the husband, in such a way that there is no way to refute it. For the ruling that predominates in these is that of pure suspension, as evidenced by the validity of suspending it upon the condition. The divorce takes place upon the realization of the condition, whether the giving is immediate or deferred. Al-Shafi'i said: "If he says, 'Whenever you give me,' or 'Whenever you give me,' or 'At any time,' or 'At any moment you give me a thousand, you are divorced,' then it is deferred. If he says, 'If you give me,' or 'When you give me a thousand, you are divorced,' then it is immediate." If she gives it to him in response to his statement, the divorce occurs; if the giving is delayed, the divorce does not occur, because the acceptance of compensations (mu'awadat) is immediate, and since he did not state otherwise, it must be interpreted according to the rules of compensations, unlike "whenever" (mata) and "any" (ayyan), for they contain explicit language of deferment. And if they become a compensation, its suspension upon a condition is permissible. As for "if" (in) and "when" (idha), they carry the possibility of both immediacy and deferment; therefore, when compensation is tied to them, they are interpreted as immediate. Our position is that he suspended the divorce upon the condition of giving, so it is deferred, like other suspensions. Or we say: he suspended the divorce using a particle whose implication is deferment, so it is deferred, just as if it were devoid of compensation. The evidence that its implication is deferment is that it implies deferment when devoid of compensation, and the implications of terms do not differ based on the presence or absence of compensation. This compensation is distinct from other compensations, as evidenced by the permissibility of suspending it upon conditions. It is deferred when he suspends it using "whenever" (mata) or "any" (ayyan), so it is likewise in our case. It is not valid to analogize our case to other compensations because of the difference we have mentioned. Furthermore, their analogy is invalidated by the master's statement to his slave: "If you give me a thousand, you are free." It is just like our case, and it is considered deferred.