Divorce through Khul‘ (خلع): The Islamic Deceptions & Why It Treats Wives Like Prisoners Requiring a Ransom

Introduction: 

There is a huge misconception today that Islam gives the right to women to get their freedom through Khul' divorce. But this is not true. 

Yes, a few modern Islamic states today gives this right to women, however this is not the original Sharia Khul'. So, don't get deceived here. 

The original Islamic rulings and realities regarding Khul‘ according to Islamic Sharia are as follows:

(1) Khul‘ Depends entirely on the Husband's Consent (i.e. not a Right of Woman): 
There is a consensus among the four Sunni Imams of Jurisprudence (Fiqh) that Khul‘ is not a woman's right, but rather subject to the man's consent. This means, if the husband doesn't give his consent, then it is impossible for a wife to get divorce and her freedom. 

(2) A Woman Must Pay a "Ransom" to Her Husband to Gain Freedom:
The method to persuade the husband (for his consent) is for the woman to offer him property/money as a "ransom" so that he takes the money and then sets the wife free. There is no limit to this amount. It is entirely up to the husband's discretion to accept an amount equal to the dower (Mahr) or to demand a sum far exceeding the dower in exchange for her freedom.

So, a woman has no "right" in Khul', but she can only "ask" him to free her by taking ransom money. Islamic Apologists conflate a woman asking for Khula with a woman having the unilateral right to it.

(3) Khul‘ is Even Worse Than Talaq:
In Talaq, the husband has no right to reclaim the dower money. However, in Khul‘, the woman loses even that dower money (or more).

(4) Even the Court Has No Right to Grant Freedom via Khul‘:
Even the Islamic court possesses no authority to grant a woman freedom in the name of Khul‘ without the husband's consent (except in cases where the man fails to provide maintenance or is impotent).
However, if the husband is providing maintenance and does not wish to set the woman free, it becomes impossible for the woman to obtain freedom from such a man in the name of Khul', no matter how suffocated she may feel in his home. 

(5) A Woman Only Gets the Right to Khul‘ if the Man Beats Her and Breaks a Bone

Islam has granted men the right to beat women in the name of "disciplining" them. This beating can go to the extent of leaving bruises on the wife's body. Yet, even then, the wife does not gain the right to Khul‘.
But if the man's beating reaches the point where he breaks a bone or rib of the wife, then the wife gains the right to obtain freedom from such a husband through Khul‘.
However, Islam's oppression of women does not end there.
Rather, Islam compels the woman, even after her bones are broken, to return her dower money to the husband in the name of Khul‘.
If this were a civilized Western society instead of an Islamic one, and a husband beat his wife and broke her bones, this woman would not only obtain freedom from him for "free," but the husband would also have to pay her a "fine" or damages for the crime of domestic violence.

List of Articles

Details and Evidence:

Why a Woman Might Desire Freedom from a Man:

Islam creates many issues for women, which can lead to a desire for freedom from their husbands.

For instance, Islam does not give a woman any real opportunity to know her future husband deeply before marriage. There is no concept of dating or living together to understand one another. She often meets him only once or twice in the presence of family.

Therefore, many women only realize after marriage that their husband is incompatible with their temperament or has a vindictive nature. No love develops in her heart for him; instead, dislike arises, or she begins to feel repulsed by his habits.

This is entirely natural. It is human nature. This can happen to any human being, man or woman.

In any civilized system, if a woman feels this way, she should have the right to say that she no longer wishes to continue this relationship and wants to leave it.

Furthermore, sometimes after marriage, she discovers that her husband is abusive, controlling, or even psychologically sadistic, finding new ways to torment her mentally and physically.

In Islamic law, this control is not just a personal flaw but is provided with legal weapons:

1. Beating: Quran 4:34 permits the husband to beat his wife to "correct" her. Classical jurisprudence interprets this to mean that the beating can be severe enough to leave bruises, provided no bone is broken (LINK).

2. Confinement in the House: The wife cannot leave the house without the husband's permission, cannot meet her parents, and cannot even attend their funerals. He can keep her confined within four walls. If a woman does not want to live such a life of isolated imprisonment, what should she do? This is not a hypothetical scenario but a practical reality where millions of Muslim women face house arrest like situation in their own homes, with suspicious husbands for whom their stepping outside is a catastrophe.

3. Ila: Quran 2:226 grants the husband the right to punish his wife by abandoning her bed for four months, neglecting her emotional and sexual needs. During these four months, she must remain in the same isolation in his house, and the husband is still permitted to beat her. After four months, he can repeat this punishment.

4. Husband's Unrestricted Sexual Freedom: What if she discovers after marriage that her husband is promiscuous? Today, this happens in the form of second, third, or fourth marriages without her consent, or through illicit affairs. In classical Islam, for fourteen centuries, this took an even more horrific form, where the husband could keep dozens of concubines for sexual relations alongside his wives, sell them, and buy new ones from the market, while the wife had no right to object or demand divorce on this basis.

Thus, a woman's desire for divorce can arise from simple natural dislike or from the man's oppression. In all these cases, a woman's desire to gain freedom from such a man is entirely justified and human. Conversely, the restrictions Islam places on her in various ways are entirely unnatural and inhumane.

Islam has given men the "complete" right that if they do not like their wife, they can divorce her. However, in the case of a woman, Islam has withheld this right. It has left only the path of "Khul‘" for the woman, but this is an extremely "imperfect" procedure for her, with no "guarantee" of success and involving various losses.

Fatwas Regarding Khul‘ (Consensus of the Four Imams):

Darul Ifta fatwa (Link):

It is essential to remember that the matter of Khul‘ can only be settled with the husband's consent. The wife does not have the authority to obtain Khul‘ without the husband's consent. All four Sunni schools of thought in Islamic jurisprudence agree on this.

Today's Salafi scholars also hold this same position (Link):

A woman does not have the right to annul the marriage contract, neither through Khul‘ nor through Talaq, just as she does not have the right to initiate the marriage contract. Rather, if a woman has a valid reason, she can demand separation from her husband through Khul‘, and if the husband accepts it, then it is he who separates her through Khul‘ or Talaq.

Quran and Hadith: Curses and Hardships Placed Upon Women Seeking Khul‘:

The Quran is clear that a woman must pay a "ransom" to gain her freedom.

(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 تِلْكَ حُدُودُ اللّهِ فَلاَ تَعْتَدُوهَا وَمَن يَتَعَدَّ حُدُودَ اللّهِ فَأُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الظَّالِمُونَ
Translation:
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 (Arabic word: iftadat, meaning ransom) herself. These are the limits of Allah, so do not transgress them. And whoever transgresses the limits of Allah, it is those who are the wrongdoers.

The Quran has not used this word "ransom" incorrectly but 100% correctly, because in Islam, the status of a wife after marriage is indeed like that of a "prisoner" in the hands of the husband. And just as a prisoner can only gain freedom by paying a ransom, exactly so in Islam, a wife can only gain freedom by paying her ransom.

Let us now look at the Ahadith to see how further obstacles are placed in the path of a woman seeking Khul‘ and how her life is made even more miserable.

Ibn Kathir writes in his commentary regarding verse 2:229 (Link):

(1) A woman seeking Khul‘ is a hypocrite:
(Ibn Kathir writes)... If a woman seeks Khul‘ from her husband without cause, she is a grave sinner. Tirmidhi and others contain a hadith stating that a woman who asks her husband for divorce without reason will be forbidden the fragrance of Paradise, and it is narrated that the fragrance of Paradise is smelled from a distance of forty years. It is also narrated that such women are hypocrites.
(Note: What is this "without cause"? If a woman dislikes the man's character after marriage, is that "without cause"? Or if the husband beats her, or does not let her leave the house and she feels suffocated within the four walls, is that "without cause"?)

(2) Khul‘ is actually a punishment for the woman:
(Ibn Kathir continues)... A large group of Imams from the predecessors and successors state that Khul‘ is only valid in cases where the disobedience and rebellion come from the woman's side; at that time, the man can take the ransom and separate from her. (Meaning, in Talaq the man gets no money, but in this case of Khul', the man benefits himself by taking money from the woman).

(3) Despite severe physical abuse, the woman must still pay financial ransom for Khul‘:
(Ibn Kathir continues)... Listen to the context of the revelation. In Muwatta Malik, it is mentioned that Habiba bint Sahl was the wife of Thabit bin Qais. The Prophet went out for Fajr prayer in the darkness and saw Habiba standing at the door. He asked, "Who is it?" She said, "I am Habiba bint Sahl." He asked, "What is the matter?" She said, "O Messenger of Allah, I cannot live with Thabit bin Qais," meaning she could not endure him. The Prophet remained silent. When Thabit came, the Prophet said, "Your wife is saying something." Habiba said, "O Messenger of Allah, everything he has given me is with me, and I am ready to return it." The Prophet said to Thabit, "Take it back." So he took it back, and Habiba became free. One narration states that Thabit had beaten her and broken a bone. When the Prophet told him to take it back, Thabit asked, "Can I take this property?" The Prophet said, "Yes." Thabit said, "I gave her two gardens." These were returned, and they separated. Another narration states that Habiba also said, "I do not find fault with his character or religion, but I dislike disbelief in Islam," so Thabit took the money and divorced her. Some narrations name her Jamila. Some narrations also state: "I can no longer bear his anger..." The majority view is that Khul‘ is permissible even if the woman ransoms herself for more than what was given to her because the Quran says (2:229).

(Note: So observe that the husband is breaking her bones and subjecting the female Companion to his anger... Despite all this, the female Companion has to pay money to get freedom from such a husband. If this female Companion were in today's secular Western society, not only would she get freedom from such an oppressive husband for free, but the husband would have to pay her damages for the crime of breaking her bones.)

(4) Umar ibn al-Khattab imprisoned a woman seeking Khul‘ in filth:
(Ibn Kathir continues)... A woman came to Umar, upset with her husband. He ordered, "Imprison her in the house of filth." Then he called her from the prison and asked, "How are you?" She said, "These have been the most comfortable nights of my life." He then told her husband, "Take Khul‘ from her, even if it is for an earring." One narration says he kept her there for three days.
(Note: Why does the ruler or court in Islam have the authority to imprison a woman to force her to stay with her husband, without even knowing her mental state? Why not let woman herself decide about it? Why does Islam use these tactics of scaring women by telling them that they would be cursed, would not enter paradise, or thrown in prisons if they dare to decide to get freedom from their unwanted/abusive husbands through Khul')

(5) Uthman upheld the decision when a woman angrily said "Take everything":
(Ibn Kathir continues)... Rubayyi bint Mu'awwidh bin Afra says, "My husband would treat me poorly even if he were present, and deprive me completely if he went away." Once, during an argument, I said, "Take whatever I own and give me Khul‘." He agreed, and the matter was settled. But my uncle Ma'bad bin Afra took this case to Uthman. Uthman upheld it and said, "Take everything except the braid of her hair (meaning clothes, personal jewelry, etc.)."

Do you see any divine wisdom or perfection in these Islamic rulings?

Or injustice and oppression against women?

This oppression was part of the society of the Age of Ignorance, and it became part of Islamic Sharia because Islamic Sharia was not being created by some Allah in the sky, but Muhammad himself was creating this religion and Sharia. And since he was only a human, he made human errors and was influenced by the ignorant society of his time instead of doing justice.

If the Husband Beats Her Black and Blue but Breaks No Bone, the Woman Has Neither the Right to Khul‘ Nor the Right to Complain to the Court

Sahih Bukhari, Book of Dress (Link):

Ikrima narrated from Rifa'a that he divorced his wife. Then Abdur Rahman bin Zubair al-Qurazi married her. Aisha stated that the woman was wearing a green veil. She complained to Aisha (about her husband) and showed her green bruises (from beating) on her body. Then when the Messenger of Allah came, (as is the custom) that women support one another. Aisha said (to the Prophet) that I have not seen the plight of any woman as bad as that of believing women (Note: The Urdu translation here is distorted. See the correct English translation at this Link ) Her body has become greener than her clothes from the beating. It was narrated that her husband also heard that his wife had gone to the Prophet, so he came along with his two children from his previous wife. His wife said: "By Allah! I have no complaint against him except that what he has is no better than this fringe of my garment." (Meaning he is sexually impotent). Her husband said: "O Messenger of Allah! By Allah, she is lying. I shake her like a hide (flay her like leather), but she is wicked and dislikes me and wants to go back to Rifa'a." The Prophet said to her: "If that is the case, he (the first husband) is not lawful for you until he (the second husband) tastes your honey."

Thus, this narration reveals that:

1. The female Companion was extremely disgusted and averse to her second husband and wanted to get rid of him.

2. But since Khul‘ is not a woman's right but the man's will, she was helpless in getting rid of this second husband despite wanting to a thousand times.

3. And this second husband would beat her half to death, yet he would not divorce her.

4. And when this female Companion complained of this beating to Muhammad, on that occasion Muhammad neither reprimanded him for the abuse nor granted the woman any right to freedom on this basis.

5. And this second Companion husband, despite the wife's aversion, beat her half to death, and then flayed her like leather during sex (rape), so why is Muhammad still saying that she cannot go back to her first husband until the second husband tastes her? This second husband is himself testifying that he has already tasted her and during this tasting (i.e., during sex) he flays her like leather. So after flaying her like leather, what "tasting" is left that Muhammad is still talking about?

6. And even after being subjected to sex by this second husband, the woman is not getting the right to Khul‘. Meaning, even if she is disgusted with him, she cannot get free through Khul‘ or otherwise. Her only option left is to try to gain freedom by accusing him of impotence.

An Islamic apologist objected to this and wrote:

"In Islam, a woman has the right to Khul‘, but the Prophet did not grant this female Companion the right to Khul‘ because she falsely accused her second husband of impotence. If she didn't have the right to Khul‘, why did she come to the Prophet at all?"

Our Answer:

Please note that for this female Companion, the second marriage was not a romantic choice but a chain imposed upon her by a system that thrives on crushing women. Islam is a ruthless prison for women, a religion that cloaks oppression in divine will.

Imagine a husband divorces his wife in anger. Then what does Islam do? It separates mothers from their children. In some cases, a divorced woman may only have the right to raise her children while they are young, but as soon as she marries another man, whether for financial support or merely for love and human connection, Islam snatches the custody of her young children away from her.

So what choice remains for a Muslim woman who wants both her husband's company and her children's company?

The answer is that she has only one path left, and that is to trample her self-respect and return to her first husband, just so she can be near her children. This is the only way she gets a man's support without Islam snatching her children away.

But Islam does not stop at this injustice; it commits further oppression by imposing the condition that if she wants to return to her first husband, she must undergo the humiliation of Halala. This is a grotesque system where a woman is forced to marry another man, let him play with her body and rape her against her will, and then divorce her.

And what is the alternative? Islam's ultimatum to the woman is clear: live alone forever, become a widow of your dreams, or say goodbye to your children. This is the "justice" this religion offers.

Therefore, if that Companion wanted to return to her first husband, the only way for her to reunite with him was to endure the insult of Halala. She did not choose the second marriage; Islam forced her into the humiliation of that second marriage.

And Islamic apologists will try to mislead you. They will say she had the "right" to Khul‘, which is why she went to Muhammad. This is utterly false. She did not go to Muhammad because Islam gave her the right to Khul‘; she went so she could somehow free herself by accusing her second husband of impotence. (In Islam, if the husband is impotent, then the woman has a chance to get rid of such a husband through the court).

So what path remains for those women who are being crushed under Islam's oppression? The only path for them is to scream "impotence," whether the accusation is true or false. And even if they are lying, do not blame them, because the real culprit is Islam, which erects mountains of injustice where women have no room to breathe. This false accusation is not their deceit; it is their struggle for survival.

This Islamic system is designed in such a way that helpless women are forced to resort to lies to gain a modicum of freedom.

Look at the double standards of Islam, where men have unlimited power and rights to pronounce three divorces in a moment without any reason, and no one can question them or punish them, while women have to beg for even a tiny bit of freedom.

This is not a religion but a prison for women with extra steps.

How Can a Woman Survive When Her Bones Are Broken, and Then She Is Kicked Out After Having Her Dower Money Snatched?

Islamic apologists claim that the Islamic system is better because Islam has not given women rights on the basis of "equality" but on the basis of "justice." Let us test the reality of this claim to see if it is true or just a deception.

According to Islam, the husband pays the "dower" so that the woman remains restricted to him alone, must fulfill his sexual demands on demand at all times, keep herself beautiful for him, obey him, endure beatings at his hands yet continue sexual services, wait for her husband while he is busy with other wives and dozens of concubines, and not look at any other man. She must also bear children and raise them. And the guardianship of the children belongs only to the husband. If the husband marries off a six-year-old daughter to a man, the wife cannot stop this oppression against her daughter.

Then, in the name of dower, the woman's freedom to leave the house is also snatched away. Now she cannot go out to work or earn money for herself without the husband's permission.

But when the woman returns the dower in Khul‘, where did the charges for her sexual services go? She has earned nothing that she can use for her livelihood after divorce. Meaning, after Khul‘, she stands completely empty-handed, and the years she spent providing free sexual services to the husband are wasted.

The woman wasted her youth providing sexual services to the husband, and now she is no longer a virgin, and her value has decreased, and now it is difficult for her to find a man because another oppression of Islam is that the Prophet says people should marry virgins. (Also, in the case of a second marriage, the man does not lose custody of the children, but according to Islam, the woman instantly loses custody of all children in the case of a second marriage).

Islam has provided no protection for the woman. In the West, upon divorce, a woman gets half the share of the property and money made during the marriage, but Islam does not give this to the woman either. At most, in a normal divorce (when the husband divorces), the Muslim excuse is that the woman survives through the dower money (meaning the dower money is for a lifetime of free sexual services and for survival after divorce). But in the case of Khul‘, now that an abusive husband has ruined the woman's youth, taken sexual services from her, and taken back all the dower money in the name of ransom... and then broken her bones and kicked her out alone through Khul‘, how will she bear the cost of a home and other necessities?

Is this what is called giving women rights with "justice"?

Even If the Man Is Infertile and Cannot Have Children, the Woman Cannot Obtain Divorce or Khul‘

A woman has the right to divorce only when the man's penis is physically unable to perform intercourse with penetration.

But if a man is infertile and cannot have children, or has no inclination or desire for the woman, Islam has given the woman no right to obtain a divorce.

The four Sunni Imams of jurisprudence agree that if a man is infertile, the woman cannot divorce him on this basis.

The largest fatwa website of Muslims, Islam Q&A, writes (Link):

If the husband is infertile, meaning he has no children, the majority of scholars do not consider this a defect in the man that allows for the annulment of marriage. Only Hasan al-Basri considers it a defect.

Whereas if a woman is unable to bear children, her status in Islam is not even worth a straw, and the husband can divorce her and kick her out (Link).

'Umar married a barren woman from Bani Makhzoom and then he divorced her and said: "I do not sleep with women only for enjoyment; if they do not give birth, I do not need them."

Sunan Abi Dawud, Book of Divination and Omens (Link):

Ibn Umar narrated that the Messenger of Allah said: "Bad omens are in a house, a woman, and a horse..." Umar ibn al-Khattab says: "A single straw in my house is more valuable than a woman who cannot bear children."

The humiliation Umar is inflicting on women here is evident to all. After this, for Islamic apologists to claim that Islam gave women the most respect is nothing but a mirage.

Muslim Apologists: A Woman Can Stipulate the Right to Divorce at the Time of Nikah

The only excuse Muslims have is that if a woman wishes, she can stipulate before the Nikah that she will also have the right to divorce just like the man.

Answer: Here the question is about Allah's intellect and logic

First of all, Allah has nowhere explicitly stated this issue. Yes, there is not a single Quranic verse or Hadith that describes this right of the woman.

During Muhammad's entire era, not a single woman stipulated the condition of delegated divorce (Tafweez-e-Talaq) at the time of Nikah.

Therefore, according to 3 of the 4 Sunni Imams, such a condition is forbidden or merely temporary, and the man can cancel the woman's condition whenever he wants. Meaning, only one school of thought (Hanafi) permits it.

Thus, due to the major differences among scholars on this matter, and the fact that not a single woman in Muhammad's entire life stipulated delegated divorce, and that neither the Quran nor Muhammad gave any direct guidance on it, 99.999999% of women in the last 14 centuries did not even know that something like delegated divorce existed at the time of Nikah. If their husband turned out to be oppressive and exploited them and danced them on his fingers, they could never get salvation from such an oppressive husband.

And only a few decades ago (in 1961), the box for "delegated divorce" was first placed in the Nikah Nama in Pakistan. And the reason for this was not internal but external, where severe criticism began against Islam regarding this, and especially strong protests were coming from women. But due to the reasons mentioned above, the box remains almost empty even today.

"Allah's" "Failure" to Protect Women from Exploitation and Oppression for 14 Centuries

Thus, for 14 centuries, Muslim women suffered exploitation and oppression (and still do today because even today the right of delegated divorce is not being used by women in the Nikah Nama).

The excuse of Muslims (especially Hanafi scholars) is that the ignorance of 99.99999% of women regarding this law in the last 14 centuries is not Islam's fault, but the fault of Muslims.

But this excuse cannot work because if there really is an Allah in the sky, and He has knowledge of the unseen and knew beforehand the events of the future that millions of Muslim women would be exploited in the next 14 centuries, then why did He not reveal even one clear verse in the Quran to clarify the command of delegated divorce for the Ummah?

Just think what will happen to a girl whose family follows a jurisprudential school that does not even permit these rights? What will a Hanbali girl do who is not allowed to keep any condition against the husband's beating or Ila? Or what will happen to a Shafi'i girl about whom the law says the husband can cancel her right of delegation in a moment whenever he wants?

And also think why a teenage girl is being demanded to have the expertise of a scholar on the day of her wedding? Is it possible to expect that a scared and pressured seventeen or eighteen-year-old bride sitting in a wedding environment will become an expert in Islamic jurisprudence? Is it expected of her to be fully aware of the subtle intricacies of Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki, and Hanbali schools, the principles of delegation and revocation, and which condition is against the Quran and which is not? Would an absolutely wise and sagacious being make the path of basic protection for His followers so difficult and complex that a weak girl has to cross ten difficult stages of jurisprudential labyrinths to protect her life and honor?

And also think what is the fate of young and minor girls? And what about those little girls who are married off at a young age? According to Islamic traditions, Aisha was married at the age of just six. How can a six-year-old girl get the condition of delegated divorce inserted in her marriage contract herself? What law protects this innocent, voiceless, and naive child?

Just think that the Quran is a thick and voluminous book. But Allah filled this thick book with claims of His greatness and power, threats to non-Muslims and warnings of punishment, and old stories, but could not manage to write just one clear and explicit verse stating that a woman has the right to stipulate delegated divorce at the time of Nikah.

Now how can such an Allah be considered the All-Wise?

If there really were a wise Allah in the sky, He would have stated this just verse clearly and explicitly in the Quran in the very first stage that if the husband commits any injustice or exploitation, the woman also has the right to divorce so she can save herself from that exploitation.

Muslim Apologists: Women Are "Emotional" So They Don't Have the Right to Divorce

Answer:

The reality is that men are also divorcing over less salt in the food in anger; in fact, Islam itself has validated divorce by saying "Talaq" just three times (and that too in anger). And Islam could not even realize that not only women but men can also say the word Talaq three times in anger.

If a woman is more emotional, then a man is more angry.

In Pakistan, men abuse and say Talaq dozens of times a day in anger, and at night they are having intercourse with that same divorced wife.

Muslim Apologists: The Quran Has Extended the Divorce Process to 3 Menstrual Cycles

If the divorce process were 3 months long, then not only would the man's emotional anger subside, but the woman's emotional anger would also subside. Therefore, if Muslim apologists use the excuse of 3 months, then they cannot use the excuse of the woman being emotional. (Meaning, these are the double standards of Muslim apologists where they are only saying for the "man" that he will come out of emotionality in 3 months/cycles, but they consider the woman so foolish that she cannot come out of her emotionality even in 3 months).

Muslim Women Should Ask Themselves This Question:

Muslim women must necessarily ask themselves this question:

• If you were in Allah's place and had to make these laws, would you then make a law like Khul‘ for women?

• Can such a being really be Allah who makes laws like Khul‘?

• Do you not feel that a law like Khul‘ was not made by some heavenly Allah, but there is some "man" behind it, and it is seated in his mind that the status of a woman is inferior to a man, and she should live suppressed under the man?

• In this entire system, you are considered a less intelligent creature compared to men who has no right to make decisions about herself.

The humanity inside you is enough to guide you, and it will never misguide you.