legality of khul' is that there exists a desire from the wife to separate from her husband and a need for his parting, so she asks him for her separation; thus, if he answers her, the intended purpose of the khul' is achieved, and it is valid, just as if it were with compensation. Abu Bakr said: There is no difference of opinion from Abu 'Abd Allah that khul' is what originates from the women. If it originates from the men, there is no dispute that it is a divorce in which the right of return (raj'ah) is possessed, and it is not an annulment (faskh). The second narration is that there is no khul' except with compensation. Muhanna reported from him: If he said to her: "Khula' yourself," and she said: "I have khula'd myself," it is not a khul' unless it is for something, unless he intended divorce, in which case it is what he intended. According to this narration, khul' is not valid except with compensation; if he utters it without compensation and intends divorce, it is a revocable divorce, because it serves as an allusion (kinayah) for divorce. If he does not intend divorce by it, it is nothing. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifah and al-Shafi'i; because if khul' is an annulment, the husband does not possess the right to annul the marriage except for a defect in her. Likewise, if he said: "I have annulled the marriage," and did not intend divorce by it, nothing occurs, unlike when compensation is included, for it then becomes an exchange, so the compensation and the compensated object do not combine for him. If we say: Khul' is a divorce, it is not an explicit term for it by agreement; it is only an allusion, and divorce does not occur through an allusion except with intention or by offering compensation, which then takes the place of intention, and neither of these two was found. Then, if divorce occurs, if it is not with compensation, it does not necessitate final separation (baynunah) unless the three [pronouncements] are completed.
Section: If she says: "Sell me this slave of yours and divorce me for one thousand," and he does so, it is valid, and it is a sale and a khul' for a single compensation; because they are two contracts, each of which is valid on its own for compensation, so combining them is valid, like selling two garments. Ahmad has explicitly stated regarding combining a sale and a currency exchange (sarf) that it is valid, and this is analogous to that. Our companions mentioned another view regarding this, that it is not valid because the rulings of the two contracts differ. The first is more correct due to what we have mentioned. Al-Shafi'i also has two opinions regarding this. According to our view, it is distributed
(2) Omitted from B and M. (3) In the original, there is an addition: "not". (4) In the original: "it occurs". (5) In A, B, and M: "for her defect". (6) In A, B, and M: "for the compensation".
مَشْروعيَّةِ الخُلْعِ أن تُوجدَ مِن المرأةِ رَغْبةٌ عن زَوْجِها، وحاجةٌ إلى فِرَاتِه، فتَسْألَه فراقَها، فإذا أجابَها، حصلَ المقْصودُ مِنَ الخُلْعِ، فصحَّ، كما لو كان بعِوَضٍ. قال أبو بكرٍ: لا (٢) خلافَ عن أبى عبدِ اللَّهِ، أَنَّ الخُلْعَ ما كان مِن قِبَلِ النِّساءِ، فإذا كان مِن قِبَلِ الرِّجالِ، فلا نِزاعَ فى أنَّه طلاقٌ تُمْلَكُ به الرَّجْعةُ، ولا يكونُ فَسْخًا. والرِّوايةُ الثَّانيةُ، لا يكونُ خُلْعٌ إلَّا بِعِوَضٍ. رَوَى عنه مُهَنَا، إذا قال لها: اخْلَعِى نفسَك. فقالت: خلَعْتُ نفسِى. لم يكُنْ خُلعًا إلَّا على شىءٍ، إلَّا أن يكونَ نَوى الطَّلاقَ، فيكونُ ما نَوَى. فعلَى هذه الرِّوايةِ، لا يصحُّ الخُلْعُ إلَّا بعِوَضٍ، فإنْ تَلفَّظَ به بغيرِ عِوَضٍ، ونَوَى الطَّلاقَ، كان طلاقًا رَجْعِيًّا؛ لأنَّه (٣) يَصلُحُ كنايةً عَنِ الطَّلاقِ. وإن لم يَنْوِ به الطَّلاقَ، لم يكُنْ (٤) شيئًا. وهذا قولُ أبى حنيفةَ، والشَّافعىِّ؛ لأنَّ الخُلْعَ إن كان فسخًا، فلا يَمْلِكُ الزَّوجُ فَسْخَ النِّكاحِ إلا لِعَيْبِها (٥). وكذلك لو قال: فَسَخْتُ النِّكاحٍ. ولم يَنْوِ به الطَّلاقَ، لم يقَعْ شىءٌ، بخلافِ ما إذا دخلَه العِوَضُ، فإنَّه يَصيرُ مُعاوَضَةً، فلا يجْتمِعُ له العِوَضُ والمُعَوَّضُ. وإن قُلْنا: الخُلْعُ طلاقٌ. فليس بصريحٍ فيه اتِّفاقًا، وإنما هو كنايةٌ، والكنايةُ لا يقَعُ بها الطَّلاقُ إلَّا بِنِيَّةٍ، أو بَذْلِ العِوَضِ (٦)، فيقومُ مَقامَ النِّيَّةِ، وما وُجِدَ واحدٌ منهما. ثم إنْ وقَعَ الطَّلاقُ، فإذا لم يكُنْ بِعِوَضٍ، لم يَقْتَضِ البَيْنُونةَ إلَّا أن تَكْمُلَ الثَّلاثُ.
فصل: إذا قالت: بِعْنِى عبدَك هذا طلِّقْنِى بألفٍ. ففعلَ، صَحَّ، وكان بيعًا وخُلعًا بعِوَضٍ واحدٍ؛ لأَنَّهما عَقْدَانِ، يصحُّ إفرادُ كلِّ واحدٍ منهما بعِوَضٍ، فصحَّ جَمْعُهما، كبَيْعِ ثَوْبينِ. وقد نَصَّ أحمدُ على الجَمْعِ بين بَيْع وصَرْفٍ، أنَّه يَصحُّ، وهو نظيرٌ لهذا. وذكرَ أصحابُنا فيه وَجْهًا آخرَ، أنَّه لا يصِحُّ؛ لأنَّ أحْكامَ العَقْدَينِ تخْتلِفُ. والأوّلُ أصحُّ؛ لما ذكَرْنا. وللشَّافعىِّ فيه قَوْلانِ أيضًا. فعلى قَوْلِنا يتَقَسَّطُ
(٢) سقط من: ب، م.(٣) فى الأصل زيادة: "لا".(٤) فى الأصل: "يقع".(٥) فى أ، ب، م: "بعيبها".(٦) فى أ، ب، م: "للعوض".
