it is possible that he returns for half of the dower of a peer (mahr al-mithl), because it is what was obligatory by the contract, so it is like the half of the specified dower. It is also possible that he returns for half of the consolatory gift (mut'a), because it is what becomes obligatory upon divorce, so it resembles the specified dower.

Section: If a woman whose dower is unspecified (mufawwada) grants a discharge from half of her dower, and then he divorces her before consummation, she has no consolatory gift, because the consolatory gift stands in the place of half the dower, and she has already granted a discharge from it, so it becomes as if she had received it. It is possible that half of the consolatory gift becomes obligatory for her if we say: that the husband does not claim anything back from her if she grants a discharge from her entire dower.

Section: If someone sells a slave to a man for one hundred, and the seller discharges the buyer from the price, or receives it and then gifts it to him, and then the buyer discovers a defect in the slave, does he have the right to return the sold item and demand the price, or to take the compensation (arsh) for the defect while keeping it? There are two aspects, based on the two reports regarding the dower if the woman gifts it to her husband and then he divorces her before consummation. If the situation remains the same, and the buyer gifts the slave to the seller, then the buyer becomes insolvent (muflis) while the price is still in his conscience, then the seller has the right to claim the price along with the creditors, according to a single aspect, because nothing of the price returned to the seller; for this reason, it was obligatory for it to be rendered to him before the insolvency, unlike the previous case. If he enters into a mukataba contract (covenant of manumission) with a slave, then remits the manumission debt (mal al-kitaba) for him, he is discharged and becomes free, and he does not have the right to claim back from his master the amount that the master was required to give him. Likewise, if he remits the amount that he is obligated to give him, and receives the remainder, he is not obligated to give him anything, because his remitting it stands in place of the giving. Some of our companions derived two aspects for it, based on the two reports regarding the dower, but this is not correct, because the woman remitted the dower that was obligatory for her before the cause of the husband's entitlement to half of it existed, whereas here the master remitted for the mukatab slave that for which the cause of giving it to him existed, so his remitting stands in the place of his giving. This is why if the master received it from him and then gave it to him, he would not claim back anything from him. If the woman received her dower and gifted it to her husband, then he divorced her before consummation, he would return to claim it from her, so they differ.