is valid, because the contract is independent of that compensation. Our position is that she offered compensation for her divorce and her co-wife's divorce, so it is valid, just as if she said: "Divorce me and my co-wife for one thousand." If he does not fulfill her condition, she is liable for the lesser of the specified amount or the one thousand she stipulated. It is possible that he is not entitled to any of the compensation because she only offered it on a condition that was not met, so he is not entitled to it, just as if he had divorced her without compensation.

1243 - Issue: He said: "And whatever a slave offers as compensation to divorce his wife is valid, and it belongs to his master."

In summary, every husband whose divorce is valid, his Khul' is valid, because if he possesses the authority to divorce—which is merely the removal [of a marriage] without obtaining anything—then possessing it while obtaining compensation is even more appropriate. A slave possesses the authority to divorce, so he possesses the authority for Khul'; the same applies to the Mukatab (a slave with a contract of emancipation) and the السفيه (the legally incompetent person). Regarding the discerning minor, there are two views based on the validity of his divorce. One whose divorce is not valid, such as a child or an insane person, his Khul' is not valid, because he is not one of those capable of legal disposition, so his speech has no legal effect. When a slave performs Khul', the compensation belongs to his master, because it is from his earnings, and his earnings belong to his master; all others we mentioned, the compensation belongs to them. The compensation must be delivered to the master of the slave and the guardian of the legally incompetent person, because the compensation in the slave's Khul' is the property of his master, so it is not permissible to deliver it to anyone else except with his permission. The guardian of the legally incompetent person is the one who collects his rights and wealth, and this is one of his rights. As for the Mukatab, the compensation is paid to him because he is the one who acts on his own behalf. The judge said: It is valid for the slave and the legally incompetent person to receive the compensation, because whoever has a valid Khul', his receipt of the compensation is valid, like one who is legally incompetent due to bankruptcy. He cited as evidence the statement of Ahmad: "Whatever a slave acquires from Khul' belongs to his master, and if he spends it, he has no recourse against the donor or the woman who was granted Khul' for anything." The legally incompetent person is in the same position as the slave. It is better not to permit it, because the compensation in the Khul' belongs to the slave's master, so it is not permissible to pay it to someone other than the one to whom it belongs without the owner's permission. The compensation in the Khul' of the legally incompetent person is his property, except that it is not permissible to deliver it to him because the interdiction (hajr) provided for his prevention from legal disposition. Ahmad's words are interpreted as referring to when the slave dissipates it before it is delivered to him, and that the lack of recourse against her...