he said: 'When the month begins, you are divorced.' This is valid, he is entitled to the compensation, and the divorce occurs as irrevocable (ba'in) at the beginning of the month because it is in exchange for compensation. If he divorces her before the month arrives, she is divorced and he is entitled to nothing. Abu Bakr mentioned this, and said: 'Ali ibn Sa'id narrated this from Ahmad.' This is because if he divorces her before the beginning of the month, he has chosen to execute the divorce without compensation. Al-Shafi'i said: 'If he takes a thousand from her on the condition that he divorces her in a month, and he divorces her for a thousand, she becomes irrevocably divorced (ba'in), and she owes the dower of her equal (mahr al-mithl), because this is a forward contract (salaf) on a divorce, which is not valid, as divorce is not something that is established as a debt in the dhimma, and because it is a contract linked to a specific object, so the condition of delaying delivery in it is not permitted.' Our position is that she assigned to him a valid compensation for her divorce, so when he divorces her, he is entitled to it, just as if he had not said, 'in a month.' Furthermore, because she assigned to him a valid compensation for her divorce, he is not entitled to more than it, as in the original case.

If she says, 'You have a thousand on the condition that you divorce me at any time you wish, from now until a month,' it is valid according to the analogy of the previous issue. Al-Qadi said: 'It is not valid, because the time of the divorce is unknown, and if he divorces her, he receives the dower of her equal.' This is the school of al-Shafi'i, because he divorced her for a compensation that was not valid due to its corruption. Our position is what was mentioned in the previous case, and the ignorance regarding the time of the divorce does not cause harm, because it is of the type that may be suspended on a condition; thus, it is valid to offer compensation for it with an unknown time, like a reward (ju'ala). Also, if he said, 'Whenever you give me a thousand, you are divorced,' it would be valid, and its time is more unknown than the ignorance here, for the ignorance here is within one month, while there it is for the entire lifetime. Al-Qadi's statement that 'he is entitled to the dower of her equal' contradicts the analogy of the school; for he mentioned in the places where the compensation is invalid that he is entitled to the specified amount, so it must also be the case here if we rule it to be invalid. And Allah knows best.

Section: If he says to her, 'You are divorced, and you owe a thousand,' it occurs as a revocable (raj'iyya) divorce, and she owes nothing, because he did not assign the compensation as a consideration for it, nor as a condition for it; rather, he conjoined it to her divorce, so it is similar to if he said, 'You are divorced, and you owe the Hajj.' If the woman gives him compensation for that, it is not considered compensation for it, because nothing corresponded to it, and it was an initiated gift, in which the conditions of a gift are considered.