the value of the slave is the dowry of the peer or more, and the value of the slave-girl is above that, the husband takes an oath and she is entitled to the value of the slave; for his statement conforms to the apparent reality, and the slave himself is not obligatory, so that nothing he denies would enter her possession. And if the value of the slave-girl is the dowry of the peer or less, and the value of the slave is less than that, then the statement is the statement of the wife with her oath. Is the slave-girl itself obligatory or her value? There are two views regarding this; one of them is that the slave-girl herself is obligatory, because we accepted her statement regarding the amount, so it is the same regarding the identity, and there is no inclusion in this of something he denies into her possession. The second is that her value is obligatory for her, because her statement only conformed to the apparent reality regarding the amount, not the identity, so we obliged for her that which she agreed with the apparent reality upon. And if each one of them is the amount of the dowry of the peer, or if the slave is less than the dowry of the peer and the slave-girl is more than it, the dowry of the peer becomes obligatory if they exchange oaths. The manifest opinion of the Qadi is that the oath is not prescribed in any of this.
1205 - Issue: He said: "And if he denies that she has a dowry upon him, the statement is also her statement before consummation and after it, as long as she claims the dowry of her peer, unless he brings evidence that acquits him of it."
The summary of this is that when the husband denies his wife's dowry, and she claims it against him, the statement is her statement regarding what conforms to the dowry of her peer, whether he claims that he has paid it in full, or she absolved him of it, or he said: "You are not entitled to anything from me." And whether that was before the consummation or after it. This is the opinion of Sa'id ibn Jubayr, al-Sha'bi, Ibn Shubruma, Ibn Abi Layla, al-Thawri, al-Shafi'i, Ishaq, and the companions of reasoning (Ahl al-Ra'y). It was reported from the seven jurists of Medina that they said: If it is after the wedding (consummation), then the statement is the statement of the husband, and the consummation with the woman terminates the dowry. This is also the opinion of Malik. His companions said: He only said that if the custom was the prepayment of the dowry, as was the case in Medina, or if the disagreement was regarding what is customarily prepaid; because she does not surrender herself customarily except upon receiving it, so the apparent reality is with him. Our argument is that the Prophet—peace and blessings of Allah be upon him—said: "The oath is upon the defendant."
(1) In M: "wa fi maliha" (and in her property). (2) In M: "al-dukhul" (consummation).
قيمةُ العَبْدِ مَهْرَ المِثْلِ، أو أكثرَ، وقيمةُ الأَمَةِ فَوْقَ ذلك، حَلَفَ الزَّوْجُ ووَجَبَتْ لها قِيمةُ العبدِ؛ لأنَّ قولَه يُوافِقُ الظاهِرَ، ولا تَجبُ عَيْنُ العَبْدِ، لئَلَّا يَدْخُلَ فى مِلْكِها ما يُنْكِرُه. وإن كانت قيمةُ الأمةِ مهرَ المِثْلِ، أو أقَلَّ، وقيمةُ العبدِ أقلَّ من ذلك، فالقولُ قولُ الزَّوْجةِ مع يَمِينها. وهل تجبُ الأمَةُ أو قِيمَتُها؟ فيه وَجْهان؛ أحدهما، تجبُ عَيْنُ الأمةِ؛ لأنَّنا قَبِلْنا قَوْلَها فى القَدْرِ، فكذلك فى العَيْنِ، وليس فى ذلك إدْخالُ ما يُنْكِرُه فى مِلْكِها. والثانى، تجبُ لها قِيمَتُها؛ لأنَّ قولَها إنَّما وافقَ الظاهِرَ فى القَدْرِ لا فى العَيْنِ، فأوْجَبْنا لها ما وافَقَتِ الظاهِرَ فيه. وإن كان كلُّ واحدٍ منهما قَدْرَ مَهْرِ المِثْلِ، أو كان العَبْدُ أقَلَّ من مهرِ المثلِ، والأمَةُ أكثرَ منه، وجَبَ مهرُ المثلِ إذا تَحالَفا. وظاهرُ قولِ القاضِى أَنَّ اليمينَ لا يُشْرَعُ فى هذا كلِّه.
١٢٠٥ - مسألة؛ قال: (وإِنْ أَنْكَرَ أَنْ يَكُونَ لَهَا عَلَيْهِ صَداقٌ، فَالْقَوْلُ أَيْضًا قَولُهَا قَبْلَ الدُّخُولِ وبَعْدهُ، مَا ادَّعَتْ مَهْرَ مِثلِهَا، إِلَّا أَنْ يَأْتِيَ بِبَيِّنةٍ تُبْرِئُه مِنْهُ)
وجملةُ ذلك أن الزَّوْجَ إذا أنكرَ صَداقَ امرأتِه، وادَّعَتْ ذلك عليه، فالقولُ قولُها فيما يوافِقُ مهرَ مثلِها، سواءٌ ادَّعَى أنَّه وَفَّاها (١)، أو أبْرَأَتْه منه، أو قال: لا تَسْتَحِقّ علىَّ شَيْئًا. وسواءٌ كان ذلك قبلَ الدُّخولِ أو بعدَه. وبه قال سعيدُ بن جُبَيْرٍ، والشعبىُّ، وابن شُبْرُمةَ، وابنُ أبى لَيْلَى، والثَّوْرِىُّ، والشافعىُّ، وإسْحاقُ، وأصْحابُ الرَّأْىِ. وحُكِىَ عن فُقَهاءِ المدينةِ السَّبعةِ أنَّهم قالوا: إن كان بعدَ الزَّفافِ (٢)، فالقولُ قولُ الزَّوْجِ، والدُّخولُ بالمرأةِ يَقْطَعُ الصَّداقَ. وبه قال مالكٌ. قال أصحابُه: إنَّما قال ذلك إذا كانت العادَةُ تَعْجِيلَ الصَّداقِ، كما كان بالمدينةِ، أو كان الخِلافُ فيما تُعُجِّلَ منه فى العادةِ؛ لأنَّها لا تُسَلِّمُ نَفْسَها فى العادةِ إلا بقَبْضِه، فكان الظَّاهِرُ معه. ولَنا، أَنَّ النَّبِىَّ
(١) فى م: "وفى مالها".(٢) فى م: "الدخول".
