Yes, if she dislikes him because of his religious commitment—that is, because of his uprightness—then he should never give her the choice; rather, he should keep her with him, in the hope that Allah may guide her thereafter. This applies if the matter can be remedied, for people differ: some men may outwardly appear to be men, yet inwardly are like women; a woman overpowers them. In that case, I fear that she may corrupt his religion. Thus, the matter depends on the man’s strength and firmness.
Divorce is obligatory in the case of īlāʾ (an oath of abstinence), and prohibited when it is an innovated divorce, …
His statement, “It is obligatory in the case of īlāʾ”: Īlāʾ is the verbal noun of ālā yuʾlī, meaning “to swear an oath.” It is when a man swears to abstain from intercourse with his wife for more than four months, such as saying, “By Allah, I will not have intercourse with you for a year,” or [swearing that] he will divorce her. Allah Most High says:
“For those who swear abstinence from their wives is a waiting period of four months. Then if they go back, Allah is surely All-Forgiving, Most Merciful. But if they resolve upon divorce, then Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.” [al-Baqarah]
Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He, has set the limit at four months. Once the four months have elapsed, one of two things becomes obligatory upon him: either he resumes marital relations and expiates for an oath, or he divorces. If he does neither, the judge compels him [to do so] or pronounces divorce on his behalf.
Likewise, he must divorce her if the woman’s chastity has been compromised and he is unable to reform the situation. Thus, if a woman—Allah forbid—commits indecency and he is unable to prevent her, then he must divorce her; if he does not, he becomes a dayyūth (a man who tolerates sexual immorality in his household).
His statement, “And it is prohibited when it is an innovated divorce”: that is, when the divorce is an innovated divorce. This is an unusual expression, for what is well known among the scholars is that innovations refer either to an act of worship that has not been legislated, to an additional feature beyond what the Sacred Law has prescribed, or to matters of creed. Here, however, they have applied it to practical matters.
Yet they called it an innovation because it contravenes the Sacred Law, and it appears that this