His saying, exalted and majestic is He:

﴿Divorce is twice, then either keeping [her] in an acceptable manner or releasing [her] with good conduct. And it is not lawful for you to take from what you have given them anything, unless they fear that they will not be able to keep within the limits of Allah. So if you fear that they will not be able to keep within the limits of Allah, then there is no sin upon either of them in what she gives up to secure her release. These are the limits of Allah, so do not transgress them. And whoever transgresses the limits of Allah - it is they who are the wrongdoers.﴾

Urwah ibn az-Zubair, Qatadah, Ibn Zayd, and others said: This verse was revealed to clarify the number of divorces that a man has the right to take back without renewing the dowry and the guardian. This is because they used to divorce and take back without any purpose during the time of ignorance. A man said to his wife during the time of the Prophet, blessings and peace be upon him: 'I will not provide for you nor will I allow you to be lawful.' She said: 'How is that?' He said: 'I will divorce you, and when your waiting period draws near, I will take you back.' She complained about this, so the verse was revealed.

Ibn Abbas, Ibn Mas'ud, Mujahid, and others said: The intent of the verse is to inform about the Sunnah of divorce, meaning whoever divorces twice should fear Allah regarding the third. Either he leaves her without wronging her in anything of her rights, or he keeps her, treating her well in her companionship.

The judge Abu Muhammad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: The verse contains these two meanings.

And keeping [her] in an acceptable manner is taking her back after the second [divorce] to good companionship and fulfilling the rights of marriage. And the term 'releasing' can have two meanings: one of them is to leave her to complete her waiting period from the second [divorce], and she would be free to herself. This is the saying of as-Suddi and ad-Dahhak. The other meaning is to divorce her for the third time and release her with that. This is the saying of Mujahid, 'Ata, and others. This saying is stronger in my view for three reasons. The first is that it has been narrated that a man said to the Prophet, blessings and peace be upon him: 'O Messenger of Allah, this one mentioned two divorces, so where is the third?' The Prophet, blessings and peace be upon him, said: 'It is his saying: ﴿or releasing with good conduct﴾.' The second reason is that 'releasing' is one of the terms of divorce; do you not see that it has been recited: 'And if they intend to divorce'?

The third reason is that the form 'tafa'il' with this intensification indicates that he has performed a repeated act regarding the second divorce, and there is no act of leaving that can be expressed by the form 'tafa'il'. And 'keeping' is elevated by the beginning, and the news is: better or more virtuous. It is correct that it can be elevated on the news of a beginning, the meaning of which is: the obligation is to keep her, and His saying: 'with good conduct' means that he should not wrong her in anything of her rights, nor exceed in his words.

And His saying, exalted and majestic is He: ﴿And it is not lawful for you to take﴾ - this verse is addressed to the husbands, prohibiting them from taking anything from their wives in a manner that causes harm. This is the khula' which is only valid if the man does not act alone in causing harm.

And it is specifically mentioned what the husbands have given to their wives, because it is customary among people that a man requests at the time of discord and corruption what has left his hand. This is the case, and their toil is mostly for that reason, so it is specifically mentioned.

All seven reciters read "they fear" with a فتح (fath) on the ياء (ya) in the form of the verb for the subject. This is a case of "fearing" in relation to one object, which is "that." Hamzah alone read "they fear" with a ضم (dham) on the ياء (ya) in the form of the verb for the object. This is in relation to the transitive use of "feared" to two objects, one of which the verb is attributed to, and the other is "that" with the estimation of a deleted preposition. The position of "that" is in the genitive case due to the estimated preposition according to Sibawayh and Al-Kisai, and it is in the accusative case according to others because when the preposition is deleted, the verb becomes related to the second object, like "I seek forgiveness from Allah for a sin," and "I commanded you to do good."

And in the Mushaf of Ibn Mas'ud: "except that they fear" with the ياء (ya) and the و (waw) of the plural and the pronoun for the rulers and those who are intermediaries in the affairs of the people.

And Allah, the Exalted, has prohibited the husband - in this verse - from taking except after the fear that they do not establish. He emphasized the prohibition with a warning for whoever transgresses the limit. The common people of knowledge have agreed on the prohibition of taking her wealth, except if there is نُشُوز (nushuz) and corruption in the relationship from her side. Ibn Al-Mundhir said: We have narrated this from Ibn Abbas, Al-Shabi, Mujahid, Ata, Al-Nakha'i, Ibn Sirin, Qasim ibn Muhammad, Urwah ibn Al-Zubair, Al-Zuhri, Humayd ibn Abdul Rahman, Qatadah, Sufyan Al-Thawri, Malik, Ishaq, and Abu Thawr.

And Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, Al-Shabi, and a group with them said: If there is corruption from the wife and her نُشُوز (nushuz), there is also corruption from the husband. And if the situation between them worsens, then the compensation is permissible for the husband.

Qadi Abu Muhammad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: The meaning of that is that the husband - if he leaves his corruption - the نُشُوز (nushuz) is still from her.

As for if the husband alone is corrupt, I do not know anyone who permits him the compensation except what has been narrated from Abu Hanifah that he said: If oppression and نُشُوز (nushuz) come from him and she seeks to separate from him, it is permissible and valid, and he is sinful; what he has done is not lawful, nor does he return what he has taken. Ibn Al-Mundhir said: And this is contrary to the apparent meaning of the Book of Allah, and contrary to the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him. And if it were said to anyone: Strive to find an error, he would not find a matter greater than that the Quran speaks of the prohibition of something and he permits it.

And "the limits of Allah" - in this context - are what is required of the two spouses in terms of good treatment and the rights of the marriage bond.

And the incident of Habibah bint Sahl, and it was said: Jamila bint Ubayy ibn Salul - and the first is more correct - with Thabit ibn Qais when the Prophet, blessings and peace be upon him, permitted him to take the compensation from her, the oppression in it was from the woman because she mentioned all good about him and that she does not love to remain with him.

And His saying, exalted is He: "So if you fear that they will not maintain the limits of Allah" is addressed to the rulers and those mediating in such matters, even if he is not a ruler. The neglect of establishing the limits of Allah is a disregard by the woman for her husband's rights and her disobedience to him. This was said by Ibn Abbas, Malik ibn Anas, and the majority of the scholars. Al-Hasan ibn Abi al-Hasan and a group with him said: If she says to him, 'I will not obey you in a command, nor will I purify myself for you from impurity, nor will I fulfill your oath,' then the divorce is permissible. And Ash-Shabi said: "That they will not maintain the limits of Allah" means: that they will not obey Allah, and this is because being angry leads to abandoning obedience. And Ata ibn Abi Rabah said: The divorce is permissible and it is allowed for the woman to say to her husband: 'I dislike you and I do not love you,' and similar to this.

And His saying, exalted is He: "There is no blame upon them for what she ransoms herself with" is a permission for the ransom, and their sharing in the lifting of blame, because it is not permissible for her to give him her wealth, where it is not permissible for him to take it, while she is capable of disputing. So if the mentioned fear occurs, it is permissible for him to take and for her to give. And whenever the fear does not occur, it is not permissible for her to give to the one seeking separation.

Ibn Umar, An-Nakha'i, Ibn Abbas, Mujahid, and Uthman ibn Affan, may Allah be pleased with him, Malik, Ash-Shafi'i, Abu Hanifa, Ikrimah, Qabisa ibn Zu'aib, Abu Thawr, and others said: It is permissible for the husband to take from the woman in the ransom all that she possesses, and Umar ibn al-Khattab ruled this. And Tawus, Az-Zuhri, Ata, Umar ibn Shu'aib, Al-Hasan, Ash-Shabi, Al-Hakam, Hamad, Ahmad, and Ishaq said: It is not permissible for him to take more than the dowry that he gave her. And Al-Rabi' said this, and he and Al-Hasan ibn Abi al-Hasan read: "For what she ransomed herself with" with the addition of "from it," meaning: from what you have given them, which is the dowry. And Makki reported this saying from Abu Hanifa, and Ibn al-Mundhir confirmed it. And Ibn al-Musayyib said: I do not see that he should take all her wealth, but he should leave something for her. And Bakr ibn Abdullah al-Muzani said: It is not permissible for a man to take anything from his wife as a divorce, whether little or much. He said: And this verse is abrogated by His saying, exalted and mighty: "And if you intend to replace a wife in place of another and you have given one of them a qintar, do not take anything from it" [An-Nisa: 20].

The judge Abu Muhammad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: This is weak because the ummah is unanimous on the permissibility of the ransom, and because the meaning associated with the verse of ransom is different from the meaning in the verse regarding the intention of replacement.

And His saying, exalted is He: "These are the limits of Allah" means: These commands and prohibitions are the signs between truth and falsehood, and obedience and disobedience, so do not transgress them. Then He warned, exalted is He, against transgressing the limit, and described the transgressor as unjust, which is placing something in a place other than its rightful place, and injustice is punishable for its doer. And it is as he, blessings and peace be upon him, said: "Injustice is darkness on the Day of Resurrection."