The first [report] is that he seeks recourse for it. This is the opinion of al-Khiraqi, because he entered into the contract with the expectation of consuming it without compensation; thus, when he pays its compensation, he seeks recourse for it, similar to the substitute for the child and the decrease in value due to childbirth. This is one of the two opinions of al-Shafi'i. The second [report] is that he does not seek recourse for it, which is the choice of Abu Bakr and the opinion of Abu Hanifa, because he has paid for what he has already received the substitute, so he does not seek recourse for it, just like the value of the slave woman and the substitute for her parts. This is the second opinion of al-Shafi'i. If he seeks recourse for all of this from the usurper, then everything for which he would not seek recourse against the usurper had he sought recourse from the buyer, he [the usurper] then seeks recourse for it from the buyer if he [the usurper] pays it. And everything for which he would seek recourse against the usurper had he sought recourse from the buyer, the buyer does not seek recourse from the buyer if the usurper pays it. Whenever he returns her while pregnant and she dies from the delivery, she is a liability upon the one who had intercourse with her, because the destruction is due to a cause from his side.

Section: Whoever compels a woman to commit adultery, the legal punishment (hadd) is upon him, not upon her, because she is excused. He is liable for her dowry, whether she was a free woman or a slave woman. If she was a free woman, the dowry belongs to her, and if she was a slave, it belongs to her master. Malik and al-Shafi'i held this view. Abu Hanifa said: The dowry is not mandatory, because it is an act of intercourse to which the imposition of the legal punishment is attached, so no dowry is required, just as if she had consented. Our evidence is that it is an act of intercourse outside of lawful ownership, for which the legal punishment is dropped regarding the woman upon whom it was performed. Therefore, if the one performing the intercourse is of those liable for her rights, he is obligated to pay her dowry, just as if he had intercourse with her under a misconception (shubha). As for the one who consents, if she is a slave, he is obligated to pay her dowry because it is a right for her master, so it is not nullified by her consent. If she is a free woman, the dowry is not required for her, because her consent was combined with the causing factor, so it does not impose [the dowry], just as if she had permitted him to cut off her hand or destroy a part of her body. Another report was narrated from Ahmad that a previously-married woman (thayyib) is not entitled to a dowry even if she was compelled. It was related by Ibn Mansur, and it is the choice of Abu Bakr. The correct [opinion] is the first one, because she was compelled to commit the forbidden act of intercourse, so the dowry is mandatory for her, like the virgin, and the indemnity for the loss of virginity is also mandatory along with the dowry, as we previously established.