I realize there are a few different ways of going about proving this, depending on one's background, but there's a particular number theoretic aspect that I am just blanking on, and can't seem to find the info on. (BTW I'm aware of the "well known" result that noncompact arithmetic Kleinian groups are commensurable to Bianchi groups, though cannot seem to find a proof addressing the part bugging me -- so please do not just reference that as the reason).

Let's set up the conventional notation. Let $\Gamma$ be the Kleinian group. Since $\Gamma$ is arithmetic, we have a quaternion algebra $\mathcal{A}$ over a number field $k$, where $k$ has a unique complex place $\rho$, and $\mathcal{A}$ ramifies at all real places of $k$. And we have an order $\mathcal{O}\subset\mathcal{A}$, such that $\Gamma$ is commensurable to $P\rho(\mathcal{O}^1)\subset \text{PSL}_2(\mathbb{C})$.

Let $k_0\Gamma$ and $A_0\Gamma$ be, respectively, the trace field and quaternion algebra of $\Gamma$. Omitting some details, I'm able to show that $k=k_0\Gamma$ and $\mathcal{A}\cong A_0\Gamma$. We also know that, since $\Gamma$ is noncocompact, $\mathbb{H}^3/\Gamma$ has cusps, which contribute parabolic elements to $\Gamma$, and if $p\in\Gamma$ is parabolic, then $p-1\in A_0\Gamma$ is not invertible, hence $A_0\Gamma$ can't be a division algebra. Using some more theory which I'll omit here (but I'm comfortable with that part), then we can get that $A_0\Gamma\cong\mathsf{M}_2(k_0\Gamma)$.

Now here's the number theory part I'm stuck on (which I am kind of embarrassed about, but not enough to not post!)

**Suppose that $[k:\mathbb{Q}]>2$. Apparently, this implies that $\mathcal{A}$ would have some ramification. Why?** Once this is established, we can use the fact that a split $\mathcal{A}$ never has finite ramification, giving a contradition. Then we'd get that $[k:\mathbb{Q}]\leq2$, but since $k\not\subset\mathbb{R}$, then $[k:\mathbb{Q}]=2$ and we are done.

But why would number field of degree greater than 2 necessarily force the quaternion algebra to ramify? I looked at some examples and observed this is true, but can't seem to understand it as a general property.

Thanks in advance for any help and/or patience.