What is the validity of *Khul'* (Redemption Divorce) when the agreed-upon compensation (*'iwad*) turns out to be void or non-existent?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Khul' (Redemption Divorce)
Primary text
If a man redeems his wife in *Khul'* for something he believed to be wealth, but it turns out to be non-wealth—such as agreeing on a specific slave who turns out to be free, or stolen property, or vinegar that turns out to be wine—the *Khul'* contract is valid according to the majority of scholars. This is because *Khul'* is a commercial exchange involving the private part (*al-baḍ'*) and is not invalidated by the defectiveness of the compensation, similar to marriage. When the compensation was a slave who turned out to be free, the husband is entitled to the value of the slave from her. If the compensation was vinegar that turned out to be wine, he is entitled to a like amount of vinegar, as vinegar is a substance measured by kind (*dhawat al-amthal*), and he contracted for that specific item as vinegar.
Supporting text
Abu Hanifa maintains that in all such cases, the husband reverts to claiming the stipulated compensation (*al-musamma*). Al-Shafi'i holds that the husband reverts to the *mahr al-mithl* (dower equivalent to a woman of similar status), arguing that the contract is on the private part with a void compensation, thus resembling marriage contracted with wine. Abu Hanifa's reasoning is that the wife's relinquishment of her private right has no intrinsic value, so if she deceives him, he only reverts to claiming what he gave her (the compensation).