If it involved a forbidden thing, such as wine or swine, and he took possession of it, then they both embrace Islam, or they refer their case to us, or one of them embraces Islam, [it is enforced] upon them, he is not compensated for it, he does not return it, and nothing remains for him against her, just as if he had given her wine as a dower then they both embraced Islam, or they sold wine to each other and took possession of it, then embraced Islam. But if their embracing Islam or referring the case occurs before possession is taken, the judge does not enforce it, nor does he order that possession be taken of it; because wine and swine cannot be valid compensation for a Muslim or from a Muslim, so the judge does not order that possession be taken of it. The Qadi said in "Al-Jami'": "He is entitled to nothing," because he was content to receive from her what is not property, like two Muslims if they perform Khul' with wine. He said in "Al-Mujarrad": "The dower of similar worth becomes due." This is the school of Al-Shafi'i, because the compensation is invalid, so it reverts to the value of what was destroyed, which is the dower of similar worth. The words of Al-Khiraqi indicate by their implication that he is entitled to something, because his specification of the state of possession with the negation of recourse indicates that there is recourse in the absence of possession. The difference between him and the Muslim is that the Muslim does not believe wine and swine to be property, so if he is content with it as compensation, he has been content with Khul' without property, so he is entitled to nothing; whereas the polytheist believes it to be property, so he was not content with Khul' without compensation, and thus the compensation is due to him, as if he had performed Khul' with her for a free person he believed to be a slave, or wine he believed to be vinegar. Once it is established that he is entitled to compensation, the Qadi mentioned that it is the dower of similar worth, as if he had married her for wine and then they both embraced Islam. According to what we have reasoned, it necessitates the value of what he named for her, provided it is considered property, for he was content with the financial value of that thing, so he is entitled to its equivalent in money, as if he had performed Khul' with her for wine he believed to be vinegar. If possession of some of it was obtained but not the rest, what was possessed falls away, and regarding what was not possessed, there are three views. The basis for this is the saying of Allah, the Exalted: "And leave what remains of the interest, if you are believers."