and her maternal aunt during her waiting period, should he so wish, because she is legally treated like any unrelated woman: she neither inherits from him nor he from her, and no divorce or ẓihār he pronounces applies to her.
Every woman whom a man may lawfully divorce he may also release by khulʿ. A wife, however, cannot validly conclude khulʿ unless she has full authority over her own property and affairs. Agency in khulʿ is permissible, and it is valid to stipulate a particular description or to defer the consideration to a future date.
According to Mālik, khulʿ is sound even when the consideration is produce whose ripeness is not yet apparent, a stray camel, a fugitive slave, or anything else involving uncertainty—matters that would invalidate a sale or a marriage contract. The husband may demand any and all of those items: if they are delivered, they are his; if they are not delivered, he has no claim against her.
Some report, though, that if the item is not delivered and no longer exists, there are two opinions: one entitles him to an average specimen of the promised item or its monetary value, while the other entitles him to a dower comparable to that of her peers. The first view is that of Mālik.
If the khulʿ is effected for a slave and the slave is later found to belong to someone else, the husband may recover the slave’s value from her. Likewise, if the slave turns out to be free, he may claim from her the price the slave would have fetched had he been property; this is Ibn al-Qāsim’s preference. Other Mālikī jurists hold that he has no recourse against her at all.
If they arrange khulʿ for a runaway slave on condition that they pay money taken from him, it is invalid, for uncertainty is not permitted in sales and this transaction amounts to a sale. She must therefore return to him whatever money she took, acquiring in the slave an ownership share proportionate to what she returned, while the husband owns the remainder. Should the slave perish, the loss is borne by her and she must refund everything she had taken from him.
When a man acknowledges that he divorced his wife by khulʿ in return for money but she denies it, her word—supported by her oath—prevails concerning the money, while the divorce remains binding upon him. This is unless he states that he had stipulated, “You will be divorced only if you hand over the money,” and she denies the stipulation; in that case, no divorce takes effect and he is entitled to no compensation.
If one man were to say to another, “Divorce your wife for one thousand…”