—in which case the entire thousand is due; otherwise he is entitled to only one-third.

If she asks for a single pronouncement in return for one thousand and he pronounces it for one hundred, the divorce is effected for one hundred. Another view obligates the full thousand, while a third holds that no divorce occurs at all.

If she says, “Divorce me tomorrow for one thousand,” and he divorces her either tomorrow or earlier, the separation takes effect with a peer-dowry; according to another opinion it is for the named sum.

If he says, “When you enter the house you will be divorced for one thousand,” and she accepts and then enters, the sound position is that the divorce is finalized for the stipulated amount; another view awards only a peer-dowry.

A khulʿ concluded by a stranger is valid even if the wife dislikes it; in wording and legal effect it is identical to one initiated by her. Her appointed agent may conclude a khulʿ for the husband’s benefit, and she may authorise an outsider to act on her behalf, after which she retains the choice to confirm or refuse. Should a man falsely claim to be her agent and effect a khulʿ, no divorce takes place. Her father is treated like any other outsider: he may conclude a khulʿ with his own money. If he uses her money and explicitly claims agency or guardianship, the divorce does not occur; but if he states that he is acting independently, the divorce stands, though the khulʿ is deemed to have been concluded with misappropriated funds.

Section

If the wife alleges that a khulʿ has taken place and the husband denies it, he is believed upon his oath. If the husband says, “I divorced you for such-and-such,” and she replies, “Rather, it was without payment,” the separation is effected and no compensation is due. If they disagree over the species or the amount of the payment and neither side produces evidence, they both swear an oath and a peer-dowry becomes obligatory.

If they agree on “one thousand” and each inwardly intends a particular kind of currency, the transaction is binding—though another opinion obligates a peer-dowry instead. If the husband maintains, “We meant dinars,” while she says, “No, dirhams,” or “copper coins (fulūs),” then in the first case they both swear oaths and a peer-dowry is due, whereas in the second a peer-dowry is payable without oaths. Allah knows best.