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.

1242 - Issue: He said: "And if a slave woman (amah) performs khul' with him without the permission of her master for a known item, the khul' is effective, and he pursues her for it once she is emancipated, with its equivalent if it has an equivalent, otherwise with its value (1)."

There are three sections regarding this issue:

First: The khul' with a slave woman is valid, regardless of whether it is with the permission of her master or without it; because khul' is valid with a stranger, so it is even more appropriate with a wife, and her divorce for compensation is a distinct (ba'in) divorce. Khul' with her is exactly like khul' with a free woman.

Second Section: If the khul' is without the permission of her master for something owed as a liability (dhimma), then he pursues her for it once she is emancipated, because he was satisfied with her liability. If it were a specific object ('ayn), then what al-Khiraqi mentioned is that its equivalent is established as a liability upon her, or its value if it is not of those that have equivalents; because she does not own the specific object, and whatever is in her possession (3) belongs to her master, so she is liable for its substitute, just as if he performed khul' with her for a slave and that slave turned out to be free or someone else’s property. The analogy (qiyas) of the school (madhhab) is that he gets nothing; because when he performs khul' with her for a specific object, and he knows that she is a slave woman, he knows that she does not own that specific object, so he is considered satisfied with no compensation, and thus he gets nothing, just as if he had said: "I have performed khul' with you for this usurped item or this free person." Likewise, al-Qadi mentioned in "al-Mujarrad", saying: It is like khul' for a usurped item; [because she does not own it] (4). This is the opinion of Malik. Al-Shafi'i said: He has recourse against her