do not claim it back in that case. There are two aspects derived regarding this here; one is that he does not claim it back, because discharge (ibra') is the remission of a right, not a transfer of ownership like the transfer of concrete assets, and for this reason, it does not require acceptance. If two witnesses testified against a man regarding a debt, and the one entitled to it discharged him, then the witnesses recanted, they would not be liable for anything. However, if he had taken possession of it from him, then gifted it to him, and then the witnesses recanted, they would be liable. The second aspect is that he does claim it back, because it returned to him through a means other than divorce; therefore, it is like a concrete asset, and discharge is in the position of a gift, which is why it is valid with its [the gift's] wording. If she took possession of the debt from him, then gifted it to him, and then he divorced her, it is like the gift of a concrete asset, because it became determined upon her taking possession of it. Abu Hanifa said: He claims it back here, because she had received the entire dower, then disposed of it, so claiming it back from her became necessary, just as if she had gifted it to a stranger. It is possible that he does not claim it back, because what he assigned to her as dower returned to him, so it is similar to the case where it was a concrete asset, she took possession of it, then gifted it. If (25) she gifted the concrete asset to him, or discharged him from the debt, then annulled the marriage through an act on her part, such as her conversion to Islam, her apostasy, or her breastfeeding a child whose nursing causes the annulment (26) of her marriage, then there are two narrations regarding claiming back the entire dower from her, just as there are in the case of claiming back half.

Section: If he assigns her a slave as dower, and she gifts him half of it, then he divorces her before consummating the marriage, the ruling is based upon the two narrations. If we say: If she gifted him the whole, he does not claim anything back, then he claims back one-quarter of it here. According to the other narration, he claims back all of the remaining half, because he found it in its concrete form. Al-Abu Yusuf, Muhammad, and al-Muzani held this view. Abu Hanifa said: He does not claim anything back, because the half has come into his hand, so he has accelerated his right. Al-Shafi'i, in one of his opinions, holds the same as our view. The second is that he has half of the remaining half (27), and half the value of the gifted portion. The third is that he chooses between this and claiming the value of the half. Our position is that he has found half of what he assigned to her in its concrete form, so it is similar to the case where she had not gifted him anything.

Section: If he khul' (divorces) his wife for half of her dower before he consummates with her, it is valid, and the entire dower becomes his; half of it by way of divorce and half by way of khul'. It is possible that three-quarters of it become his, because if he khul's her for half of it, knowing that half of it would lapse from him, he becomes a person who has done khul' for half of the half that remains for her; thus, half becomes his by way of divorce, and a quarter by way of khul'. If he khul's her for the equivalent of half the dower in her conscience, it is valid, and the entire dower lapses from him—half by way of divorce, and half by set-off (muqassa) against what is in her conscience for him as compensation for the khul'. If she says to him: "Khul' me for what you will release to me from my dower," and he does so, it is valid, and he is discharged from the entire dower. Likewise, if she says: "Khul' me on the condition that you have no claim against me regarding the dower," it is valid, and the entirety of it lapses from him. If she khul's him for the equivalent of the entire dower in her conscience, it is valid, and he claims back half of it from her, because half of it lapses by way of set-off against the half that is owed to her by him, and half lapses from him by way of divorce; thus, the half remains for her against him. If she khul's him for all of her dower, then the same applies according to one of the two aspects. According to the other, he does not claim anything back from her, because when he khul'd her for it, knowing that half of it would lapse by way of divorce, he was a person who did khul' with her for half of it, half of it lapses from him by way of divorce, and nothing remains for her.