text for it, nor is it valid to make an analogy to the price in a sale of goods, because the price constitutes the entire objective of the seller, and the custom is its prompt payment, whereas the dower is an extra gift and a benevolence; it is not the main objective in marriage. This is why marriage is not invalidated by its corruption or by the omission of its mention, and the custom is to delay it. Furthermore, most of those who purchase with a spot price are solvent regarding it, whereas it is not the norm that those who marry with a dower are solvent regarding it. It is also not valid to make an analogy to maintenance, because necessity can only be repelled by it, unlike the dower. Thus, the thing most similar to it is past maintenance. Al-Shafi'i holds views similar to these. If we say that she has the right of rescission due to his insolvency regarding it, and she married him while knowing of his insolvency, then she has no option, by consensus, because she accepted it as such. Likewise, if she learned of his insolvency after the contract and accepted to remain, her right of rescission is forfeited because she accepted the forfeiture of her right after it became obligatory, so it was forfeited, just as if she accepted his impotence.

Section: The maintenance of a slave woman who is married is a right for her and for her master, because each of them benefits from her. Either one of them has the right to demand it if the husband refuses to provide it, and neither of them possesses the right to forfeit it, because its forfeiture by one of them causes harm to the other. If the husband is insolvent regarding it, she has the right of rescission because he is unable to provide her maintenance, so she is entitled to rescission, just like a free woman. If she does not rescind it, the Qadi said: Her master has the right of rescission because he suffers harm due to its absence, on account of what relates to its loss in terms of the loss of his ownership and its destruction. If her master provides for her with the intention of claiming it back, he has the right to claim it back from the husband, whether she agreed to that or disliked it, because the debt is his exclusive right, and she has no right over it; rather, her right relates only to current maintenance due to the necessity of it being dispensed to her for the sustenance of her body, unlike past maintenance. Abu al-Khattab and the followers of al-Shafi'i said: Her master does not have the right of rescission due to her husband's insolvency regarding the maintenance, because it is her right, so her master does not possess the right of rescission without her, like rescission due to a defect. If she is mentally deficient, the master provides for her,