«وَمَا تَجَاوَزْتُ إِذْ عَنِيتُ بِهِ»
I did not go beyond what was proper in handling it,
«حَدَّ التَّرَاضِي فَيَحْدُثَ الْغَضَبُ»
Beyond the bounds of mutual agreement so as to cause anger.
The husband invokes the boundary of mutual agreement to defend his handling of the wife’s goods. Grammatically and narratively, this is a party’s assertion about consent, not independent proof that consent existed.
The wife has already complained of loss; the husband now contests the implication. Responsible interpretation preserves their distinct accounts and asks what evidence could establish the underlying facts. A fluent defence is not a substitute for proof.