because he committed an aggression by what he did in that regard. The second type is that [the decrease] does not reach its limit but continues to increase, in which case there are two views: One is that she takes its value, because it is as if it were consumed. The second is that she is given the choice between that and leaving it until its decrease settles, and then taking it along with the compensation for its decrease, just like property that has been usurped. The third state is that its value does not decrease, but if he removes it from its containers, its value decreases. In this case, the husband has the right to remove it and take his containers, if the containers are his property. And if it decreases, the ruling is according to what we have mentioned. If the husband says: "I will give it to you along with its containers," Al-Qadi said: She is obligated to accept it, because its containers are like an attached part of it that is subordinate to it. It is also possible that she is not obligated to accept them, because the containers are independent of his property, so she is not obligated to accept them, just as if they were separate from it.

Section: If it is in its original state, except that the syrup (saqr) left on the fruit is the property of the husband, he may remove the syrup and return the fruit, and the ruling regarding it, if it decreases or does not decrease, is the same as the one preceding it. If he says: "I will hand it over with the syrup and the containers," then [it is subject to] the two views we have mentioned. In the position where we ruled that he may return it, if she says: "I will return the fruit and take the original [dowry]," then she may do so according to one of the two views. The other [view] is that she may not do so. These are based on the splitting of a transaction (tafriq al-safqa) in a sale, which we have already mentioned in its appropriate place.

Section: If the dowry was a slave-girl, and the husband had intercourse with her while knowing that his ownership had ceased and that intercourse was forbidden to him, he is subject to the hadd punishment, because it is intercourse without ownership. He is also liable for the dowry to her master, whether he coerced her or she consented, because the dowry belongs to her master, and it does not lapse by her offering herself or consenting, just as if she offered her hand to be cut off. The child is a slave belonging to the woman. If he believed that his ownership had not ceased over all of her, or he was unaware that it was forbidden to him, there is no hadd punishment upon him due to the doubt (shubha), but he is liable for the dowry.