“Hanafi texts extend the ruling on loss of support for physical absence to also uphold its converse:physical presence in the marital home suffices for support...A wife who remained in her husband's home but refused him sexually retained her claim to maintenance. Sexual refusal did not constitute nushuz, because it did not, in this view, make her sexually unavailable as long as she remained physically resent, he could have sexual access to her even aginst her will. Where the wife had legitimate grounds for sexual refusal, the situation was more complex. Abu Hanifa and his disciples disagreed as to what constituted legitimate grounds and, moreover, what the line was between enforceable rules and ethical guidelines. When a wife refused sex in order to claim an unpaid dower, Abu Hanifa supported her actions even after consummation. In this case, he held that "it is not lawful, and he sins [if he forces her]." According to Abu Yusuf and Muhammad al-Shaybani, who did not grant her the right to withhold herself for nonpayment of dower after consumation, the husband's forcing her "is lawful and he does not sin." A variant manuscript reads, "It is lawful and he sns," making a distinction between the legality and morality of the husband's actions...Still, while forcible intercourse might or might not be sinful if the wife had the moral high ground because of unpaid dower, if an unpaid dower was not at issue then the husband's right "to have sex with her against her will" went unquestioned. In this case, they agreed: "It is lawful, because she is a wrongdoer (zalima)." The wife's reproachable behavior justifies the husband's actions. Al-Khassaf, who reports these views, did not even raise the possibility that forced intercourse in these circumstances might be a sin.”