causes after their undertaking does not depend on anyone's choice or will. If the dower decreases in the woman's possession after the divorce, and he demanded it from her but she withheld it, then she is liable; because she is a usurper. If it was destroyed before he demanded it, the analogy of the school is that she bears no liability, because it came into her possession without her action or aggression on her part, so she is not liable for it, like a deposit. If they differ as to whether he demanded it from her, her statement is accepted, because she is the denier. If he claims that the destruction or decrease occurred before the divorce, and she says it was after, then her statement is also accepted, because he is claiming something that necessitates liability on her, and she denies it, and the statement of the denier is accepted. The manifest opinion of the companions of Ash-Shafi'i is that the woman is liable for what was destroyed or decreased in her possession after the divorce, because it came into her possession by virtue of the termination of the contract, so it resembles a sold item when the contract is rescinded by annulment. Our argument is what we have mentioned. As for the sold item, it is possible to argue against that; and even if we concede it, the rescission, if it was by them or by the buyer, involved causing someone else's property to be in his possession, while in our case there is no action on the woman's part; it came about through the husband's action alone, thus it resembles the case where he throws his garment into her house without her command.

Section: If he Khul' (obtains a divorce for consideration) from his wife after consummation, then marries her again during her waiting period ('Iddah), [then divorces her] (11) before consummating with her again, she is entitled to half of the dower (12) specified in the second marriage. This is the opinion of Ash-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa said: She is entitled to the whole of it, because the legal effect of intercourse exists in it, evidenced by the fact that if she gives birth to a child, it is attributed to him. Our argument is the saying of Allah, glory be to Him: {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}. And because it is a divorce from a marriage in which he has not touched her, so it is required that the dower be halved, just as if he had married her after the waiting period. What he mentioned is incorrect; for the attribution of lineage does not depend on intercourse according to him, so it (13) does not take its place. But if he had also not consummated with her in the first marriage, he owes half of the first dower and half of the second dower without