Divorce, that is, repudiation of the type that may be revoked, is twice; then honourable retention, that is to say, you are then obliged to revert to them to retain them, without harming them; or setting, them, free kindly. It is not lawful for you, O male spouses, to take of what you have given them, of dowry, if you divorce them, unless the, married, couple fear that they may not maintain God’s bounds, that is to say, that they will not honour the rights God has established for them (a variant reading [for yakhāfā, ‘they (dual form) fear’] has yukhāfā, with the direct object taking the accusative ending; allā yuqīmā is an inclusive substitution for the person [governing the verb]; both verbs are also read in the second person [sc. takhāfā, ‘you fear’, tuqīmā, ‘you maintain’]). If you fear they may not maintain God’s bounds, neither of them would be at fault if she were to ransom herself, of some money, so that he should divorce her. In other words, in this instance, there is no culpability either for the man, should he take of the dowry, or for the woman, should she offer of it. Those, prescriptions mentioned, are God’s bounds; do not transgress them. Whoever transgresses God’s bounds — those are the evildoers.