If someone were to ask: How can it be valid, according to the school, for a pregnant woman to obtain khulʿ in return for the maintenance during her waiting period, when the maintenance, according to the school, belongs to the unborn child rather than to her? We say: This objection is valid. The answer is that the one who actually benefits from this maintenance is the woman. Even if we assume that this maintenance belongs to the unborn child both in fact and in legal ruling, the woman has undertaken to provide it in place of her husband. Thus, in either case, she has offered compensation.

His statement: “It is valid in return for an unspecified consideration,” means that it is valid for a man to grant his wife khulʿ in return for something unspecified, provided that it may subsequently become known. An example is his statement: “If she obtains khulʿ in return for the offspring of her tree, it is valid.” Thus, she may say: “I want you to grant me khulʿ in return for the fruit of this palm tree.” If the palm tree has not yet produced anything, this is valid, even though we do not know whether it will produce one cluster, two clusters, three, ten, or nothing at all. How can this be valid when the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, forbade sales involving excessive uncertainty (1)?

They answered that this is not a pure exchange transaction. Rather, the purpose is to free herself from this husband. Thus, if he is satisfied with any compensation that is not prohibited by the Sacred Law, he may accept it.

His statement: “Or her slave-girl,” means that if she obtains khulʿ in return for the offspring of her slave-girl, it is valid, just as it is with the tree. Likewise, it is valid in return for the offspring of her cow or of her sheep. All of this is valid, even though it is unspecified, because the aim is not exchange and profit; rather, the aim is ransom.