demand her during the period of her interdiction, just as if she had incurred a debt from him, or he had sold her something on her liability.
Section: As for the woman under interdiction for prodigality (safah), minority, or insanity, it is not valid for the compensation in khul' to be offered by her, because it is a disposal of wealth and she is not qualified for it, regardless of whether the guardian permits it or not, as he does not have the authority to permit charitable acts (tabarru'at), and this is like a charitable act. It differs from the slave woman, as she is qualified for disposal (8); for this reason, gifts and other disposals are valid from her with his permission. It also differs from the insolvent woman, as she is qualified for disposal. If he performs khul' with the woman under interdiction using a phrasing that constitutes a divorce (9), it is a revocable divorce, and he is not entitled to compensation. If the wording is not of the type that effects a divorce, it is like khul' without compensation. It is possible that the khul' does not occur here because he only consented to it for compensation, which he did not receive, and it was not possible to have recourse against its substitute. Our companions stated: The guardian of these women does not have the right to perform khul' using any of their wealth, because he only possesses the authority to dispose of her wealth in matters where there is a benefit, and this contains no benefit; rather, it contains the forfeiture of her maintenance, her housing, and the spending of her wealth. It is possible that he does possess that right if he sees a benefit in it. It is possible that there is a benefit for her in it by rescuing her from someone who squanders her wealth, and she fears for her own safety and sanity because of him. For this reason, the offering of wealth in khul' [by a sensible woman] (10) is not considered squandering or prodigality. Thus, it is permissible for him to offer her wealth to achieve her benefit and to protect her person and her wealth, just as it is permissible to spend it on her medical treatment and her ransom from captivity. This is the school of Malik. The father and others among her guardians are equal in this regard. If he performs khul' with her using something of his own wealth, it is permissible, as it is permissible from a stranger, so it is more appropriate from the guardian.
Section: If the father says, "Divorce my daughter, and you are absolved from her dower," and he divorces her, the divorce occurs as a revocable one, and he is not absolved from anything, nor does he have recourse against the father, nor does he guarantee anything for him, because he absolved him from something that he has no right to absolve him from; thus, he is like a stranger. The Qadi said: Ahmad has said: He does have recourse against the father. He said: This is interpreted as meaning that the husband was ignorant that the father's absolution was not valid, so he had
(8) In the original, B, and M: "disposal" (al-tasarruf). (9) In the original: "her divorce" (talaquha). (10) Omitted from: B and M.
مُطالَبتُها فى حالِ حَجْرِها، كما لو اسْتدانَتْ منه، أو باعَها شيئًا فى ذِمَّتِها.
فصل: فأمَّا المَحْجورُ عليها لسَفَهٍ، أو صِغَرٍ، أو جُنُونٍ، فلا يَصحُّ بَذْلُ العِوَضِ منها فى الخُلْعِ؛ لأنَّه تَصَرُّف فى المالِ، وليس هى من أهلِه، وسواءٌ أذنَ فيه الوَلِىُّ أو لم يأذنْ؛ لأنَّه ليس له الإذْنُ فى التَّبرُّعاتِ، وهذا كالتَّبرُّعِ. وفَارقَ الأمَةَ، فإنَّها أهلٌ للتَّصَرُّفِ (٨)، ولهذا تَصِحُّ منها الهِبَةُ وغيرُها من التَّصرُّفاتِ بإذْنِه، ويُفارِقُ المُفْلِسةَ؛ لأنَّها من أهلِ التَّصرُّفِ. فإن خالَعَ المحجورَ عليها بلفظٍ يكونُ طلاقًا (٩)، فهو طلاقٌ رَجْعِىٌّ، ولا يَسْتحِقُّ عِوَضًا، وإن لم يَكُنِ اللَّفظُ مِمَّا يقعُ به الطَّلاقُ، كان كالخُلْعِ بغيرِ عِوَضٍ. ويَحْتَمِلُ أن لا يقعَ الخُلْعُ ههُنا؛ لأنَّه إنَّما رَضِىَ به بعِوَضٍ، ولم يحصُلْ له، ولا أمْكنَ الرُّجوعُ ببَدَلِه. قال أصحابُنا: وليس لِوَلِىِّ هؤلاءِ المُخالَعَةُ بشىءٍ من مالِهِنَّ؛ لأنَّه إنَّما يَمْلكُ التَّصرُّفَ بمالَها فيه الحَظُّ، وهذا لا حَظَّ فيه، بل فيه إسْقاطُ نَفَقتِها ومَسْكنِها وبَذلُ مالِهَا. ويَحْتَمِلُ أَنْ يَمْلِكَ ذلك، إذا رأى الحظَّ فيه، ويُمْكِنُ أن يكونَ الحَظُّ لها فيه بتَخْليصِها ممَّن يُتْلِفُ مالَهَا، وتَخافُ منه على نَفْسِها وعقلِها، ولذلك لم يُعَدَّ بَذْلُ المالِ فى الخُلعِ [مِن الرشِيدةِ] (١٠) تبذيرًا ولا سَفَهًا، فيجوزُ له بَذْلُ مالِها لتَحْصيلِ حَظِّها، وحِفْظِ نفسِها ومالِهَا، كما يجوزُ بَذْلُه فى مُدَاواتِها، وفَكِّها مِنَ الأسْرِ. وهذا مذهبُ مالكٍ. والأبُ وغيرُه مِن أوليائِها فى هذا سَواءٌ. وإن خالَعَها بشىءٍ من مالِه، جازَ؛ لأنَّه يَجوزُ مِنَ الأجْنَبِىِّ، فمِنَ الوَلِىِّ أوْلَى.
فصل: إذا قال الأبُ: طَلِّقِ ابْنَتِى، وأنتَ بَرِىءٌ من صَداقِها. فطلَّقَها، وقعَ الطَّلاقُ رَجْعِيًّا، ولم يَبْرأ مِن شىءٍ، ولم يَرْجعْ على الأبِ، ولم يَضمنْ له؛ لأنَّه أبْرأه ممَّا ليس له الإِبْراءُ منه، فأشْبَهَ الأجْنَبِىَّ. قال القاضى: وقد قال أحمدُ: إنَّه يَرْجعُ على الأبِ. قال: وهذا محمولٌ على أَنَّ الزَّوجَ كان جاهلًا بأنَّ إبْراءَ الأبِ لا يَصحُّ، فكان له
(٨) فى الأصل، ب، م: "التصرف".(٩) فى الأصل: "طلاقها".(١٠) سقط من: ب، م.
