while he has waived his right to take her back. Taking her back is the husband’s right, while maintenance during the waiting period is the wife’s right. Thus, if they both agree to waive these rights in khulʿ, there is nothing to prevent it.

The argument based on the verse may be answered by saying that ordinarily a husband does not part from his wife except in return for compensation. This is why Allah says: “There is no blame upon either of them concerning that by which she ransoms herself” [al-Baqarah 2:229]. What Shaykh al-Islam said is sound, because it is in fact a khulʿ in return for compensation—namely, her waiving his obligation to provide maintenance. What he said is very clear, except where the khulʿ entails a divorce according to the madhhab, and it is the third and final divorce. A woman divorced three times has no right to maintenance from her husband; in that case, the husband derives no benefit. Yet it may be said: if he accepts this, the right is his. Thus, if he enters into khulʿ with her without compensation, then, according to the madhhab, it is invalid. If it is invalid, then if it was effected using the wording of divorce, or with the intention of divorce, it counts as a divorce; but if it was effected using the wording of khulʿ, it is nothing.

His statement, “or in exchange for something unlawful,” refers, for example, to wine. If he enters into khulʿ with her in exchange for twenty jars of wine, this is invalid, because wine cannot validly serve as compensation. Hence the Prophet ﷺ said: “Indeed, Allah has forbidden the sale of wine” (1). Likewise, tobacco cannot validly serve as compensation, because it is unlawful; the same applies to pork and stolen property.

If they are unaware that it is unlawful, the khulʿ is valid, and she is entitled to its value—just as if she entered into khulʿ with him in exchange for a child of hers from another man, saying: “He is your slave?”