No Khul خلع for a woman without the Husband's consent

Summary:

Currently, in many Muslim states,  if they are unhappy in their marriage (e.g., due to feelings of unattractiveness or dislike towards their husbands), then women are granted the option to seek divorce through the court, known as "Khul',".

However, this is not the original Sharia ruling.

According to the original Sharia ruling, women has no right to seek freedom through any court in the name of Khul'. Sharia mandated that a woman must remain with her husband, even in cases of abuse, physical violence (that doesn't result in broken bones), or if the husband was unattractive or undesirable.

In the original Islamic concept of Khul', a woman should offer "ransom money" to her husband. If he agrees to the offer, he can accept the money and divorce her, granting her freedom. However, if the husband declines the offer, no Islamic court has the authority to force him to divorce her, leaving the woman in a situation where she has to endure the hardships and abuse in the marriage.

Table of Contents:

Detailed Rules of Khul':

All four Sunni Imams of Fiqh concur on the following:

• A woman does not possess the right to initiate a divorce from her husband through Khul'.
• The decision to grant her freedom through divorce solely rests with the husband, and he can choose to accept or reject it.
• No Islamic court holds the authority to compel the husband to divorce her against his will.

To seek approval from her husband:

• The wife must offer "ransom money," enticing the husband with financial gain, and persuade him to grant her a divorce.
• There is no fixed amount for this "ransom money"; it often involves returning the Haq-Mehr (bridal price) she received during marriage or even offering more.
• The husband has the liberty to demand any sum he desires, potentially using this as an opportunity to extort money from her.

However, if the husband refuses to grant her freedom, even Islamic courts cannot force him to divorce her. In such a case, she is compelled to stay with her abusive husband.

Courts may intervene only in exceptional cases, such as:

1. The impotence of the husband.
2. Failure of the husband to provide maintenance money.
3. If the husband's whereabouts are unknown.

Even if the husband behaves violently, beating the wife without reason and causing visible bruises, she cannot obtain Khul' or obtain freedom through Islamic courts. Only if the husband causes a physical injury that results in the breaking of a bone (or any other body part) can she seek a divorce through the court, but even then, she is required to pay the "ransom money" to her abusive husband to get her freedom. 

Quranic Verse about the Khul’

Quran 2:229:

الطَّلاَقُ مَرَّتَانِ فَإِمْسَاكٌ بِمَعْرُوفٍ أَوْ تَسْرِيحٌ بِإِحْسَانٍ وَلاَ يَحِلُّ لَكُمْ أَن تَأْخُذُواْ مِمَّا آتَيْتُمُوهُنَّ شَيْئًا إِلاَّ أَن يَخَافَا أَلاَّ يُقِيمَا حُدُودَ اللّهِ فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلاَّ يُقِيمَا حُدُودَ اللّهِ فَلاَ جُنَاحَ عَلَيْهِمَا فِيمَا افْتَدَتْ بِهِ 

Divorce is twice. Then, either keep [her] in an acceptable manner or release [her] with good treatment. And it is not lawful for you to take anything of what you have given them unless both fear that they will not be able to keep [within] the limits of Allah. But if you fear that they will not keep [within] the limits of Allah, then there is no blame upon either of them concerning that by which she ransoms herself (to get her freedom). 

Muhammad said: "Women who seek their freedom through Khul’ are hypocrites"

In Islam:

• A woman has no opportunity to learn about her future husband. She cannot interact with him before marriage in the name of modesty.
• After marriage, if she discovers that he is incompatible with her due to his mentality or manners, and she dislikes and feels abhorrence toward him, she has no other way to gain her freedom except to exploit her husband's greed for money (i.e., to offer him money as her ransom).
• However, even if he accepts the offer, Muhammad still labeled such a woman a hypocrite. 
• Muhammad wanted to compel women to stay with her Muslim husbands even if she is not happy with her life due to him.

Sunnan Tirmidhi, Kitab-ul-Talaq:

عَنْ ثَوْبَانَ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏"‏ الْمُخْتَلِعَاتُ هُنَّ الْمُنَافِقَاتُ ‏"‏

The Prophet said: "The women who seek a Khul are hypocrites."
This tradition is “Sahih” (i.e. Authentic)

Sunnan Tirmidhi, Kitab-ul-Talaq:

عَنْ ثَوْبَانَ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏ "‏ أَيُّمَا امْرَأَةٍ سَأَلَتْ زَوْجَهَا طَلاَقًا مِنْ غَيْرِ بَأْسٍ فَحَرَامٌ عَلَيْهَا رَائِحَةُ الْجَنَّةِ 

The Messenger of Allah said: "Whichever woman seeks a Khul from her husband without harm (cause), then the scent of Paradise will be unlawful for her."
This tradition is also “Sahih”.

Even if a husband breaks her body parts during beating, she still cannot obtain a divorce automatically without paying him ransom money

Please see the following tradition: 

Sunan Abu Dawud, Book of Divorce:

Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin: Habibah daughter of Sahl was the wife of Thabit ibn Qays Shimmas. He beat her and broke some of her part. So she came to the Prophet after morning, and complained to him against her husband. The Prophet called on Thabit ibn Qays and said (to him): Take a part of her property (as ransom) and separate yourself from her. He asked: Is that right, Messenger of Allah? He said: Yes. He said: I have given her two gardens of mine as a dower, and they are already in her possession. The Prophet said: Take them and separate yourself from her.

Sheikh Albani declared this Hadith to be “Sahih” (authentic)

If any part of a woman is NOT broken (but she got only bruises), then she has no right to seek her freedom

Sahih Bukhari, Book of Dress:

Rifa`a (a male companion) divorced his wife whereupon `AbdurRahman (another male companion) married her. `Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil, and complained to her (Aisha) of her (2nd) husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating. It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's Messenger came, `Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!" 
When `AbdurRahman (the 2nd husband) heard that his wife had gone to the Prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. 
She said, "By Allah! I have done no wrong to him but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this," holding and showing the fringe of her garment,
`Abdur-Rahman said, "By Allah, O Allah's Messenger! She has told a lie! I am very strong and can satisfy her [Arabic: إِنِّي لأَنْفُضُهَا نَفْضَ الأَدِيمِ and the correct translation is: "I shake her like leather (during sex)] but she is disobedient and wants to go back to (her first husband) Rifa`a (by doing Halala with me). 
" Allah's Messenger said, to her, "If that is your intention (i.e. to do Halala), then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifa`a unless `Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you."

Although the woman wanted to be rid of her husband, Khul' was not her right in Islam; instead, it depended on the husband's will. Hence, despite her strong desire for freedom, she was unable to separate from him. Her second husband resorted to brutal beatings, causing bruises all over her body. However, he still refused to grant her a divorce or freedom through Khul'.

Notably, Muhammad did not prohibit the cruel man from beating her so brutally but remained silent about it (known as Hadith-e-Taqriri). Furthermore, Muhammad did not grant her the right to seek freedom through Khul' even after enduring such severe beatings.

Please note there is a "TEHRIF (Distortion)" in the English Translation. The Arabic words of the hadith are  إِنِّي لأَنْفُضُهَا نَفْضَ الأَدِيمِ and the correct translation is: "I shake her like leather (during sex) i.e. Abdurrahman had already been raping her without her consent (i.e. doing sex). But despite that, she was unable to get Khul' from him. 

Muslim Excuse: 

An Islamit wrote:

"A woman has the right to Khul, but the prophet (pbuh) didn't give her the right to Khul' while she made a false allegation against her 2nd husband. If she didn't have the right to Khul', why then she came to the prophet (pbuh)? 

Please note that second marriage wasn’t some romantic choice for that female companion—it was a shackle forced on her by a system that thrives on crushing women. Islam is a merciless cage for women, a religion that dresses up oppression as divine will. Picture this: a husband, in a fit of rage, divorces his wife. What does Islam do? It rips mothers away from their children. A divorced woman might get the custody if her kids are small, but the second she dares remarry another man for financial support, or just for a shred of human connection and love, Islam snatches even those tiny children away from her and she loses their custody too. 

So what’s her choice if she’s a Muslim woman who wants both—a man’s companionship and her own flesh and blood (i.e. her children)?

The answer is: She’s got only one path: crawl back to her first husband, tail between her legs, just to keep her family intact. That’s the only way she gets a man’s support without Islam snatching away her children from her. 

However, Islam didn't stop with its injustice against a woman here, but it further stipulates that if she wants to back to her first husband,then she has to drag through the filth of halala—a degrading farce where she let another Muslim man rape her against her will, and then get divorced again. 

The alternative? Islam’s ultimatum is clear: stay single forever, a lonely widow to your own dreams, or kiss your children goodbye. That’s the “justice” this religion peddles.

So if that female companion wanted to get back to her first husband, then the only way to hold for her was to grit her teeth through halala’s humiliation. She didn’t “choose” that second marriage; she was shoved into it, to another controlling and abusive man, because Islam left her no other road.

And don’t let the apologists spin their tales. They’ll crow that she had the “right” to seek khul' from that second husband, that she marched to Muhammad for that reason. Nonsense. She didn’t go to Muhammad because Islam handed her khul' from her 2nd husband on a silver platter—she went to claw her way out by accusing her second husband of impotence. That’s right: her only escape hatch wasn’t some grand right to divorce; it was a desperate loophole. Islam doesn’t grant women khul' as a free pass, but her only chance to get rid of a such an abusive 2nd husband is to prove that he is impotent (where Islam allows her to get her freedom from him). 

So what’s left for these women, crushed under Islam’s boot? Scream “impotence” from the rooftops, true or not. And if they lie? Don’t you dare blame them. The real villain here is Islam itself, stacking injustice so high it’s a wonder women can breathe. It’s not their deceit—it’s survival. This system doesn’t just fail women; it rigs the game so they’re forced to scrape, scheme, and suffer for the tiniest sliver of freedom. Add to that the absurdity of men holding unchecked power—triple talaq in a heartbeat, no questions asked—while women grovel for scraps of agency. That’s not a religion; that’s a prison with extra steps.

Even if the husband is infertile, a woman is not permitted to seek her freedom through Khul'

All four Sunni Fiqh Imams unanimously agree that a wife cannot initiate a divorce based on the husband's infertility.

The largest Islamic Fatwa website Islam Q&A writes (link):

With regard to the man’s sterility, i.e., his inability to father children, this is not counted as a fault that would necessitate annulment of the marriage, according to the majority of scholars, apart from the view of al-Hasan al-Basri, and Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah.

In previous centuries, it was practically impossible to determine a man's infertility, making it an unattributable condition. This was also the case with Muhammad himself.

Moreover, if a woman is infertile, then Islam even encourages men not to marry her. Please read:

• Islamic Injustice: An InFERTILE woman should not be married

These are nothing, but only the Double Standards of Islam. 

How is a poor woman supposed to survive when her bones are broken, her Haq Mehr (dowry money) is taken away and she is thrown out of the house? 

Islamic apologists claim that Islam didn't give "equal" rights to women, but He gave them rights with "equity/justice". But this Islamic claim is only a deception. Let us see the reality of this so-called claim of Islam giving rights to women based on equity/justice. 

According to Islam:

• The husband pays the Haq Mehr (dowry money) so that the woman remains confined to him, but he is allowed to have 4 wives and dozens of slave girls to have sex and companionship. However, she is limited to have sex and companionship only with him. 
• She must provide on-demand sexual services, keep herself beautiful for him, obey him, endure his beatings, but still continue providing sexual services.
• While the man is busy having sex with his other wives and numerous concubines, the woman has to wait for her husband and not look at any other man.
• In the name of the dowry money, the woman’s freedom to leave the house is also taken away. She cannot go out and work or earn money for herself without her husband’s permission.

But:

• When a woman returns the dowry in a khul' case as ransom money, where do her charges for sexual services go? This poor woman hasn’t earned anything to use for her survival after divorce. That means she stands empty-handed after khul'.
• This poor woman wasted her youth providing sexual services to her husband, and now she is no longer a virgin, her value has decreased, and it is difficult for her to find another man because Islam’s another injustice is when the Prophet says that people should marry virgins.

Islam has not provided any protection for women.

In the West, a woman gets half of the property and money made during the marriage in a divorce, but Islam does not give this right to women. In the case of a regular divorce (when the husband initiates it), Muslims argue that the woman should survive on the dowry money (meaning the dowry money is for providing free sexual services throughout life and also for surviving after divorce). But in the case of khula, when an abusive husband has destroyed the woman’s youth, taken sexual services from her, taken back all the dowry money in the name of ransom, and then broken her bones and thrown her out of the house, how is this poor woman supposed to cover her living expenses and other necessities and survive?

Result: In an Islamic society, even if an abusive husband beats the wife severely and even breakes her bones, she still not dare to initiate divorce through Khul' due to fear of survival. 

Islamic apologists claim that women are "emotional," justifying the husband's role in deciding whether divorce is in her favor or not

This view is flawed as it unfairly blames women for being emotional while disregarding the fact that men can also be emotional and make false decisions in anger.

In stark contrast, Islam has made it incredibly easy for men to divorce their wives by merely uttering "Talaq" (divorce) three times, even in a state of extreme and uncontrolled anger.

Islam Apologists: But the Sunnah way of giving Talaq is 3 menstrual periods

It does not matter if it is a Sunnah way or not; Islamic Sharia indeed allows men to divorce their wives in anger by saying "talaq" three times even in this non-Sunnah way too.

Secondly, if the divorce process is designed to last three menstrual periods to ensure that husbands calm down, it also allows women to cool off from their anger or emotions. Therefore, Islam should also grant women the right to initiate divorce after three months, once they are no longer in a state of emotional distress or anger.

Thirdly, if Islam does not grant women this right to make their own decisions even after three months (claiming they are too emotional), then Islam should at least give this right to the woman's father, brother, or son to decide on her behalf.

However, when Islam states that if a woman wishes for her freedom, it is ONLY the husband who should decide whether divorce is in her favor or not, this is not wisdom. Rather, it places poor women entirely at the mercy of their husbands. 

Muslim women should reflect on these questions:

If you are a Muslim woman, take a moment to consider:

• If you were in the position of Allah and responsible for making laws, would you have created a law like Khul' for women?
• Can you believe that such an "Unjust" law like Khul' could be formulated by a divine being of infinite wisdom?
• Do you accept the notion that women are solely emotional and unable to decide for themselves in matters concerning their lives?
• Is it fair that, even in cases of differences and disputes, and despite your strong desire to separate, your husband gets to decide whether divorce is in your best interest or not?
• Do you not realize that the concept of "Allah" does not grant you the right to seek freedom while believing that women possess a "lower Intelligence Level" compared to men?
• Don't you feel that these unjust laws, such as Khul', are not divinely ordained but rather a result of man-made beliefs, considering women as inferior and always subservient to men?

Your innate human rationale and sense of humanity are sufficient to guide you and discern right from wrong.

Distinguishing between "Islamic Laws" and the "Laws of Muslim Countries":

It is essential to carefully differentiate between these two aspects, as some individuals may attempt to deceive others by conflating them.

The true Islamic rulings have been previously outlined (e.g., Khul' not being an inherent right of women but dependent on the husband's decision to grant freedom).

Throughout the past 14 centuries of Islamic history, this ruling remained unchanged.

However, in the current century, owing to the influence of the Western Feminist Movement, even women in Islamic countries are becoming aware of their fundamental rights as human beings.

As a result, these feminist movements within Muslim countries have actively challenged and contested the traditional Divorce/Khul' ruling of Islam. To their astonishment, they have achieved success in "ALTERING" this original Islamic ruling in numerous Muslim countries.

Nowadays, women in many Muslim countries can approach the court and request Khul' without having to pay a ransom.

Initially, Islamic scholars attempted to resist these changes, but due to the inherent conflict with principles of humanity, their efforts did not succeed.

Similar to how Muslim men once did not require permission from their first wife to marry another, the feminist movement's strong opposition has led to changes in some Muslim countries. Now, Muslim men are required to seek written permission from their first wife before marrying another woman.

For example, refer to the following two studies that illustrate how courts were granted the authority to grant freedom in Khul' without the need for ransom money, despite opposition from Islamic scholars who believed it to be the husband's right according to Sharia law.

Study 1

Study 2

Abstract:
Pakistan is an Islamic country. The laws made by the Parliament and Judiciary are administered according to the injunction of Islam. There are many laws made for the protections of women. Among these rights granted, right of women to khul " is also awarded by Islamic Law. Khul " is the proposal given to the husband by the wife for divorce. Judicial Khul " is exercised in Pakistani courts, according to Article 2(ix) of dissolution of Muslims Marriages Act 1939. A large number of Ulama (Islamic Jurists) even today, refuse to recognize khul " granted by courts without the consent of the husband as a valid divorce. Confusion is caused by two parallel and conflicting interpretations of the Islamic Law. On one hand, there is the statutory law and interpretation by the Superior Courts of Pakistan and on the other hand, is the interpretation of Jurists of Islamic Law with strong arguments from Qur " an and Sunnah.

In simple terms, it was not an external plot or a Western conspiracy against Islam, but rather an internal struggle within the Muslim community that led to the defeat of the Sharia ruling on Khul'. Muslim women themselves played a significant role in this change as they rebelled against the ruling and eventually removed it from the laws of their countries.

Actually, this changed Ruling in state laws is a "Bid'ah" (Innovation) in Sharia. But today Muslims are simply helpless, and they have to introduce this Bid'ah in the original Sharia Ruling.