1237 - Issue: He said: "If she says to him: 'Khul' (divorce me) for what is in my possession of dirhams,' and he does so, and there is nothing in her possession, three dirhams become binding upon her."

The summary of this is that khul' for an unknown amount is permissible, and he is entitled to what is assigned to him. This is the opinion of the scholars of reason (Ashab al-Ra'y). Abu Bakr said: The khul' is not valid, and he is entitled to nothing; because it is an exchange, so it is not valid for an unknown amount, like a sale. This is the opinion of Abu Thawr. Al-Shafi'i said: The khul' is valid, and he is entitled to her dowry of equal status (mahr al-mithl); because it is an exchange for the pudendum, so if the compensation is unknown, the dowry of equal status becomes due, like in marriage. Our argument is that divorce is a matter that allows for suspension upon a condition, so it is permissible for an unknown compensation to be made mandatory through it, like a bequest. Furthermore, khul' is a relinquishment of his right to the pudendum, and it does not involve the ownership of anything. Relinquishment is subject to leniency, which is why it is permissible without any compensation, unlike marriage. When the khul' is valid, the dowry of equal status does not become due; because she did not offer it, nor did she cause him to lose something that would necessitate it. The departure of the pudendum from the husband's possession is not considered a valued property, as evidenced by the fact that if she removed it from his possession through her apostasy, or her breastfeeding of someone through whom her marriage becomes annulled, nothing becomes due from her. If she killed herself or a stranger killed her, no compensation for a part of her is due to the husband. If she were had intercourse with by mistake or under duress, the dowry would be due to her and not the husband, and if she consented, the husband would have nothing. The pudendum is only valued against the husband in marriage specifically, and he has permitted her to ransom herself due to her need for that, so what becomes mandatory is what she consented to give. As for making something mandatory that she did not consent to, there is no basis for that. According to this, if he enters into khul' with her for what is in her possession of dirhams, it is valid. If there are dirhams in her possession, they are his; and if there is nothing in her possession, three dirhams are due from her. Ahmad stated this; because it is the smallest amount to which the name of 'dirhams' applies in reality, and its wording indicated that, so he is entitled to it, just as if she had bequeathed him dirhams. If there were less than three in her possession, it is possible that he is entitled to nothing other than that; because it is from the dirhams, and it is in her possession.