Ahmad. If it decreases after she has taken possession of it, or is destroyed, then it is at her risk. And if she had paid Zakat on it, then she was divorced before consummation, the entire liability for Zakat remains on her. As for before taking possession, it is at the husband's risk if it is measurable or weighable. [And if it is] (6) other than these, and he prevents her from it and does not enable her to take possession, then it is at his risk; because he is in the position of an usurper. But if he did not stand between her and it, is it then at her risk or his? There are two opinions, based on the sold item, and we have already mentioned its ruling in its chapter. The second ruling is that the dower is halved by divorce before consummation, due to the saying of the Almighty: {And if you divorce them before you have touched them, and you have already appointed for them a dower, then half of what you have appointed [shall be yours]} (7). There is no disagreement regarding this, praise be to God. The analogy of the school is that half of the dower enters the husband's ownership by legal effect, like inheritance, not requiring his choice or will; therefore, any increase that occurs is shared between them. This is the opinion of Zufar. The judge mentioned another possibility: that it does not enter his ownership until he chooses [to take] (8) it, like the one entitled to pre-emption (shafi'). This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa. For Ash-Shafi'i, there are two views, corresponding to the two opinions [in our school]. For us, there is the saying of the Almighty: {then half of what you have appointed}. Meaning for you or for them, which implies that half is hers and half is his, by the mere act of divorce. Also, because divorce is a cause through which he gains ownership without consideration, so ownership does not depend (9) upon his will and choice, like inheritance. And because it is a cause for the transfer of ownership, so it transfers ownership by its mere occurrence, like a sale and other causes. Pre-emption (Shu'fa) does not invalidate this; for the cause of ownership in it is the taking by it, and whenever he takes it, ownership is established without his will and choice. Before taking, the cause is not found, rather it is entitled through the undertaking (10) of the cause of ownership, and the undertaking of causes is suspended upon his choice, just as divorce is delegated to his choice. Thus, taking by pre-emption is like divorce, and the establishment of ownership for the one taking by pre-emption is like the establishment of ownership for the divorcer; for the establishment of ownership is a ruling for it, and the establishment of the rulings of causes after undertaking them does not depend on anyone's choice or will.