The establishment of the rulings of causes after their implementation does not depend on anyone's choice or will. If the dowry decreases in the woman's possession after the divorce, and he had demanded it from her but she refused, then she is liable; because she is a usurper. If it was destroyed before he demanded it, the analogy of the school is that there is no liability upon her; because it came into her possession without her action, and there was no transgression on her part, so she is not liable for it, like a deposit. If they differ regarding whether he demanded it from her, her statement is accepted; because she is denying. If he claims that the destruction or decrease occurred before the divorce, and she says it occurred after, her statement is also accepted; because he is claiming something that necessitates liability upon her, and she is denying it, and the statement of the denier is accepted. The apparent view of the companions of al-Shafi'i is that the woman is liable for what was destroyed or decreased in her possession after the divorce; because it entered her possession by virtue of the contract being severed, so it resembles a sold item if the contract is lifted through cancellation. Our evidence is what we have mentioned. As for the sold item, it is possible to argue otherwise, and even if we concede it, the cancellation, if it comes from both of them or from the buyer, has involved the implementation of the cause to place the property of another in one's possession, whereas in our issue there is no action on the part of the woman, and it occurred solely by the action of the husband, so it resembles a case where he casts his garment into her house without her command.

Section: If he performs khul' (divorce for compensation) with his wife after consummation, then remarries her during her waiting period, [then divorces her] before consummating with her, she is entitled in the second marriage to half of the dowry specified therein. Al-Shafi'i held this view. Abu Hanifa said: She is entitled to all of it; because the ruling of sexual intercourse is present in it, evidenced by the fact that if she were to give birth to a child, it would be attributed to him. Our evidence is the saying of Allah, may He be exalted: "And if you divorce them before you have touched them and you have already specified for them a dowry, then [give them] half of what you specified." Furthermore, it is a divorce from a marriage in which he did not touch her, so it is necessary that the dowry be halved by it, just as if he had married her after the waiting period. What he mentioned is incorrect; for the attribution of lineage does not depend on sexual intercourse according to him, so it does not stand in its place. As for if he did not consummate with her in the first marriage either, then he owes half of the first dowry and half of the second dowry, without...