three. If he says, 'You are divorced, and divorced, and divorced,' without saying 'for a thousand,' it is asked of him: 'Which of them did you make occur for the thousand?' If he says, 'The first,' she becomes irrevocably divorced by it, and those after it do not occur. If he says, 'The second,' she becomes irrevocably divorced by it, and two divorces occur through it, but the third does not occur. If he says, 'The third,' all of them occur. If he says, 'I intended that the thousand be in exchange for the totality,' she becomes irrevocably divorced by the first alone, and those after it do not occur through it, because a compensation was realized in exchange for the first, which is its portion of the thousand; therefore, she becomes irrevocably divorced by it, and he is entitled to a third of the thousand, because he consented to making it occur for that, similar to her saying, 'Divorce me for a thousand,' and he saying, 'You are divorced for five hundred.' This is how the Qadi mentioned it, and it is the school of al-Shafi'i. It is also possible that he is entitled to the thousand, because he fulfilled what she offered compensation for, with the intention of compensation, so no part of it lapses by his intention, just as if she said, 'Return my slave for a thousand,' and he returned him intending five hundred. If he did not intend anything, he is entitled to the thousand for the first, and those after it do not occur through it. It is also possible that all three occur, because the 'wa' (and) is for aggregation and does not necessitate sequence, so it is like his saying, 'You are divorced three times for a thousand.' This is likewise [if he says that] to one who has not been consummated with, or says: 'You are divorced, and divorced, and divorced for a thousand.' She is divorced three times.

Section: If she says, 'Divorce me for a thousand,' or 'on the condition that you have a thousand,' or 'if you divorce me, you have a thousand against me,' and he says, 'You are divorced,' he is entitled to the thousand, even if he does not mention it, because his statement is a response to what she requested from him, and the question is as if it were repeated in the answer. It is therefore similar to if she said, 'Sell me your slave for a thousand,' and he said, 'I have sold him to you.' If she says, 'Khula' me for a thousand,' and he says, 'You are divorced,' if we say that Khula' is an irrevocable divorce, it occurs and he is entitled to the compensation, because he answered her regarding what she offered the compensation for. If we say that it is an annulment (faskh), it is possible that he is also entitled to the compensation, because the divorce contains what she requested, which is her becoming irrevocably separated, and it contains the additional [benefit] of reducing the number [of remaining divorces], so it is similar to if she said, 'Divorce me once for a thousand,' and he divorced her