Some of the companions of the madhhab said that he is entitled to the compensation even if he delays, because her words, “Grant me khulʿ for one thousand,” “for one thousand,” or “and you shall have one thousand,” are not restricted to the present moment. Accordingly, whenever he grants her khulʿ, he is entitled to the one thousand. However, she may withdraw before he accepts.

His statement, “she becomes irrevocably separated,” means that she is not lawful for him except through a new marriage contract, because every divorce in exchange for compensation entails no right of revocation: the woman becomes irrevocably separated by it. It must then be considered whether she becomes lawful for him afterward or not.

“If she says, ‘Divorce me once for one thousand,’ and he divorces her three times, he is entitled to it; and the reverse case has the opposite ruling, …”

His statement, “If she says, ‘Divorce me once for one thousand,’ and he divorces her three times, he is entitled to it,” means that his wife says: “Divorce me once, and I will give you one thousand riyals.” If he says to her, “You are divorced three times,” he is entitled to the one thousand, because he gave her what she wanted and more.

Some of the companions of the madhhab said that he is not entitled to the one thousand, because this additional amount may be detrimental to her. If he divorces her once for one thousand, she becomes irrevocably separated from him, but she may marry him again without first marrying another husband. If he divorces her three times, however, she becomes irrevocably separated and is not lawful for him unless she has first married another husband; and she may not want this.

This view is correct: he is not entitled to it, except according to the stronger view that a threefold divorce counts as one. But does she become irrevocably separated, or should we say that this divorce is contingent upon his entitlement to the one thousand, and since he is now not entitled to it, the divorce does not take effect? Two possibilities exist. It may be said that he divorced her three times, so the divorce takes effect; or it may be said that he divorced her three times on the basis that he was entitled to the one thousand, but now we have deprived him of it, and a divorce contingent upon something does not take effect until that thing exists.

His statement, “and the reverse case has the opposite ruling,” means: if she says, “Divorce me three times for one thousand…”