the fetus, and she gives him something for that, any thing it may be, similar to what we made binding in the issue of the belongings. The Qadi said: He is entitled to nothing, and he interpreted Ahmad’s statement, "she satisfies him with something," as being for recommendation; because if it were obligatory, it would have been determined by a measure to which one could refer. There is a distinction between these two issues and the issue of dirhams and belongings, where he may revert to the least amount to which the name applies if he finds nothing, while here he does not revert to anything if he finds neither a fetus nor fruit. That is because in that [former case], she deluded him that she had dirhams with her, and that there was property in her house, because she addressed him with a phrasing that necessitates existence given the possibility of her knowledge of it, so he was entitled to what her phrasing indicated, just as if she had entered into khul' with him for a slave, then it was found that he was free. In these two issues, he entered into the contract with her while they were both equal in knowledge of the current state, and both were satisfied with the uncertainty it contained, so he was entitled to nothing else, just as if he had said: "I enter into khul' with you for this free person." Abu Hanifa said: The compensation is not valid here; because it is non-existent. Our argument is that what is permissible regarding a fetus in the womb is permissible regarding what it will bear, like a bequest. Abu al-Khattab chose the view that for these three categories, he is entitled to the amount specified in the dower. Al-Shafi'i made the dower of the like (mahr al-mithl) obligatory for him. Abu Bakr did not deem the khul' valid in any of this. We have already mentioned Ahmad’s texts on its permissibility and the evidence for it. And Allah knows best.

Section: If she enters into khul' with him for the nursing of his child for two years, it is valid, and likewise if they set a known time, whether it is short or long. This is what al-Shafi'i said; because this is something upon which valid exchange is permissible outside of khul', so it is even more so in khul'. If she enters into khul' with him for the nursing of his child without qualification, and they do not mention its duration, it is also valid, and it is referred to what remains of the two years. Ahmad explicitly stated this. It was said to him: "And is this condition valid: the nursing of her child, without him saying: you shall nurse him for two years?" He said: "Yes." The companions of al-Shafi'i said: It is not valid until they mention the duration of the nursing, just as a lease is not valid until they mention the duration. Our argument is that Allah the Almighty restricted it to two years, for He, the Exalted, said: {And the mothers shall nurse their children for two full years}.