Section: The compensation in khul' is like the compensation in a dowry (sadaq) and a sale. If it is something measurable by volume (makil) or weight (mawzun), it does not enter into the husband’s liability (daman), and he does not possess the right to dispose of it until he has taken possession of it. If it is other than these two, it enters his liability the moment the khul' is concluded, and his disposal of it is valid. Ahmad said regarding a woman who said to her husband: "Place my affair in my own hands, and you may have this slave," and he did so, then she was given the choice and she chose herself after the slave had died: It is valid, and she owes nothing. He said: And if she had emancipated the slave and then chose herself, her emancipation of him would not be valid. He did not consider her emancipation of him to be valid because her ownership of him ceased when she made him compensation in the khul', and he did not make her liable for him if he perished, because it is specified compensation that is neither measurable by volume nor weight, so it entered the husband’s liability the moment the contract was concluded. A view is derived regarding this that it does not enter into his liability and his disposal of it is not valid until he takes possession of it, just as we mentioned regarding the compensation in a sale and in a dowry. As for what is measurable by volume or weight, his disposal of it is not valid, nor does it enter into his liability until he takes possession of it. If it perishes before he takes possession of it, what is required is its equivalent (mithl), because it is from the category of things with equivalents. Al-Qadi mentioned regarding the dowry that it is permissible to dispose of it before taking possession of it, even if it is measurable by volume or weight, because the cause for it does not become void by its perishing, so the case here is the same.

1238- Issue: He said: "And if he enters into khul' with her without compensation, it is a khul', and he has nothing."

There is a difference of opinion in the narration [from Ahmad] regarding this issue. His son, 'Abd Allah, reported from him, saying: I asked my father: A man whose wife clings to him and says, "Khula' me." He said: "I have khula'd you." He said: He may marry her, and renew a new marriage, and she remains with him on two [remaining pronouncements of divorce]. The apparent meaning of this is the validity of khul' without compensation. This is the opinion of Malik, because it is a severance of the marriage, so it is valid without compensation, like divorce, and because the basis in the legality of khul' is that there exists a desire from the wife to separate from her husband and a need for his parting, so she asks him for her separation; thus, if he answers her, the intended purpose of the khul' is achieved, and it is valid, just as if it were with compensation. Abu Bakr said: There is no difference of opinion from Abu 'Abd Allah that khul' is what originates from the women. If it originates from the men, there is no dispute that it is a divorce in which the right of return (raj'ah) is possessed, and it is not an annulment (faskh). The second narration is that there is no khul' except with compensation. Muhanna reported from him: If he said to her: "Khula' yourself," and she said: "I have khula'd myself," it is not a khul' unless it is for something, unless he intended divorce, in which case it is what he intended. According to this narration, khul' is not valid except with compensation; if he utters it without compensation and intends divorce, it is a revocable divorce, because it serves as an allusion (kinayah) for divorce. If he does not intend divorce by it, it is nothing. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifah and al-Shafi'i, because if khul' is an annulment, the husband does not possess the right to annul the marriage except for a defect in her. Likewise, if he said: "I have annulled the marriage," and did not intend divorce by it, nothing occurs, unlike when compensation is included, for it then becomes an exchange, so the compensation and the compensated object do not combine for him. If we say: Khul' is a divorce, it is not an explicit term for it by agreement; it is only an allusion, and divorce does not occur through an allusion except with intention or by offering compensation, which then takes the place of intention, and neither of these two was found. Then, if divorce occurs, if it is not with compensation, it does not necessitate final separation (baynunah) unless the three [pronouncements] are completed.

Section: If she says: "Sell me this slave of yours and divorce me for one thousand," and he does so, it is valid, and it is a sale and a khul' for a single compensation; because they are two contracts, each of which is valid on its own for compensation, so combining them is valid, like selling two garments. Ahmad has explicitly stated regarding combining a sale and a currency exchange (sarf) that it is valid, and this is analogous to that. Our companions mentioned another view regarding this, that it is not valid because the rulings of the two contracts differ. The first is more correct due to what we have mentioned. Al-Shafi'i also has two opinions regarding this. According to our view, it is distributed...