deceived him in the marriage with that which establishes the right of rescission, so the dower is upon him, just as if he had deceived him regarding the free status of a slave woman. When this is established, if the guardian knew, he is liable; if he did not know, then the deception is on the part of the woman, so he returns to her for the entire dower. If they disagree regarding the guardian's knowledge, and evidence is presented against him regarding his admission of knowledge, then so be it; otherwise, his statement is accepted along with his oath. Al-Zuhri and Qatadah said: If the guardian knew, he is liable, otherwise he is asked to swear by the Almighty Allah that he did not know, and then it is upon the husband. The Qadi said: If he was the father, grandfather, or someone permitted to see her, the deception is from his side, whether he knew or did not know. If he was someone not permitted to see her, such as a paternal cousin or a master, and he knew, he is liable; if he denies it and no evidence is established regarding his admission, then his statement is accepted, and he returns to the woman for the entire dower. This is the opinion of Malik, except that he said: If the woman returns what she took, he leaves her with the amount she is permitted to take, so that she does not become like one given away as a gift. Al-Shafi'i has two positions, similar to the opinions of Malik and the Qadi. Our argument, that the guardian is not liable if he did not know, is that the deception was from someone else, so he is not liable, just as if he were a paternal cousin. And regarding the argument that he returns with the entire dower, it is because he was deceived by her, so he returns with the entire dower, just as if the guardian had deceived him. Their saying that it would not be hidden from someone who sees her is not correct, for he has no access to the defects of the private parts, and it is not permissible for him to see them; likewise with defects under the clothes. Thus, he becomes in this regard like someone who does not see her, except for madness, as that would hardly be hidden from someone who sees her, unless he were absent. As for the return for the dower, it is for another reason, so it is in the position of if she had gifted it to him, unlike the one gifted as a gift.

Section: If he divorces her before having intercourse, then learns that she had a defect, he is liable for half of the dower, and he does not return for it; because he consented to the obligation of half the dower, so he does not return against anyone. If she dies or he dies before learning of the defect, she is entitled to the full dower, and he does not return against anyone, because the reason for the return is the annulment, which did not occur, and here the dower was confirmed upon death, so he does not return for it.