exchange for wealth, so Zakat is not obligatory upon it before its collection, like the debt of a kitaba (manumission contract). Our argument is that it is a debt whose collection is deserved, and the debtor is compelled to pay it, so Zakat is obligatory upon it, like the price of sold goods. It differs from the debt of a kitaba, for its collection is not deserved, and the mukatab (contracted slave) may refrain from paying it, and their analogy to it is invalid, for it is a compensation for wealth.

Section: If she receives her dowry before the consummation of marriage and a year passes over it, so she pays its Zakat, then the husband divorces her before the consummation, he has recourse against her for half of it, and the Zakat is from the remaining half that is hers. Al-Shafi'i said in one of his views: The husband has recourse for half of what exists and half the value of what was extracted; because if the whole had perished, he would have recourse against her for half its value, and likewise if part of it perishes. Our argument is the statement of Allah, the Exalted: "Then (it is) half of what you have settled." And because he is able to have recourse in the substance, he may not have recourse to the value, just as if nothing of it had perished. It is inferred from this what the ruling would be if the whole of it perished, for it would not be possible for him to have recourse in the substance. If he divorces her after the year has passed and before the extraction, she may not extract [the Zakat] from the nisab, because the husband's right has attached to it in the manner of partnership, and Zakat has not attached to it in the manner of partnership; rather, she extracts the Zakat from other than it, or they divide it, then she extracts the Zakat from her portion. If he divorces her before the year, he owns half of it as an undivided share (musha'), and the ruling of that is as if she sold half of it as an undivided share before the year, and we have explained its ruling.

Section: If the dowry is a debt, and she releases the husband from it after the passing of a year, there are two narrations regarding it. The first is that Zakat is upon her, because she has exercised control over it, so it resembles the case where she had received it. The second narration is that its Zakat is upon the husband, because he came to possess what he was obligated to pay, as if his ownership never ceased.