If it is a fungible item, [and by its value if it is not a fungible item]. Abu Hanifah and al-Shafi'i in his early school (al-qadim) said the same. In his later school (al-jadid), he said: One returns to the dowry of the equal (mahr al-mithl); because the destruction of the compensation necessitates the return of the thing for which it was given; so if its return is rendered impossible, one reverts to its value, like a sold item, and the dowry of the equal is the value, so reverting to it becomes mandatory. As for us, every specific entity that must be surrendered, if it is destroyed while the cause of its entitlement remains, the obligation is for its substitute, like usurped property, a loan for consumption (qard), or a borrowed item ('ariyah). It differs from a sold item if it is destroyed, for the sale is annulled, and the cause of entitlement ceases. Once this is established, the destruction of the item in the husband's possession is not free from four scenarios: The first is that it is destroyed by her action, which constitutes her taking possession of it, and the husband's liability for it is removed. The second is that it is destroyed by the husband's action, in which case it is his liability in any event, and he is liable to her for it in the manner we have mentioned. The third is that a third party destroys it, in which case she has the option between pursuing the third party for its liability or pursuing the husband, and the husband then pursues the destroyer. The fourth is that it is destroyed by the act of Allah the Exalted, in which case it is subject to the details we mentioned at the beginning of the issue.

Section: If he divorces the woman before consummation, and she has disposed of the dowry through one of the contracts, this does not lack three categories: The first is that which removes ownership of the corpus, such as a sale, a gift, or manumission. This prevents the right to recover, and he is entitled to half of its value, due to the termination of her ownership and the interruption of her disposal. If the entity returns to her before he divorces her, then he divorces her while it is in her possession in its original state, he has the right to recover half of it, because he found the very same entity, so it resembles the case where she had not removed it. It is not binding upon a father if he gifts his child something, and it leaves his ownership, then returns to him, that he does not possess the right to recover it; because we prohibit that. And if we were to grant it, the father's right is extinguished by it leaving the child's hand in any case, evidenced by the fact that he cannot be forced to provide it, whereas the husband's right has not been entirely extinguished; rather, he recovers half its value in its absence, so if it is found, then