The first: he has the right to recover [half], as with dirhams if they are returned. The second: he does not have the right to recover half of it, because she has introduced new craftsmanship to it, so it resembles the case where she crafts it into another form. If he gives her a slave-girl as a dowry, and she becomes thin then fat, returning to her original state, does he have the right to recover half of her? There are two opinions.

Section: The ruling on the dowry is the ruling on a sale, in that whatever is measured or weighed, she is not permitted to dispose of it before taking possession of it, while other things do not require taking possession, and she may dispose of them before taking possession. The Qadi [and his companions] said: Whatever is specific, she may dispose of it, while that which is not specific, such as a qafiz from a pile or a ratl of oil from a jar, she does not possess the right to dispose of until she takes possession of it, like a sold item. We have already mentioned regarding a sold item another narration, that she does not possess the right to dispose of any part of it before taking possession of it. This is the school of al-Shafi'i. This is a principle mentioned in sales. The Qadi mentioned in another place that whatever the contract does not become void by its destruction, such as the dowry and the compensation for khul', is permitted to be disposed of before taking possession, because it is an offering whose underlying cause of ownership is not annulled by its destruction, so disposing of it before possession is permitted, like a bequest and inheritance. Ahmad has explicitly stated regarding a woman gifting her husband her dowry before she takes possession of it, and it is a type of disposing of it. The analogy of the school is that whatever she is permitted to dispose of is under her liability if it is destroyed or diminished, and whatever she has no right to dispose of is under the husband's liability. If the husband prevents her from taking possession of it or does not enable her to do so, it is under his liability in any case, because his possession is wrongful, so he is liable for it like a usurper. Muhanna reported from Ahmad, concerning a man who married a woman with this young boy, and his eye was blinded, he said: If she had taken possession of it, it is hers, and if she had not taken possession of it, it is the responsibility of the husband. The apparent meaning of this is that he considered it, before possession, to be under the husband's liability in all cases. This is the school of al-Shafi'i. And in every instance where we say: it is under the husband's liability before possession, if it is destroyed before she takes possession of it, the dowry is not invalidated by its destruction, and he is liable for it with its equivalent.