one [divorce], he is entitled to the compensation. If he marries her after that and does not divorce her, she recovers the compensation from him, because she offered the compensation in exchange for three [divorces]; so if he does not execute the three, he is not entitled to the compensation, just as if she were a woman with three [potential] divorces and said, 'Divorce me three times,' and he only divorced her once. The implication of this is that if he does not marry her in another marriage, she recovers the compensation from him, and his marriage to her is only nullified by the death of one of them. If he marries her in another marriage and divorces her twice, she recovers nothing from him, but if he does not divorce her except once, she recovers all of the compensation from him. The Qadi said: The correct view in the school is that this is not valid regarding the two subsequent divorces, because it is a forward sale (salam) of a divorce, and a forward sale is not valid in divorce, and because it is a transaction of compensation regarding a divorce before marriage, and divorce before marriage is not valid; therefore, compensation for it is more so [invalid]. If it is void regarding those two, this is built upon the issue of separating the transaction (tafriq al-safqa). If we say: It can be separated, then he is entitled to a third of the thousand. If we say: It cannot be separated, the compensation is void in its entirety, and he recovers the specified amount in the marriage contract.

Section: If she says, 'Divorce me once for a thousand,' and he divorces her three times, he is entitled to the thousand. Muhammad ibn al-Hasan said: The analogy of Abu Hanifa's view is that he is entitled to nothing, because the three [divorces] are contrary to the one [requested], since her prohibition is not lifted except by a husband and intercourse, and she might not desire that, nor would she offer compensation for it. Thus, it was not an execution of what she requested, but rather an initial [act of] divorce, so he is not entitled to any compensation for it. Our view is that he executed what she requested plus an addition, because three [divorces] are [composed of] one and two. Similarly, if he says, 'Divorce yourself three times,' and she divorces herself once, it occurs, and he is entitled to the compensation for the one, but he is not entitled to anything for the increase which she did not offer compensation for. If he says to her, 'You are divorced for a thousand, and divorced, and divorced,' the first occurs irrevocably, and the second and third do not occur, because they came after her becoming irrevocably divorced. This is the school of al-Shafi'i. If he says to her, 'You are divorced, and divorced, and divorced for a thousand,' then it occurs.