what has not yet become obligatory if its end result leads to obligation, then according to us, it is valid, while according to them, it is not. We have already mentioned this in the chapter on Guarantee (41).

Section: If he is insolvent regarding the maintenance for a servant, condiments, or housing, this is established as a liability upon him. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i. The Qadi said: It is not established, because it is among the excess requirements, so it is not established in his liability, like that which is in excess of what is obligatory upon him. Our argument is that this is maintenance that becomes obligatory by way of compensation, so it is fixed in the liability, just like the maintenance that is obligatory for the woman as food. It differs from what is in excess of the maintenance of the insolvent (42), for that is forfeited by insolvency.

Section: If a woman provides for herself from the property of her absent husband, then it becomes apparent that he had died before her spending, what she spent is deducted from her inheritance, whether she spent it herself or by order of the judge. This is the opinion of Abu al-Aliyah, Muhammad ibn Sirin, al-Shafi'i, and Ibn al-Mundhir. I do not know of any disagreement from others; because she spent what she was not entitled to. If anything remains for her, it is hers. If there is a deficit, and she has a dower or a debt owed to her by her husband, it is deducted from it; if she has none of that, the excess is a debt owed by her. And Allah knows best.

Section: If the husband is insolvent regarding the dower, there are three views concerning it. The most correct of them is that she does not have the right of rescission. This is the choice of Ibn Hamid. The second is that she has the right of rescission; this is the choice of Abu Bakr, because he is insolvent regarding the compensation, so she has the right to return to what is being compensated for, just as if he were insolvent regarding the price of what she sold him. The third view is that if he is insolvent before consummation, she has the right of rescission, just as if the buyer became bankrupt while the sold item is still in its original state; but if it is after consummation, she does not possess the right of rescission, because the object of the contract has already been fulfilled, so it resembles the case where the buyer becomes bankrupt after the sold item or part of it has been destroyed. Our argument is that it is a debt, so the marriage is not rescinded due to insolvency regarding it, like past maintenance; and because its delay does not involve harmful hardship, so it resembles the maintenance of a servant and past maintenance; and because it is not