16
and fadaytu.¹ The indirect wording (kināyah) includes: baraytuka, abra’tuka, and abantuka.
When the wife requests khulʿ and offers the compensation, the act is valid even without an explicit intention; otherwise, intention is required. It is also valid in whatever language its speakers use,² just like divorce.
(1) Ibn al-Qayyim remarks: “Whenever money is involved, the transaction becomes a fidya (financial compensation), whatever wording is used. The expressions themselves were not revealed for their own sake, nor were we commanded to worship through them; they are merely vehicles for conveying meanings.” Margin: al-Rawd, vol. 6, p. 465.
(2) This is the very formulation found in al-Muntaha, al-Iqna and other works. The term “ahl” here apparently refers to anyone mature enough to recognise the emission of semen. Accordingly, if a person employs any phrase that conveys khul‘, even in a language other than his own, and he understands what he has uttered, the khul‘ is valid—exactly as the jurists state concerning talaq. This is clear and beyond objection. Margin, p. 318.
وفاديت١,
والكناية: بأريتك وأبرأتك وأبنتك.
فمع سؤال الخلع وبذل العوض يصح بلا نية وألا فلا بد منها ويصح بكل لغة من أهلها٢ كالطلاق.
١ قال ابن القيم: كل ما دخله المال فهو فدية بأي لفظ والألفاظ لم ترد لذوتها ولا تعبدنا بها وإنما هي وسائل إلى المعاني. حاشية: الروض "ص: ٦/٤٦٥".
٢ هكذا عبارة المنتهى والإقناع وغيرهما ولعل المراد بالأهل من يعرف المنى فمتى أتى بلفظ يدل على الخلع لو بغير لغته وكان يعرف ما تلفظ به صح الخلع منه كما ذكروا ذلك في طلاق وهو واضح لا غبار فيه. حاشية "ص: ٣١٨".