and have no need of a marriage arranged to make their former wives lawful to them again. This is the second case, in which Umar applied this measure to them.

The third case is when they would need to resort to such an unlawful marriage. Here, not holding them to their divorces is better.

The fourth case is when they do not desist, but pronounce forbidden divorces which are enforced without resorting to such an intervening marriage. Here, holding them to their divorces serves no purpose: it merely imposes burdens and shackles that have not led them to fear Allah and observe His limits. All that has happened is that their wives have become unlawful to them and their homes have been ruined. The Lawgiver has not prescribed anything that entails making wives unlawful and ruining homes. Rather, not holding them to these divorces causes less harm. Even though they have sinned, they remain sinful in either case; but ruining homes causes greater harm, and Allah does not love corruption. As for not holding a man to his divorce, all this entails is that he has sinned through his utterance and has not repented of it. This causes less harm than the harm the Lawgiver intended to ward off and prevent by every means.

He was asked about exchanging wheat for wheat.

He replied:

If wheat is exchanged for wheat, measure for measure and like for like, it is permissible. If there is an excess on either side, it is not permissible.