as if it were from him? For it occurred due to his fraud? We say: The compensation from the husband is in exchange for her benefits; so if she chooses to annul the contract while that which she contracted upon is sound, the compensation reverts to the one who contracted with her. There is no compensation on her side in exchange for the husband's benefits; rather, the option was established for her due to a harm befalling her, not due to the impossibility of receiving that for which she was entitled to compensation in exchange. Thus, they differ.

Section: If the annulment is after consummation, she is entitled to the dower, because the dower becomes mandatory upon the contract and is confirmed by consummation, so it does not lapse due to an event occurring afterwards. For this reason, it does not lapse due to her apostasy nor by an annulment from her side, and the specified dower is what is due. The Qadi mentioned in "al-Mujarrad" that there are two narrations regarding it: one is that the specified dower is due, and the other is that the dower of the like (mahr al-mithl) is due, based on the two narrations regarding the invalid contract. Al-Shafi'i said: What is due is the dower of the like, because the annulment is based on the contract, so it became like an invalid contract. Our argument is that this is a separation after consummation in a valid marriage that contains [a valid specified dower], so the specified dower is mandatory, just like [the case of a wife who is] not defective, and like an emancipated woman under a slave. The proof that the marriage is valid is that it was established with its conditions and pillars; therefore, it was valid, just as if he had not annulled it. Furthermore, if he had not annulled it, it would have been valid, so it is the same if he does annul it, like the marriage of a slave woman if she is emancipated while under a slave. Also, the rulings of validity follow from it, such as the confirmation of chastity (ihsan), the permissibility for the first husband, and the remaining rulings of a valid [marriage]. Moreover, if it were invalid, it would not be permissible to maintain it, and its annulment would be mandatory. What they mentioned is incorrect; for the annulment establishes its ruling from the time of its occurrence, not preceding it, and what has taken place in a certain manner is impossible to have taken place otherwise. Likewise, if a sale were annulled due to a defect, it would not become an invalid contract, and the growth would not belong to anyone other than the buyer; and if the sold item were a slave woman and he had intercourse with her, her dower would not become mandatory due to that, and so is the case with marriage.