provide for his family, and if he dies, it is upon the Imam to settle his debt.”

He explained that this narration initially places the obligation of providing maintenance on the incapacitated husband himself, emphasizing that he must secure maintenance even through borrowing. Only in the case of the husband’s death does the repayment of the debt fall upon the Imam, not a direct obligation on the ruler to provide maintenance or unconditional support.

Additionally, regarding the narration’s reference to terms like “poor,” “destitute,” and “debtor” as evidence for the ruler’s support of the incapacitated husband, Dr. Dehghan stated: “It may not be so straightforward to say that because the terms ‘poor’ and ‘destitute’ are used, there is an obligation for full support. Being a ‘debtor’ – meaning one who is indebted – is the main issue that obligates the Imam to settle the debt, not a direct obligation to fully support the husband’s maintenance.”

In the final part of his remarks, Dr. Dehghan addressed policy-making, discussing the allocation of public treasury resources and stating: “The issue is that if the government is to provide support from the public treasury as a religious obligation, it must know the extent and limits of this support and whether it is merely permissible to spend or whether there is an obligation for full provision. This point is highly determinative in policy-making.”

In conclusion, Dr. Dehghan, while appreciating the presenter’s research efforts, emphasized that the topic is complex and requires further clarification and examination to reach a precise and robust conclusion.

During the question-and-answer session, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Sajedi Amin first addressed preliminary and key points, emphasizing that the issue of guardianship and the position of the ruling jurist must be carefully analyzed: “If the jurist is the ruler, guardianship operates in a hierarchical manner, and other jurists are not general deputies of the Imam but are all under the guardianship of the ruling jurist.” He also considered the division of a husband’s inability into two categories: “remediable inability” and “ordinary, irremediable inability,” asking whether this distinction affects the ruler’s approach.

He identified one key point as the assumption of protecting the family, asking: “Is the wife’s interest truly served if the marriage is preserved, even at the cost of the ruler taking on the responsibility of paying maintenance? Or should the possibility of judicial divorce and ending the marriage also be considered?” In other words, he raised the issue of choice, adding: “It is possible that the wife may prefer the path of judicial divorce rather than continuing a marital life with a husband who is incapacitated.”

At the conclusion of the session, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Dr. Mahdi Saadatinasab, while thanking the participants for their precision and points raised, provided a general summary, stating: “The precise comparison between the evidence for judicial divorce and the evidence for economic support is a critical point in our discussion. When the ruler can adequately provide maintenance, the issue of judicial divorce can be reconsidered, but it is not easy to assume a choice between these two approaches.”

At the end of this specialized scholarly session, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Mahdi Davoudabadi, the session’s secretary, expressed gratitude for the attendance of professors and participants, announcing that specialized discussions on this topic will continue, and future sessions will focus on other dimensions of the issue.