it was the woman who corrupted the marriage, like the half-dowry before consummation. Furthermore, the departure of the private part from the husband's ownership has no monetary value, as we mentioned previously. For this reason, the dowry of a like woman (mahr al-mithl) does not become incumbent. The husband only had recourse for half of the specified dowry before consummation because she finalized it against him, and for this reason, it lapses if she is the one who corrupted her own marriage, and this is not found here. This is the opinion of some of the followers of al-Shafi'i. Also, if he were to have recourse for the dowry after consummation, it would necessarily follow that his recourse would be either for the substitute of the private part which she caused to be lost, or for the dowry which he paid. It is not permissible for it to be for the substitute of the private part; for if its substitute were required, it would be due to him from the wife if it were lost by her action or by her killing, and what would be required for him would be the dowry of a like woman. It is not permissible for the substitute of what he paid to her to be required for him for that reason, and because she did not make it incumbent, nor does she have any influence in making it incumbent, nor in its payment, nor its finalization. We do not know of any disagreement among them that if she corrupts her own marriage after consummation, her dowry does not lapse, nor does he have recourse against her for anything if he had paid it to her. Nor [is there disagreement] that if she corrupts it before consummation, her dowry lapses, and he has recourse against her for what he gave her. Thus, if a young girl crawls to an adult woman and suckles from her five times while she is asleep, and they are both wives of one man, the marriage of the adult woman is rescinded, and she becomes forbidden forever. If he had consummated the marriage with the adult woman, the young girl becomes forbidden, and her marriage is rescinded, and there is no dowry for the young girl because she corrupted her own marriage. He is liable for the dowry of the adult woman, and he has recourse against the young girl for it, according to our companions, and he does not have recourse