For he is spending compensation in exchange for something in which he has no benefit, since the ownership does not accrue to him; thus, it is similar to if he said: "Sell your slave to Zayd for one thousand upon me." Our position is that it is an expenditure of wealth in exchange for the removal of a right from someone else, so it is valid, just as if he said: "Free your slave, and his price is upon me." And because if he were to say: "Cast your merchandise into the sea, and its price is upon me," it would be valid and binding upon him, despite it not removing a right from anyone; so this is even more so. Furthermore, it is a right against the woman, and it is permissible to remove it from her in exchange for compensation, so it is permissible for someone other than her, like a debt. It differs from sale, for that is a transfer of ownership, so it is not permissible without the consent of the one in whom ownership is established. If he says: "Divorce your wife for her dower, and I am a guarantor for it," it is valid, and he returns to him for her dower.

Section: If his wife says to him: "Divorce me and my co-wife for one thousand," and he divorces them both, the divorce occurs for both of them irrevocably, and he is entitled to the thousand from the one who offered it, because Khul' with a stranger is permissible. If he divorces one of them, the judge said: "She is divorced by an irrevocable divorce, and the one who offered it is liable for her share of the thousand." This is the school of al-Shafi'i, except that some of them said: "She is liable for the dower of the equal of the one divorced." The analogy of our companions' position, in the case where she says: "Divorce me three times for one thousand," and he divorces her once, and she is not liable for anything, and the divorce occurs, is that the one who offered the compensation is not liable for anything here, because he did not respond to her request, so what she offered does not become binding upon her. And because her purpose may be their complete separation from him, so when he divorces one of them, her purpose is not achieved, and she is not liable for its compensation.

Section: If she says: "Divorce me for one thousand, on the condition that you divorce my co-wife," or "on the condition that you do not divorce my co-wife," then the Khul' is valid, and the condition and the offer are binding. Al-Shafi'i said: "The condition and the compensation are void, and it returns to the dower of the equal, because the condition is an advance payment in divorce, and part of the compensation is in exchange for a void condition, so the remainder is unknown." Abu Hanifa said: "The condition is void, and the compensation