Issue 1252: The divorce of a wife who develops an aversion towards her husband and hates him, and forgoes her marriage portion or gives him some other property of hers so that he may divorce her, is referred to as Khula’ divorce.

Issue 1253: If the husband should wish to pronounce the formula of divorce himself, and if his wife’s name is, for example, Fatima, he should say, “Zawjati Fatimatu Khala’ tuha alaa ma badhalat hiya taliqun”, (i.e. I have given Khula’ divorce to my wife, Fatima, and she is free).

Issue 1254: If the husband and the wife develop mutual aversion and hatred and the woman gives some property to the man so that he may divorce her, this divorce is called “Mubarat”’.

Issue 1255: If during the waiting period of Kula’ or Mubarat divorce the wife changes her mind and does not give her property to the husband, he can take her back as a wife without reciting the formula of marriage.

Q1256: If a woman who has developed an aversion towards her husband and agrees to return her marriage portion which has been fully paid to her, or to give it up if she has not received it yet, or otherwise release him from all his debts and obligations concerning her marriage portion, so as to convince the husband to divorce her (this divorce is referred to as Khula' divorce in Islam), then is it obligatory for the husband to divorce her?

A: Yes, it is obligatory for the husband to divorce her in such a condition. Because to consider it as merely permissible but not obligatory for the husband to divorce his wife in such a condition (with the assumption that all her marriage portion is returned to him, or she gives it all up, and regarding the fact that the authority to divorce is with the husband and he can and is permissible to divorce his wife whenever he wishes to do so), rationally, sensibly and commonly entails injustice and discrimination. Therefore, it is not right just to account it as permissible and it must be considered as an obligation so that such discrimination and injustice which are rationally, traditionally, and according to the Hoy Quran negated and rejected, “And the word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and justice” (The Holy Quran: Al-An'aam: 115); and how would one explain that a religion whose all ordinances are decreed on the basis of justice and negation of oppression, gives the husband the right to annul a binding contract like permanent marriage at any time he wishes, but the same religion has not obliged this man to divorce his wife who has developed an aversion towards him so much so that she agrees to return all her marriage portion- which she receives in return for sleeping with him- to him and thus give up both the husband and the marriage portion and set her self free? And if in such a case, Islam says that the husband still has the right not to divorce his wife, and thus gives him the option in such cases in addition to the option concerning divorce in general, then is this decree not unjust and discriminatory? And is it possible to not consider such a divorce as obligatory despite the fact that depriving the wife of such a right involves injustice and discrimination which are rejected by the Holy Quran, traditions and rationality. It should be said that Sheikh-ul-Ta'ifah, Quadhee-ibni-Barraj and some others believed that Khula' divorce is even obligatory in cases where there is the fear and the probability of the wife's indulging in sinful acts even if the sin is mere disobedience concerning sexual intercourse and also in all cases where obedience is obligatory; and when such fear and probability is materialized, which is often the case in the given assumption, this itself will confirm the necessity of such an obligation concerning Khula' divorce. It should be said that based on its being obligatory, if the husband refuses to divorce his wife, the judge will authoritatively divorce her on behalf of the husband and the other conditions of Khula' divorce, such as the ones concerning the two arbiters, are similar to those of ordinary divorce.