until death; this is a right that belongs to him. He may then say: “If I leave her, when will I find another woman?”

Moreover, he may have given her the dowry at a time when prices were low, whereas dowries have now increased and become costly. What he takes from her may enable him to marry another woman—or it may not.

The weightier view is that he may take more than he gave her, unless the hadith is established as authentic. But the hadith is not authentic; if supporting reports are found for it, then so be it, but otherwise it is weak according to its well-known chain of transmission. Nevertheless, honorable decency requires that he not take more from her than he gave her.

There remains an important issue: if it proves impossible to reconcile the spouses under any circumstances, and he refuses to divorce her while she refuses to remain with him, some scholars hold that khulʿ then becomes obligatory, on the condition that she return the dowry to him in full. This was the view of some Hanbali scholars. As for Shaykh al-Islam, may Allah have mercy on him, his student Ibn Muflih said of him: “Our shaykh’s statements differed concerning this case: is khulʿ obligatory or not?” Some Hanbali scholars nevertheless explicitly stated that khulʿ is obligatory and that he may be compelled to grant it. They cited the fact that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him, said to Thabit, may Allah be pleased with him: “Take back the garden and divorce her.” They said: a command denotes obligation. Moreover, there is no means of ending this dispute and discord except through this course; resolving disputes and discord among Muslims is obligatory, and whatever is necessary to fulfill an obligation is itself obligatory. This view is correct, for he suffers no harm: his property has been returned to him, while if they remain in this state, she is left suspended and unable to marry, and he likewise is not