with it (16), by analogy to the contradiction regarding the amount. This is invalidated by the case of an agent in a sale, and because this is a Khul' that the husband did not authorize, so it is invalid, just as if he had not appointed him for anything. Furthermore, it leads to him owning compensation that the woman did not make him own, nor did he intend to own it, and the woman becomes divorced from her husband without compensation that she was bound to give him without his permission. As for the contradiction regarding the amount, that does not necessarily follow, although the correct view is that the Khul' is also invalid in that case, for the reasons we have presented.

The second situation is if he leaves the agency general (unspecified), then it implies Khul' for her specified dower to be paid immediately in the currency of the land. If he performs Khul' for that or more, it is valid because he gave him better. If he performs it for less, there are the two views mentioned regarding when he specifies the compensation and performs it for less. The Qadi mentioned two other possibilities: one is that the specified amount drops and the dower of similar worth becomes due, because he performed Khul' for something he was not authorized to perform it with. The second is that the husband has the choice between accepting the deficient compensation without having the right of revocation, or rejecting it, in which case he has the right of revocation. If he performs Khul' with something other than the currency of the land, its ruling is the same as if he had specified compensation for him but performed it with a different genus.

If the agent performs Khul' with something that is not property, such as wine or swine, the Khul' is not valid and the divorce does not take effect, because he was not authorized to do so; he was only authorized to perform Khul', which is the separation of the woman for compensation, and what he brought about is a divorce he was not authorized to perform. The Qadi mentioned this in 'Al-Mujarrad', and it is the school of Al-Shafi'i, regardless of whether he specified the compensation or left it general. In 'Al-Jami'', he mentioned that the Khul' is valid and he has recourse against the agent for the specified amount, and the woman owes nothing. This is if we say that Khul' without compensation is not valid. If we say it is not valid, it is only valid if it is in the wording of divorce, in which case it takes effect as a revocable divorce. He argued that if the wife's agent performed Khul' with that, it would be valid, so the husband's agent is the same. This analogy is incorrect, for the husband's agent effects the divorce, so it is not valid for him to effect it upon something he was not authorized, whereas the wife's agent does not effect it; he only accepts. Furthermore, when the husband's agent performs Khul' for a forbidden thing, he causes his principal to lose the compensation, whereas the wife's agent saves her from it; thus, validity in a case where he saves his principal from the obligation of compensation does not necessitate validity in a case where he causes him to lose it. Does one not see that...