it is not halved by her divorce, unless it has not been received, in which case it lapses because it is a gift that is not binding. If that is what the Qadi intended, then it is a valid view; otherwise, it is not.

1215 - Issue: He said: "If he gives her sheep as a dowry and they breed, then he divorces her before consummation, the offspring belong to her, and he may reclaim half of the mothers, unless the birthing caused them to decrease in value, in which case he is given the choice between taking half of their value at the time he gave them as dowry or taking half of them in their diminished state."

We have already mentioned that the dowry enters the wife's ownership by the mere existence of the contract. Therefore, if it increases, the increase belongs to her, and if it decreases, the loss is upon her. If it is sheep and they breed, the offspring are a separated increase which she keeps exclusively; for it is the growth of her property. He may reclaim half of the mothers, provided they have not decreased in value and have not increased through an attached increase; because it is half of what he assigned to her, and Allah Almighty said: {And if you divorce them before you have touched them and you have already specified for them an obligation, then [give them] half of what you specified} [Quran 2:237]. If they have decreased due to birth or otherwise, he has the choice between taking half of them in their diminished state, because he is content with less than his right, or taking half of their value at the time he gave them as dowry, because the liability for the decrease is upon her. This is also the position of Al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa said: He does not reclaim half of the original, but rather he reclaims half of the value; because it is not permissible to annul the contract regarding the original while excluding the growth, for the growth is an implication of the contract, so it is not permissible for him to reclaim the original without it. We argue that this is an increase separated from the dowry, so it does not prevent the husband from reclaiming it, just as if it had been separated before possession. What they mentioned is incorrect; because divorce is not a nullification of the contract, nor is growth one of the implications of the contract; rather, it is one of the implications of ownership. Once this is established, there is no difference between whether the