her master, the khulʿ is invalid, because a bondwoman owns no property: the property of a slave belongs to his master, and the slave owns nothing. The evidence for this is the Prophet’s statement: “Whoever sells a slave who possesses property, his property belongs to the one who sold him, unless the buyer stipulates otherwise.” (1) That is, the purchaser. The relevant wording in the Prophet’s statement is: “who possesses property, his property belongs to the one who sold him.”

If someone were to say: The two occurrences of the letter lām are contradictory: it says, “He possesses property,” then says, “His property belongs to the one who sold him.” How are these to be reconciled?

The answer is that the first lām denotes assignment or association, while the second denotes ownership. Thus, the meaning of “he possesses property” is that he has under his control property which his master has given him to trade with, or the like. It is like saying, “The halter belongs to the she-camel,” though she does not own it; here, however, the lām denotes association.

His statement, “without her master’s permission”: for example, she may have a husband who does not fulfill her rights, harms her, and makes things difficult for her. She then comes to her master and says, “My master, it is not possible to live properly with this man, so permit me to seek khulʿ from him.” If he gives her permission, it is valid.

His statement, “the khulʿ is invalid”: but what then is the nature of this separation? The author explains it in his statement:

“Divorce takes effect as a revocable divorce if it is effected using the wording of divorce or with the intention of divorce.”

“Divorce takes effect as a revocable divorce”: this applies if the divorce is the first or second time. But if it is the third, the divorce is irrevocable, because she has been divorced three times.