Chapter

Khulʿ effected using the explicit wording of divorce, or its allusive wording accompanied by the intention of divorce, constitutes an irrevocable divorce, …

His statement: “Khulʿ effected using the explicit wording of divorce, or its allusive wording accompanied by the intention of divorce, constitutes an irrevocable divorce.”

“Khulʿ” is the subject, and its predicate is “an irrevocable divorce.” His words, “using the explicit wording,” form a prepositional phrase functioning as a circumstantial qualifier of the word “khulʿ”; that is, khulʿ when effected using the explicit wording of divorce, and so on.

In this chapter, the author mentions the wordings by which khulʿ may be effected. He says that if it is effected using the wording of divorce, or with the intention of divorce when other than its wording is used, then it is an irrevocable divorce.

An example of this is where a woman asks her husband to grant her khulʿ in return for one thousand riyals. The husband agrees, but says, “I divorce my wife in return for compensation of one thousand riyals.” This is then a divorce, counted among the divorces; and if it was the final one, she becomes irrevocably separated from him by a major irrevocable separation.

His statement, “or its allusive wording accompanied by the intention of divorce”: if it is effected using an allusive expression of divorce along with the intention of divorce, it becomes a divorce. The criterion for every expression described as allusive is that it can bear the explicit meaning as well as another meaning.

For example, if he says, “My wife is free of me in return for one thousand riyals,” intending divorce by it, then a divorce takes effect. This is the view adopted by the author, may Allah have mercy on him.

However, the correct view is that it is not a divorce, even if it is effected using explicit wording. The evidence for this is the Noble Quran. Allah, exalted is He, says:

“Divorce is twice. Then, either retain her in an acceptable manner or release her with good treatment.”

That is, in the two instances,