2Million is a lot and enough to retire. What are you on about? Putting all the money into a non managed index fund returns about 7% - 11% which is essentially $140,000 - $200,000. This is money you get without working and you don't spend on management fees too.
I would not want to stop working too until I make $1m passively. But ur point, "Like I said in this economy 2 million really isn’t a lot." is totally wrong.
I am not doubting you here but I don't think that is the case.
If you are not getting your rights fulfilled i.e., provided for, that does not give you a chance to stop doing ur duties. Imagine a man stopped providing because his wife refused intimacy.
I remember a video of a man asking a sheikh if he can stop providing for his wife becuase she is disobedient. The sheikh did not hold back against him and told him that he will be accountable for his actions.
Do you have any evidence to support your case? Because I have heard that before but have not encountered any hadiths or sunnah to support it.
Hey, it doesn’t make logical sense for a woman to continue obeying her husband if he refuses to provide. The reason why women obey is because the husband is the leader as he looks after the home. That is where obedience stems from.
Anyways here it is:
If she chooses to put up with him, in the hope that he will change, if he is withholding her maintenance out of miserliness and stinginess, or until his financial situation improves, if he is not well off, then she is not obliged to allow him to be intimate with her.
Ash-Shirazi ash-Shaafi‘i said in al-Muhadhdhab fi Fiqh al-Imam ash-Shaafi‘i (3/155):
If she chooses to stay after he becomes unable to spend on her, she is not obliged to allow him to be intimate with her, and she may leave his house, because allowing intimacy is in return for maintenance, so it is not obligatory when there is no maintenance. End quote.
If it is proven that the husband is no longer able to spend on her, she has the choice of three options: she may annul the marriage; she may stay with him and allow him to be intimate with her, and it is her right that she should spend on her whatever he is able to spend; or she may remain married to him, without having to allow him to be intimate with her –
rather she may leave his house, because allowing intimacy is only obligatory upon her.
The wife can even leave the house if he doesn’t provide and her financial standing has nothing to do with it.
As for the scholar shouting at the man who says he doesn’t want to provide as his wife is disobedient. That’s a hard one. How does on
measure obedience? Can the husband Islamically wake up the wife at 3am and force her to cook a three course meal and then say she’s not obedient and then cut her off? Obedience can be hard to measure as it can often depend on the husbands
reasonableness so saying that one can be cut off for that can be a tad dangerous.
Also, men have been given a way out of marriages in which the wife refused intimacy and obedience: talaq. It’s in the hands of a man and not a woman. Within a second, you get rid of a disobedient wife. Women do not have that power. So yes, technically you can stop providing for a disobedient woman and you can do it in a second! Talaq Talaq Talaq!
As for money it’s tangible and can be measured but even then, if he can’t afford it and he’s trying than punishing the poor fella when you have money in the bank is just immoral.