as a dowry, just like forbidden usufructs. Accordingly, its ruling is the ruling of that which he gives her as a dowry consisting of wine or the like; she is entitled to the dowry of her peers (mahr al-mithl), or half of it if he divorces her before consummation, or the gift of consolation (mut'a) according to those who mandate it in the case of invalid naming. There is another report from Ahmad that the naming is valid, because he stipulated an action from which she derives benefit and utility, due to the comfort she attains by his divorcing the one who competes with her, causes her harm, and from whom she feels jealousy. Thus, it is valid as a dowry, like the manumission of her father or the sewing of her shirt; for this reason, the offering of compensation in exchange for her divorce via khul' is valid. Based on this, if he does not divorce her co-wife, she is entitled to the equivalent of the co-wife's dowry, because he named for her a dowry that she did not receive, so she is entitled to its value, just as if he had given her a slave as a dowry and it turned out to be free. It is also possible that she is entitled to the dowry of her peers, because divorce has no monetary value. If he made the condition of her dowry that the divorce of her co-wife is at her discretion for up to a year, and she did not divorce her, Ahmad said: "If he marries a woman and makes the divorce of the first one the dowry of the other for a year or a specified time, and the time arrives and she has not decreed anything, the matter returns to him." Thus, Ahmad has caused her right to lapse, because he granted it to her until a time; when the time passed and she did not decree anything in it, her power of disposition lapsed, like an agent. Does her right to the dowry lapse? There are two views, which Abu Bakr mentioned: one is that it lapses, because she abandoned what was stipulated for her by her own choice, so her right lapsed, just as if he married her on the condition of a slave and she manumitted him. The second is that it does not lapse, because she merely delayed the realization of her right, so it does not lapse, just as if she delayed the receipt of her money. Does she revert to the dowry of her peers or to the dowry of the other? There are two views.

Section: An increase in the dowry after the contract is attached to it. Ahmad explicitly stated this, saying regarding a man who marries a woman for a dowry and then increases her dowry when he sees her: "It is permissible." If he divorces her before consummating the marriage, she is entitled to half of the first dowry and that which he increased for her. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa. Al-Shafi'i said: "The increase is not attached to the contract; if he increases it for her, it is a gift that requires the conditions of a gift, and if he divorces her after her having been gifted it, he does not retrieve any of the increase." Al-Qadi said: There is a similar report from Ahmad, for he said: When...