the dower of each of them, according to the correct view of the school (madhhab). This is the position of Ibn Hamid, the school of the People of Reason (Ahl al-Ra'y), and one of the two statements of al-Shafi'i. In his other statement, he said: the dower of her equal (mahr al-mithl) becomes incumbent upon each of them. According to the view of Abu Bakr, one of our companions, it is to be divided between them in two halves. The origin of this in marriage is when he marries two women with one dower, which we have already mentioned in its proper place. If one of them is legally competent (rashida) and the other is interdicted for prodigality (safah), and they both say, "We have willed it," the divorce occurs for both of them. The competent one becomes liable for her share of the compensation, and her divorce is irrevocable (ba'in), while nothing is incumbent upon the one who is interdicted, and her divorce is revocable (raj'i), because she possesses the capacity to will, but the interdiction prevents the validity and effectiveness of her disposal; for this reason, one returns to the volition of the interdicted person regarding marriage and what she consumes. Likewise, if she is not of age, but is discerning (mumayyiza), she has a valid volition; this is why a boy is given the choice between his parents when he reaches seven. If one of them is insane or a minor who is not discerning, their volition is not valid, and the divorce does not occur. In every instance where we ruled that the divorce occurs, the competent one is liable for her share of the compensation—which is the share of her dower from the compensation—according to one of the two perspectives, and according to the other, half of it. If his two wives say to him: "Divorce us for one thousand between us in two halves," and he divorces them, then each one of them is liable for half of it, according to a single perspective. If he divorces one of them alone, she is liable for half of the thousand. If they say: "Divorce us for one thousand," and he divorces them, the thousand is upon them according to the amount of their dowers, according to the most correct of the two perspectives. If he divorces one of them, she is liable for her share of it. If one of them is not competent and he divorces them both, the competent one is liable for her share of the thousand, her divorce occurs as irrevocable, the other is divorced by a revocable divorce, and nothing is incumbent upon her.

Section: Khul' is valid with a stranger (non-husband) without the wife's permission, such as if the stranger says to the husband: "Divorce your wife for one thousand upon me." This is the position of the majority of scholars. Abu Thawr said: "It is not valid, because it is prodigality (safah),"