Or for whatever dirhams or household goods are in her possession or in her house, or in return for a slave; it is valid. If there is no offspring, household goods, or slave, he is entitled to the least amount denoted by the term; and if there are no dirhams, then three.

His statement: “Or whatever dirhams or household goods are in her possession or in her house” means that if she settles with him in return for whatever dirhams or household goods are in her possession or in her house—for example, if she says, “I seek khulʿ from you in return for whatever dirhams I have in my possession”—this is valid. The same applies to whatever household goods are in her house: if she says, “I seek khulʿ from you in return for all the utensils in the house,” it is valid. The reason it is valid despite this great uncertainty is that the purpose is to free herself from the husband, not a pure exchange transaction.

His statement: “Or in return for a slave; it is valid” means that she may say, “I seek khulʿ from you in return for a slave,” or “in return for a sheep,” a cow, or a car, without specifying which one; and it is valid, even if she does not say, “from among my cars,” “from among my slaves,” or anything similar.

His statement: “If there is no offspring, household goods, or slave, he is entitled to the least amount denoted by the term,” means that if we assume the tree bears no fruit, he is entitled to the least amount denoted by the term. The apparent meaning of the author’s words is that he is not given the average amount; rather, he is given the least that it can bear. The least a palm tree can bear is one cluster,