Section: A woman in a revocable divorce (raj'iyyah) is a wife; his divorce, dhihar (zihar), ila', and li'an can be applied to her, and they inherit from one another by consensus. If he initiates a khul' (divorce for compensation) with her, his khul' is valid. Al-Shafi'i said in one of his two opinions: It is not valid, because it (the khul') is intended for prohibition, and she is already prohibited. Our position is that she is a wife whose divorce is valid, so her khul' is valid, just as it was before the divorce. The purpose of khul' is not prohibition, but rather release from the harm of the husband and the marriage which is the cause of it. The marriage remains, and we are not secure from his return [to her], and furthermore, we deny that she is [actually] prohibited.

Section: The apparent meaning of the words of al-Khiraqi is that the woman in a revocable divorce is prohibited, due to his statement: "And if he does not know whether he divorced her once or three times? He is certain of the prohibition and doubtful of the permissibility." It has been narrated from Ahmad what indicates this, and it is the school of al-Shafi'i. This was also narrated from 'Ata' and Malik. The Qadi said: The apparent [meaning] of the school is that she is permissible. Ahmad said, in the narration of Abu Talib: She does not observe hijab from him. And in the narration of Abu al-Harith: She beautifies herself for him as long as she is in her waiting period. The apparent meaning of this is that she is permissible, and he may travel with her, be in private with her, and have intercourse with her. This is the school of Abu Hanifah, because she is under the ruling of wives, so she is made permissible for him as she was before the divorce. The reasoning for the first view is that it is a divorce that has occurred, so it establishes prohibition, like a divorce for compensation. There is no disagreement that there is no hadd (prescribed punishment) upon him for intercourse. It is not appropriate that a dower (mahr) be incumbent upon him, whether he takes her back or does not take her back, because he had intercourse with his wife whom his divorce can reach, so there is no dower upon him, like all [other] wives. This differs from the case where a husband has intercourse after one of them embraces Islam during the waiting period, where the dower becomes mandatory if the other does not embrace Islam during the waiting period; this is because if he does not embrace Islam, it becomes clear that the separation occurred from the time of the first Muslim's conversion, and it is a separation of annulment (faskh) by which she becomes separate from his marriage, thus it resembles the woman who breastfed someone whose marriage is annulled by that breastfeeding. In our issue, she does not become separate except by the expiration of the waiting period; therefore, the two cases differ.