recourse against him, because he deceived him; therefore he has recourse against him, just as if he had deceived him by marrying him to a woman with a defect. If he knew that the father's absolution was not valid, he would have no recourse for anything, and the divorce would occur as a revocable one because it is devoid of compensation. In the instance where he has recourse against him, the divorce occurs as an irrevocable one (ba'in) because it is for compensation. If the husband says, "She is divorced if you absolve me from her dower," and he says, "I have absolved you," the divorce does not occur because he is not absolved. It is narrated from Ahmad that the divorce does occur. It is possible that he causes it to occur if the husband intended to condition the divorce upon the mere verbal utterance of absolution, rather than the reality of the absolution. If the husband says, "She is divorced if I am absolved from her dower," it does not occur because he conditioned it upon a condition that was not met. If the father says, "Divorce her for one thousand from her wealth, and I bear the liability (al-darak)," and he divorces her, she is divorced irrevocably, because it is for compensation, which is what the father incurred by guaranteeing the liability, but he does not possess the one thousand; for he has no authority to offer it.

Section: If he says to his two wives, "You are both divorced for one thousand if you both will it," and they say, "We have willed it," the divorce occurs for both of them as an irrevocable divorce, and the compensation becomes incumbent upon them both according to the measure of their respective dowers. If one of them wills it and the other does not, neither of them is divorced, because he made their volition a condition for the divorce of each one of them. This differs from the case where he says, "You are both divorced for one thousand," and one of them accepts and the other does not; in that case, the divorce for consideration becomes incumbent upon her, because he did not make her divorce conditional, whereas here, he conditioned the divorce of each of them upon both of them willing it. Thus, the ruling attaches to their statement: "We have willed it," as a verbal utterance, because there is no way to know what is in the heart. If the husband says, "You did not will it, and you only said that with your tongues," or they say, "We did not will it in our hearts," it is not accepted. Once this is established, the compensation is divided between them according to the amount of