as a revocable (raj'i) divorce, and he is entitled to nothing. According to the view of al-Qadi, if she accepts that, the thousand becomes binding upon her, and it constitutes a khul' (divorce for compensation); otherwise, the divorce does not occur. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i. It is also the apparent meaning of the words of al-Khiraqi, for he employed the particle 'ala' (upon) to denote a condition in several places in his book, among which is his statement: 'And if he marries her upon the condition that he does not take another wife alongside her, she has the right to separate from him if he takes another wife alongside her.' This is because 'ala' is used to signify a condition, as evidenced by the words of Allah the Almighty in the story of Shu'ayb: "He said, 'Indeed, I wish to wed you one of these two daughters of mine, on the condition that you serve me for eight years'" [Quran 28:26]. He also said: "'So shall we pay you a tribute on the condition that you make a barrier between us and them?'" [Quran 18:94]. And Musa said: "'May I follow you on the condition that you teach me from what you have been taught of guidance?'" [Quran 18:66]. If one were to say in a marriage contract: 'I marry you to my daughter upon a dowry of such-and-such,' it is valid. Thus, when he makes it contingent upon compensation, it does not occur without it, and it proceeds in the same manner as his saying: 'You are divorced if you give me a thousand, or guarantee a thousand for me.' The basis for the first view is that he initiated the divorce without attaching it to a condition and stipulated compensation upon her which she did not tender; therefore, it occurred as a revocable divorce without compensation, just as if he had said, 'You are divorced, and you owe a thousand.' Furthermore, 'ala' does not denote a condition nor an exchange; for this reason, it is not valid to say: 'I sold you my garment upon a dinar.'

Section: If he says, 'You are divorced three times for a thousand,' and she says, 'I have accepted one of them for a thousand,' all three occur, and he is entitled to the thousand; because the issuance of the divorce rests with him, and his attaching it to compensation acts as a condition from her side, and the condition has been met, so the divorce occurs. If she says, 'I have accepted for two thousand,' it occurs, but the additional thousand is not binding upon her, because the acceptance pertains to what he imposed, not what he did not impose. If she says, 'I have accepted for five hundred,' it does not occur, because the condition was not met. If she says, 'I have accepted one of the three for a third of a thousand,' it does not occur, because he did not consent to the termination of his right of return (raj'a) over her except for a thousand. If he says, 'You are divorced two divorces, one of them for a thousand,' then one of them occurs without compensation, and the other occurs upon her acceptance, because it is for compensation.