the state of misconception. It is also possible to interpret this narration as meaning that there is no dower for her at present, but it becomes an obligation upon the liability of the slave, to be pursued after his manumission. This is the new view of al-Shafi'i, because this is a right that became binding with the consent of the one who is entitled to the right, so its place is the liability, like a debt. The correct view is that the dower is obligatory, based on his (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) statement: "Any woman who marries herself without the permission of her guardian, her marriage is void; so if he has consummated with her, she is entitled to the dower for what he has made lawful of her private parts." He has indeed made her private parts lawful, so her dower is upon him. Also, because he has enjoyed the benefits of sexual intercourse under the name of marriage, the dower is therefore obligatory, like in all other invalid marriages.

Second Section: The dower attaches to the person of the slave, and he may be sold to satisfy it unless the master ransoms him. We have mentioned another possibility, which is that it attaches to the liability of the slave. The first is more apparent because the act of intercourse was treated as an act of injury requiring compensation without the permission of the master, and for this reason, the dower became obligatory here and in all other invalid marriages. Had it not been treated as such, nothing would have been obligatory, because it occurred with the consent of the one entitled to it. And Allah knows best.

Third Section: The amount of the dower that is obligatory is two-fifths of it. This is the opinion of Uthman ibn Affan, may Allah be pleased with him, and Abu Musa acted upon it. According to Ahmad, if she knew that he was a slave, she is entitled to two-fifths of the dower, but if she did not know, she is entitled to the full dower from the person of the slave. Another view from him is that what is obligatory is the dower of the like (mahr al-mithl). This is the opinion of most jurists, because it is an act of intercourse that requires a dower, so it requires the full dower of the like, just as in the case of intercourse in a marriage without a guardian and in other invalid marriages. The basis for the first view is what Imam Ahmad narrated, with his chain of narration from Khilas, that a servant of Abu Musa married a female slave of Tijat al-Taymi without the permission of Abu Musa. He wrote to Uthman ibn Affan about this, and Uthman wrote back to him: "Separate them, and take for her two-fifths of her dower." Her dower was five camels. Furthermore, because the dower is one of the two requirements of intercourse, it is permissible for the slave to fall short in it compared to the free man, just as in the case of the legal penalty (hadd), or because it is one of the two compensations in a marriage, so the slave may fall short, just as in the number of wives.