A man married his slave woman to his slave, then manumitted them both, and the slave woman said, "Increase my dowry so that I may choose you." The increase belongs to the slave woman. Had it been attached to the contract, the increase would have belonged to the master. This does not constitute proof that an increase cannot be attached to the contract. For the meaning of an increase being attached to the contract is that it becomes binding and the rulings of a dowry are established upon it, such as it being halved by divorce before consummation and other matters. It does not mean that ownership is established in it before its existence, nor that it belongs to the master. Al-Shafi'i argued that the husband acquired ownership of the pudendum through that which was specified in the contract, so nothing of the subject matter of the contract was attained through the increase; therefore, it cannot be a substitute in marriage, just as if he had gifted her something. Furthermore, it is an increase in the consideration of the contract after it has become binding, so it is not attached to it, as in the case of a sale. We argue based on the words of Allah Almighty: {And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation} [Quran 4:24]. Also, the time after the contract is a time for determining the dowry, so the state of the increase is like the state of the contract. By this, it differs from sale and lease. As for their statement that he did not acquire anything of the subject matter of the contract by it, we say: This is invalidated by the dowry in its entirety, for ownership was not attained by it; this is why it is valid to be without it. This is more binding upon them, for they said: The dowry of the woman whose dowry was not specified (mufawwada) is only necessitated by its determination, not by the contract, yet he has acquired ownership of the pudendum without it. Furthermore, it is permissible for the establishment of this increase to be traced back to the time of the contract, so it is as if it was established by both together, just as they said regarding the dowry of the mufawwada when he determines it, and just as we all said regarding the case where he determines for her more than the dowry of her peers. Once this is established, the meaning of the increase being attached to the contract is that the ruling of that which was specified in the contract is established for it, in that it is halved by divorce and does not require the conditions of a gift. It does not mean that ownership is established in it from the time of the contract, nor that it is established for the person who held the dowry, because ownership cannot precede its cause, nor exist during its non-existence; rather, ownership is established after its cause from that time onward. Al-Qadi said: There is another view regarding the increase, which is that it lapses by divorce. I do not recognize the basis for this, for whoever considers it a dowry regards it as being confirmed by consummation, halved by divorce before it, and that it lapses entirely if the annulment comes from the wife's side. Whoever considers it a gift regards it as belonging entirely to the wife, not...