intends by it a divorce, nothing occurs, because Khul' without compensation does not occur [as a divorce] according to one of the two narrations. According to the other narration, he only consented to the annulment here for the sake of the compensation; so if the compensation is not obtained by him, the object of compensation is not obtained [either]. Malik said: If he took something from her in this manner, he must return it, and the Khul' remains binding upon him. A similar outcome is derived for us if we say: Khul' without compensation is valid.

Section: As for if he strikes her due to her recalcitrance (Nushuz) and denies her right, her Khul' is not prohibited for that reason, because that does not prevent them from fearing that they will not be able to uphold the boundaries of Allah. In some versions of the hadith of Habibah, it is mentioned that she was married to Thabit ibn Qays and he struck her, breaking her rib. She came to the Prophet (peace be upon him), and the Prophet (peace be upon him) summoned Thabit and said: "Take back some of her wealth, and separate from her." He did so. It was narrated by Abu Dawud. The same applies if he strikes her unjustly—due to his bad temper or otherwise—without intending by that for her to ransom herself; it is not prohibited for him to grant her Khul', because he did not constrain her in order to take away some of what he gave her, though he bears the sin of the injustice.

Section: If she commits an act of lewdness (Fahishah) and he constrains her in order that she might ransom herself from him, and she does so, the Khul' is valid, due to the saying of Allah the Almighty: {Nor should you constrain them in order to take away some of what you have given them, except if they come up with a clear act of lewdness}. An exception from a prohibition implies permission. Furthermore, whenever she commits adultery, he is not secure from the possibility that she might attribute to him a child from someone else, corrupt his bed, and fail to uphold the boundaries of Allah regarding his rights, thus falling under the saying of Allah the Almighty: {If you fear that they will not be able to uphold the boundaries of Allah, then there is no blame upon them for what she ransoms herself with}. This is one of the two opinions of al-Shafi'i. The other opinion is: It is not valid, because it is compensation she was coerced into giving, resembling the case if she had not committed adultery. The text [of the Quran] takes precedence.

Section: When he Khala'a (grants Khul' to) his wife or Bara'a-ha (frees himself from her) with compensation, they may retract from the rights that exist between them.