Section: If she prevents herself (from intercourse) until she receives her dower, and it is immediate (hal), she has the right to do so. Ibn al-Mundhir said: All the scholars whose views we have preserved are in agreement that the woman has the right to refuse the husband entry upon her until he gives her her dower. If the husband says: "I will not hand over the dower to her until I have received her (in intercourse)," the husband shall be compelled to hand over the dower first, then she shall be compelled to hand over herself. The school of al-Shafi'i regarding this is similar to his school regarding a sale. As for us, in compelling her to hand over herself first, there is the risk of wasting the private parts and of him refraining from providing the dower, and it is not possible to revoke the sexual act, unlike the sold object which is compelled to be handed over before the delivery of its price. Therefore, once this is established, she is entitled to maintenance as long as she refuses (the husband) for this reason, even if he is insolvent regarding the dower, because her refusal is based on a right. If the dower is deferred, she does not have the right to prevent herself before taking possession of it, because her consent to deferring it is consent to hand over herself before receiving it, just like the deferred price in a sale. If the deferred term expires before she has handed over herself, she also does not have the right to prevent herself, because delivery has become obligatory upon her and was established before she took possession of it, so she has no right to prevent him from it. If some of it is immediate and some is deferred, she has the right to prevent herself before taking possession of the immediate part, but not the deferred part. If all of it is immediate, she has the right to prevent herself according to what we have mentioned. If she hands over herself before taking possession of it, then wishes to prevent herself until she takes possession of it, Ahmad withheld from answering this. Abu Abd Allah ibn Batta and Abu Ishaq ibn Shaqla went to the view that she does not have that right. This is the view of Malik, al-Shafi'i, Abu Yusuf, and Muhammad, because the compensation was established by the delivery with the consent of the one who handed it over, so she has no right to refuse it after that, just as if the seller delivered the sold item. Abu Abd Allah ibn Hamid went to the view that she has that right, which is the school of Abu Hanifa, because it is a delivery that the marriage contract obligates her to perform, so she possesses the right to refrain from it before taking possession of her dower, just like the first case. As for if he has intercourse with her by force, her right to refuse is not forfeited by that, because it occurred without her consent, like a sold object if the buyer takes it from the seller by force. If she takes the dower and finds it defective, she has the right to prevent herself until he replaces it or gives her its compensation (arsh), because her dower is (owed in) sound state. If she does not know of its defect until she has handed over herself, it is derived (yukhraj) based on the two views regarding when she hands herself over before taking possession of her dower and then decides to refuse. Every situation in which we said she has the right to refuse to hand over herself, she has the right to travel without the husband's permission, because the husband has not established a right of confinement (habs) over her, so she becomes like someone who has no husband. If even a dirham remains of it, it is as if the whole of it remains, because whoever has the right to confinement due to the entire compensation has the right to confinement due to part of it, like all other debts.

Section: If the husband is insolvent regarding the immediate dower before consummation, she has the right to annulment, because obtaining the compensation of the contract became impossible before the delivery of the compensated object, so she has the right to annulment, just as if the buyer were insolvent regarding the price before the delivery of the sold object. [Ibn Hamid permitted the view that she has no right to annulment]. If he becomes insolvent after consummation, there are two views, based on (the issue of) her refusing herself: if we say she has the right to refuse herself after consummation, she has the right to annulment just as before consummation; and if we say she does not have the right to refuse herself, she does not have the right to annulment, just as if he were bankrupt regarding another debt of hers. Annulment is not permitted except by the ruling of a judge, because it is a matter of ijtihad.

1214 - Issue; He said: (And if he marries her upon two dowers, a secret one and a public one, the public one is taken, even if the marriage was contracted with the secret one.) The outward meaning of the words of al-Khiraqi is that if a man marries a woman in secret with one dower, then contracts her in public with another dower, he is held to the public one. This is the outward meaning of the statement of Ahmad, in the narration of al-Athram. And it is...