Thus, the substitute for it, which is the dowry of similar status (mahr al-mithl), becomes incumbent upon them. According to the other opinion, half of the dowry of similar status is incumbent upon them, because he only possessed half of the marital intimacy, as evidenced by the fact that only half of the dowry is due from him. Our position is that the exit of marital intimacy from the husband's possession is not a matter of appraised value; this is evidenced by the case where she removes it from his possession through her apostasy, accepting Islam, or killing herself, for in these cases she guarantees nothing. Even if she annuls her marriage before consummation by breastfeeding that would cause the annulment of her marriage, he pays nothing. Rather, they are only liable for half of the specified dowry, because they made it binding upon the husband through their testimony and confirmed it upon him, [so he recovers it from them], just as he would recover it from one who annuls his marriage through breastfeeding or otherwise. His statement that "he possessed half of the marital intimacy" is incorrect, for it is not permissible to possess half of the marital intimacy. Furthermore, the contract applied to all of it, and the entire dowry is due; this is why the woman possesses it once she takes receipt of it, its increase belongs to her, and she has the right to demand it if she has not received it, while only half of it lapses upon divorce. If the judgment for separation was after consummation, there is no liability upon them. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifah. [From Ahmad, there is another narration that they are liable for the specified dowry, because they caused him to lose a marriage for which a substitute was due, so they are liable for what was owed through it, just as if they had testified to that before consummation]. Al-Shafi'i said: The dowry of similar status is due from them, because they caused the loss of marital intimacy for him. The discussion with him regarding this has already preceded, and analogy to the situation before consummation is not valid, because they confirmed half of the specified dowry upon him, which was subject to lapsing, whereas here the entire dowry had been confirmed by consummation. Thus, they did not confirm anything upon him, nor did they remove a valued good from his possession, so it is similar to the case where they removed it from his possession by her killing herself, or she removed it herself through her apostasy.