How can one reconcile the view of those who stipulate the husband's consent for khulʿ, based on the opinions of فقهاء (jurists) and hadith commentators like Ibn Hajar and Al-Kirmani, who believe that the Prophet's (peace be upon him) command to Thabit ibn Qays was for guidance and not obligation, with the position of Imam Al-Jassas, who permits khulʿ without the ruler's consent and necessitates mutual agreement between the parties, citing Allah's saying: (Then there is no blame upon them for what she gives up to free herself thereby) and (And do not constrain them in order to take away part of what you gave them, unless they commit a clear immorality), and the Prophet's (peace be upon him) action with the wife of Thabit ibn Qays, which indicates that khulʿ relies on consent and not compulsion from the ruler?
"Khul' (divorce at the wife's instance) does not require the husband's consent unless the wife is harmed by staying with her husband and the husband refuses to grant her Khul'. In such a case, the judge may rule for Khul' even if the husband does not consent. This issue is a matter of scholarly disagreement, but the preponderant opinion is its permissibility, which was favored by the two Shaykhs, Ibn Baz and Ibn Uthaymin."
Summarized from the full answer at Ftawy · reviewed Sep 2, 2026
Read the full answer on Ftawyhttps://ftawy.com/en/questions/108851