Exegesis of the verse: ((And how can you take it back when one of you has gone in to the other, and they have taken from you a solemn covenant?))

Then he said: "How" this is a question expressing wonder and disapproval. And his saying: The clause here is in the position of the accusative as a state, meaning the state is that one of you has gone in to the other, i.e., one of you has reached the other in a way that only a husband reaches his wife. There is a point of discussion; in my view, there is no issue with "I" because it did not say: "And we took from you," because the nun is the nun of the women, not the pronoun of the speaker. If it were the pronoun of the speaker, it would be "and we took". Okay, meaning women And here there is a point of discussion from the side that what preceded it is either singular or dual, so how did the pronoun return as plural for what preceded? The answer to that is to say: what preceded from the singular or the dual is intended to mean the genus, and if the genus is intended, it is correct to make it plural considering the genus. And the covenant is the pledge, and the solemn is the intensified or severe, meaning they took from you a solemn covenant, and that is by the contract of marriage. For the contract of marriage necessitates that whenever the consideration is owned, the thing considered is owned. So when you owned the private parts and made lawful from her what is not made lawful except for the husband, the mahr became obligatory for her, which is the consideration, and it is a solemn covenant that has no counterpart among contracts. The most severe of contracts and the most dangerous of contracts is the contract of marriage, because many things follow from it, such as the establishment of mahram status, lineage, the obligation of maintenance, and other numerous rulings. For this reason, the Lawgiver, or the one who possesses the Law, took precautions for it that He did not take for others. So it is necessary to have a guardian; the woman does not have authority over it by herself, even though she has authority over the sale of her wealth, even if it is much, if she is of age and of sound mind. And it is necessary to have witnesses according to many scholars, whereas testimony is not obligatory in the contract of sale. And it is necessary to be free from impediments, while other contracts may be valid with an impediment, but one would sin, whereas this is not the case. Then, regarding its dissolution and its invalidity, is it like other contracts where one can annul it whenever one wishes? No, there must be restrictions. It is not annulled by menstruation, nor is it annulled by purity in which intercourse occurred. Then, if it is annulled, effects follow from this, such as the waiting period and others. So it is the most dangerous of contracts. For this reason, Allah called it a solemn covenant.