For this reason, the discharge (ibra') of a deceased person is valid even in the absence of his acceptance; and if he were to reject it, it would not be rejected (21), and he would be discharged from it, for the reason we mentioned. If he desires to forgive a dower that is a debt upon his own conscience (dhimma), such forgiveness is not valid, because if it were a debt upon the husband’s conscience, it would have already lapsed for him due to the divorce. If it were a debt upon the wife’s conscience, nothing would be established against her conscience except for the half which the husband is entitled to; as for the half which belongs to her, it is her right which she has disposed of, so nothing of it is established against her conscience. This is also because the entirety was her property, which she disposed of, and the husband’s ownership of the half only comes into being through his divorce; therefore, nothing else is established against her conscience. Whichever of them wishes to complete the dower for the other, he initiates a new gift (22). As for if the dower is a concrete asset ('ayn) in the hand of one of them, and the one in whose hand it is forgives it for the other, it is a gift to him; it is valid with the wording of forgiveness (afw), gift (hiba), and transfer of ownership (tamlik), but it is not valid with the wording of discharge (ibra') or remission (isqat), and it requires possession (qabd) in instances where possession is stipulated. If one other than the person in whose hand it is forgives it, it is valid with these wordings and requires the passage of time during which possession is possible, if the gifted item is of the type that requires possession.

Section: If he assigns his wife a concrete asset as a dower, then she gifts it to him, and he then divorces her before consummating the marriage (23) with her, there are two narrations from Ahmad regarding this. One is that he may claim back half of its value from her. This is the choice of Abu Bakr and one of the two opinions of al-Shafi'i, because it returned to the husband through a new contract, so it does not prevent his entitlement to it by way of divorce, just as if it had returned to him through a sale, or if she had gifted it to a stranger and then he had gifted it (24) to him. The second narration is that he may not claim it back from her. This is the view of Malik, al-Muzani, and one of the two opinions of al-Shafi'i, and it is the view of Abu Hanifa, unless the asset had increased or decreased and she then gifted it to him; this is because the dower returned to him, and even if she had not gifted it, he would not have claimed anything, and a contract of gift does not entail a liability (daman), and because half of the dower was accelerated for him by the gift. If the dower was a debt and she discharged him from it, if we say he does not claim it back in that case, then it is even more so here. If we say...