without disagreement. The third ruling is that if the dower increases after the contract, it must either be an inseparable increase, such as a slave growing, learning a craft, or gaining weight, or it must be a separable increase, such as offspring, earnings, or fruit. If it is separable, she takes the increase and he recovers half of the original value (14). If it is inseparable, the choice is hers; if she wishes, she may give him half of its value on the day of the contract, because the increase belongs to her and she is not obligated to offer it, nor can she give the original without it, so we resort to half the value. If she wishes, she may offer him half of it, including the increase, and he is obligated to accept it, because she has offered him his right plus an increase that does not harm him and is not separable. If she (17) is under legal incapacity (Mahjura), he may not recover anything except half of the value, because the increase belongs to her, and neither she nor her guardian is permitted to donate something that is not obligatory upon her. If the dower decreases after the contract, it is her liability, and this also either involves a separable or an inseparable decrease. If it is separable, such as one of two slaves dying, he recovers half of the remainder and half the value of the destroyed one, or the equivalent of half the destroyed one if it is among those having equivalents. If it is not separable, such as a slave who was young and became old, thus his value decreased, or he forgot a craft or writing he knew, or he became emaciated, then the choice belongs to the husband. If he wishes, he may recover half of its value at the time he gave it as dower, because the liability for the decrease is upon her, and he is not obligated to accept half of it, as that would be less than his right. If he wishes, he may recover half of it in its decreased state, and the woman is compelled to accept that, because he has consented to take his right in a decreased state. If he chooses to take the indemnity (Arsh) for the decrease along with this, he is not entitled to that (19), according to the manifest statement of Al-Khiraqi, which is the opinion of most jurists. Al-Qadi said: The analogy is that he is entitled to that, like a sold item that one keeps while also demanding the indemnity. Abu Hanifa and Ash-Shafi'i hold the same view as everything we have mentioned. Muhammad ibn al-Hasan said: The inseparable increase is accessory to the object, so he