The child is free and his lineage is joined to him, and he is liable for his value on the day he is born. She does not become an "umm walad" (mother of his child) for him, even if he acquires ownership of her after that, because he has no legal ownership of her. The woman is given the choice between taking her while she is pregnant and taking her value, because he diminished her value by impregnating her. Does she also have the right to compensation (arsh) along with that? It is possible that she has the right to compensation because she was diminished by his transgression, resembling the case where a usurper diminishes her through such an act. Some of the Shafi'i scholars said there are two views regarding compensation here. Some of them said: It is appropriate that she should have the right to demand compensation, according to a single view, because the decrease occurred through his action by which he transgressed, so he is like a usurper and like the case where she demands him [for the dowry] and he refuses to deliver her. This is more correct.

Section: If a dhimmi (protected non-Muslim citizen) gives a dhimmi woman wine as a dowry, and it turns into vinegar while in her possession, and then he divorces her before consummation, it is possible that he has no right to return for anything against her, because it has increased in value while in her possession due to it becoming vinegar, and the increase belongs to her. If he wants to return for half of its value before it became vinegar, there is no value to it, and he only returns when it increases by half its value at the least from the time of the contract to the time of taking possession, at which point it has no value. If it turned into vinegar while in the husband's possession and then he divorced her, she is entitled to half of it, because the increase belongs to her. It is also possible that the vinegar belongs to him, and he is liable for half of her mahr mithl (standard dowry), if they refer their dispute to us before taking possession, or if they both convert to Islam, or one of them does.

Section: If he marries a woman and her father guarantees her maintenance for ten years, it is valid. Abu Bakr mentioned this because the most that can be said is that it is a guarantee of an unknown amount or a guarantee of something that has not yet become obligatory, and both are valid. There is no difference between whether the husband is wealthy or poor. The Shafi'i scholars differed; some of them said as we said, and some of them said: It is not valid except as a guarantee of a poor person's maintenance, because the state of someone other than a poor person changes, so he might become liable for the maintenance of a wealthy or middle-class person, and thus it would be a guarantee of an unknown, whereas the maintenance of a poor person is known.