the marriage is annulled. If she says, "I have divorced myself," and intends separation, it acts as a metonymy (kinayah) for annulment, because it fulfills its meaning, thus becoming a metonymy for it, just as the metonymy for annulment acts as a divorce.

Section: If the slave's husband is emancipated, no option is established for him; because a lack of completeness in the wife does not affect the marriage, and for this reason, suitability (kafa'ah) is only considered in the man, not the woman. If he marries a woman unconditionally, and she turns out to be a slave, no option is established for him. If a woman marries a man unconditionally, and he turns out to be a slave, she has the option. This is also the case regarding the continuation of the marriage; however, if he is emancipated and possesses the means (tawl) to marry a free woman, does his marriage become void? There are two views, which have been mentioned previously.

Section: When the slave woman is emancipated, if she says to her husband, "Increase my dowry," and he does so, the increase belongs to her, not her master, whether her husband is a free man or a slave, and whether he was emancipated with her or not. Ahmad provided a clear text on this regarding the case where a man marries his slave to his slave woman, and then they are both emancipated. The woman says: "Increase my dowry." The increase belongs to the woman, not the master. It was said: "What if the husband belonged to someone other than the master, to whom does the increase belong?" He replied: "To the woman." By analogy to this, if her master married her off, then sold her, and her husband increased her dowry, the increase belongs to the second [master]. Al-Qadi said: The increase belongs to the emancipating master in both cases, based on the analogy of the school of thought, because it is among our principles that an increase in the dowry attaches to the first contract, making it as if it were mentioned within it. What we have stated is more correct, because ownership of the increase is only established at the moment of its existence, after the master's ownership of her has ceased, so it belongs to her, like her earnings and what is gifted to her. Our statement that "the increase attaches to the contract" means that it becomes binding and ownership is established therein, and the whole becomes a dowry; it does not mean that it is determined that ownership was established therein previously while it belonged to her master, for that is impossible, and because the cause of ownership of this increase came into existence after the emancipation, so ownership cannot precede it, as that would lead to the ruling preceding its cause. If ownership had been established for the emancipator therein at the time of the marriage, its zakat would have been binding upon him, and he would have been entitled to its growth. This is too evident to dwell upon.