without dispute. The third ruling is that if the dowry increases after the contract, it is either an increase that is inseparable—such as a slave who grows older, learns a trade, or gains weight—or it is separable, such as offspring, earnings, and fruit. If it is separable, she takes the increase and he recovers half of the original. 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, and it is impossible for her to surrender the original without it, so we resort to half of the value. If she wishes, she may give him half of it, including the increase, and he is obligated to accept it, because she has given him his due plus an increase that causes no harm and is not separable. If she is under interdiction, he may only recover 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 dowry decreases after the contract, it is her liability, and it is also either a decrease that is separable or inseparable. If it is separable, such as two slaves where one of them dies, he recovers half of the remainder and half of the value of the destroyed one, or the equivalent of half of the destroyed one if it is among those things having like-kind. If it is not separable—such as a slave who was young and became old, thus his value decreased, or he forgot a trade or writing he used to know, or he became emaciated—the choice lies with the husband; if he wishes, he recovers half of its value at the time he gave it as a dowry, because the liability for the decrease is upon her, and he is not obligated to accept half of it because it is less than his right. If he wishes, he may recover half of it in its decreased state, and the woman is compelled to do so because he has consented to take his right in its decreased state. If he chooses to take the indemnity for the decrease along with this, he does not have that right, according to the apparent statement of al-Khiraqi, and this is the opinion of the majority of jurists. The Qadi said: The analogy is that he has that right, like a sold item which one keeps while also demanding indemnity. Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i held the view of everything we have mentioned. Muhammad ibn al-Hasan said: The inseparable increase is subordinate to the essence, so he has the right...