خلاصة:
One of the debated issues among Islamic jurists is about divorce whether divorce for the payment of compensation by wife to her husband is concluded two types of divorce: khul and mubarrat or besides them it is possible to consider another divorce which is called divorce for compensation or Fidyah (Arabic: الفدیة meaning: expiation) divorce. The well-known Islamic jurists believe that with regard to some explicit statements within the noble Quran and hadiths, paying fidyah (Arabic: الفدیة) to husband to divorce his wife is permissible in the condition of disliking (khula and mubarrat) and in the circumstance of the absence of hate, they have issued Islamic ordinance that divorce is not permissible and it is revocable (raj'i). But according to the unwell-known jurists, it seems that within the revealed Quran verses and hadiths hate is not the necessary condition for divorce in compensation by fidya. But the only necessity for divorce in the payment of compensation ('iwad) is the fear of violating the divine law boundaries between spouses. This case includes hate and others. It is possible to occur the violation of the divine law boundaries without hate and to accept divorce for the payment of compensation ('iwad). Therefore, with paying attention to the lack of obstacle in Islamic law and law and the generalities such as sulh contract it can be considered the validity of such divorce.
ملخص الجهاز:
1. Problem Statement In jurisprudence and civil law, divorce is a unilateral act (iqā'i) in the hands of the man, and among these cases, there are instances where this divorce, due to the existence of aversion, takes place based on the agreement of the spouses in the form of Khul' and Mubarāt.
From a historical perspective, what has been accepted without any disagreement by both general and special jurists, and no disagreement is observed in its essence, is the possibility of the realization of divorce in exchange for compensation in the presence of aversion between the spouses in two forms: Khul' divorce and Mubarāt divorce; in this way, the element of aversion is the pillar and necessary condition for the realization of these two types of divorce (Hosseini Rouhani Qomi, 1412: 23/112).
Since, as previously stated, the verse and the supporting narrations used by opponents do not indicate the necessity of the existence of aversion in divorce in exchange for payment, but rather what is derived from the concordant and discordant meanings of these texts is that taking fidiya becomes permissible when there is a fear of transgressing divine limits and the wife's lack of obedience to her husband, and this can be regardless of the existence or non-existence of aversion; therefore, in this regard, there is no conflict between the cited texts and the principle of divorce for compensation.
(
, 
, 
)
