1241 - Issue: He said: "If she says to him: 'Divorce me three times for a thousand,' and he divorces her once, he is entitled to nothing, and the single divorce becomes binding upon her."

As for the occurrence of the divorce by this, there is no disagreement. As for the thousand, he is not entitled to any part of it. Abu Hanifa, Malik, and al-Shafi'i said: He is entitled to one-third of the thousand; because she solicited an act from him for compensation, so if he performs part of it, he is entitled to the corresponding portion of the compensation, just as if he had said, 'Whoever returns my slaves gets a thousand,' and he returned a third of them, he would be entitled to one-third of the thousand. The same applies to building a wall or sewing a garment. Our position is that she offered compensation in exchange for something that he did not fulfill for her, so he is not entitled to anything, just as if he said in a competition: 'Whoever reaches five hits receives a thousand,' and he only reached some of them. Or, if she said: 'Sell me your two slaves for a thousand,' and he said: 'I sold you one of them for five hundred.' And as if she said: 'Divorce me three times for a thousand,' and he divorced her once, for Abu Hanifa agreed with us in this case that he is not entitled to anything. If it is said: 'The difference between the two is that the letter 'ba' is for compensation not for condition, while 'ala' (upon) is for condition, as if she made his entitlement to the thousand conditional upon him divorcing her three times.' We say: We do not concede that 'ala' is for condition, as it is not mentioned in its letters, and its meaning and the meaning of the 'ba' are the same. Equality has been established between them in the case where she says: 'Divorce me and my co-wife for a thousand, or upon a thousand.' The requirement of the wording does not differ based on whether the divorced woman is one or two.

Section: If she says: 'Divorce me three times and you shall have a thousand,' it is like the case before it; if he divorces her fewer than three times, the divorce occurs and he gets nothing, and if he divorces her three times, he is entitled to the thousand. The school of al-Shafi'i, Abu Yusuf, and Muhammad regarding this is like their position in the previous case. Abu Hanifa said: He is not entitled to anything, even if he divorces her three times, because he did not make the divorce conditional upon the compensation. We say: She solicited the divorce from him for compensation, so it is similar to if he had said: 'Return my slave and you shall have a thousand,' and he returned him. His statement that he did not make the divorce conditional upon the compensation is not conceded, for the meaning of the speech is: 'And you have a thousand in exchange for my divorce,' as the context of the situation indicates that.