upon separation, it is an irrevocable divorce, in which he has no right of return (11). They argued using the Prophet's statement, peace be upon him, to Jamilah: "Will you return his garden to him?" She said: "Yes." So the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, separated them and said: "Take what you gave her, and do not add to it" (12), and he did not require a verbal utterance from him. They also argued that the indicator of the situation dispenses with the need for a verbal utterance; as evidenced by the case where someone gives their garment to a cleaner or tailor known for such work, and they perform the work, they become entitled to payment (13), even if they did not stipulate compensation.

Our response is that this is one of the two types of Khul', so it is not valid without a verbal utterance, just as if she were to ask him to divorce her for compensation. Furthermore, it is a disposition involving the private parts in exchange for compensation, so it is not valid without a verbal utterance, like marriage and divorce. Moreover, taking money is the receiving of compensation, so it does not, by itself, stand in the place of an offer, just like receiving one of the two counter-values in a sale. Additionally, if Khul' is a divorce, then it does not take effect without its explicit term or its metonymy, and if it is an annulment, it is one of the two sides of a marriage contract, so a verbal utterance is required for it, like the initiation of the contract.

As for the hadith of Jamilah, al-Bukhari narrated it as: "Accept the garden, and divorce her with one pronouncement" (14). This is explicit in the requirement of a verbal utterance. In another version: "He commanded him, and he separated from her." Whoever does not mention the separation has merely limited themselves to a part of the story, as evidenced by the version of the one who narrated the separation and the divorce, for the story is one, and an addition from a reliable narrator is accepted. This is supported by the fact that he said: "The Prophet, peace be upon him, separated them," and said: "Take what you gave her." Thus, he placed the separation before the compensation and attributed the separation to the Prophet, peace be upon him. It is known that the Prophet, peace be upon him, does not personally perform the separation, which indicates that the Prophet, peace be upon him, commanded it. Perhaps the narrator dispensed with the mention of the verbal utterance by mentioning the compensation, because it is known from him. Based on this, the speech of Ahmad and other imams is interpreted, and that is why they did not mention any utterance or indicator of the situation from her side, although it is necessarily required by consensus.