It has monetary value. It is not binding if he khula's her for a slave and it turns out to be free, because he was not satisfied with receiving no valuable compensation; thus, he may reclaim it based on the rule of being deceived (ghurur), whereas here, he was satisfied with something that has no value. When this is established, if the khula' is performed with the word 'divorce' (talaq), it is a revocable divorce (raj'i), because it is devoid of compensation. If it is performed with the word 'khula'' or allusions to khula' (kinayat al-khula') and he intends divorce by it, then it is the same, because an allusion accompanied by intention is like an explicit expression. If it is performed with the word 'khula'' and he does not intend divorce, it rests on a foundational principle: Does khula' validly occur without compensation? There are two narrations regarding this. If we say it is valid, then it is valid here. If we say it is not valid, it does not occur, and nothing happens. If he says, 'If you give me wine or carrion, you are divorced,' and she gives him that, she is divorced and nothing is owed by her. According to al-Shafi'i, she owes the dowry of a similar woman, similar to his view on the previous case.

Section: If he says, 'If you give me a slave, you are divorced,' and she gives him a slave who is a mudabbar (a slave granted freedom after the master's death) or a slave half-emancipated, the divorce occurs in both cases because they are equivalent to an absolute slave (qinn) regarding ownership. If she gives him a free person, or usurped property, or mortgaged property, she is not divorced, because the 'gift' (atiyya) only encompasses what is valid to own, and that which cannot be legally owned cannot be considered 'given.' If he says, 'If you give me this slave, you are divorced,' and she gives it to him, and it turns out to be free or usurped, she is not divorced either, according to what Abu Bakr mentioned and what Ahmad hinted at. The Qadi mentioned another view, that the divorce occurs; he said: Ahmad hinted at this in another place, because if he specified it, he has preempted her judgment regarding it, so when she gives it to him, the condition is fulfilled and the divorce occurs, unlike the unspecified case. The followers of al-Shafi'i also have two views similarly. According to their view that the divorce occurs, is he entitled to reclaim its value or the dowry of a similar woman? There are two views. Our position is that the meaning of 'gift' that readily comes to mind when it is used without qualification is the enabling of ownership, as evidenced by the unspecified case; and because the 'gift' here is the transfer of ownership, as evidenced by the acquisition of ownership through it when the slave is owned by her, and the absence of divorce when it is unspecified.