all of it belongs to him; half 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.

Section: If a woman whose dower was unspecified (mufawwada) grants a discharge from the dower, it is valid both before and after consummation, and it is the same for a woman whose marriage was contracted without specifying any dower (mufawwadat al-bud') and a woman whose dower was left to be determined later (mufawwadat al-mahr). Likewise is the case for one for whom an invalid dower was specified, such as wine or an unknown amount; because the dower is obligatory in these instances, and only its amount was unknown, and discharge from an unknown amount is valid, because it is a form of remission, thus it is valid in the case of the unknown just as it is in the case of divorce. Al-Shafi'i said: Discharge is not valid in any of this, because the mufawwada has no dower incumbent upon her, so discharge from that which is not incumbent is not valid; and for others, their dower is unknown, and discharge from the unknown is not valid, unless she says: "I discharge you from one dirham to one thousand," in which case he is discharged from her dower if it is less than a thousand. We have provided evidence for its obligation previously, so the discharge from it is valid, just as if she had said: "I discharge you from one dirham to one thousand." If a mufawwada grants a discharge, and is then divorced before consummation, if we say: He does not return to what was specified for her, then he does not return to it here. But if we say: He does return there, it is possible he does not return here, because the entire dower lapses by the divorce, and the consolatory gift (mut'a) becomes obligatory upon the divorce ab initio. It is also possible that he does return, because her dower returned to him by a cause other than divorce. And how much does he return to? It is possible that