an invalid condition is itself nullified, while the contract remains valid so long as nothing conflicts with its essential basis.

This has many parallels that we have encountered concerning conditions in marriage, sale, pledge, and endowment: there are invalid conditions which are void in themselves but do not invalidate the contract.

Some scholars said that the khulʿ is invalid, because this condition nullifies its essential purpose: it makes a binding khulʿ revocable, such that he may revoke it whenever he wishes. It is like someone who endows something but stipulates that he may sell it whenever he wishes. The well-known position of the madhhab is that such a condition invalidates the endowment, rendering it invalid; though there is a difference of opinion on this matter.

The third view is that both the condition and the khulʿ are valid, because the condition was established by their mutual choice and he did not compel her to accept it. The basic principle concerning conditions is that they are valid. Yes, it conflicts with the purpose of khulʿ, but that purpose is the wife’s right; if she agrees to waive it, then the right belongs to her.

However, the madhhab’s position in this matter is the closest of the views, because she may be deceived at the time of concluding the khulʿ and agree to this condition, then later regret it.

As for those who say that the khulʿ is invalid, that he must return to her what he took from her, and that he may take her back, there is no basis for this, because the contract was concluded by their mutual agreement and consent.

Issue: If an option to rescind is stipulated in the khulʿ for the duration of the waiting period or the period for establishing that the womb is free of pregnancy, then there is a difference of opinion concerning this issue. The madhhab holds that the stipulation of an option is invalid