so no compensation is obligatory for it, like a corrupt sale. If the separation is after consummation, she is entitled to the dower, based on his (peace and blessings of God be upon him) statement: "She has the dower for what he has made lawful of her private part." If the intercourse is repeated, the dower is one, because of the Hadith, and because it is an act of intercourse within a corrupt contract, resembling an act of intercourse within a valid contract.

Section: What is obligatory for her is the dower of the like (mahr al-mithl). Ahmad alluded to this, for he said regarding a slave who marries without the permission of his master: "He is given something." The Qadi said: "He means the dower of the like." This is the apparent view of al-Khiraqi, due to his statement: "If two guardians perform a marriage, the marriage belongs to the first of them, and if the second has consummated with her, she is entitled to the dower of the like." This is the school of al-Shafi'i. The explicitly stated position from Ahmad is that she is entitled to the specified amount (al-musamma), because in some versions of the Hadith of Aisha: "And she has what he gave her for what he enjoyed of her." The Qadi said: "Abu Bakr al-Barqani and Abu Muhammad al-Khallal narrated it to us with their chains of transmission." Abu Hanifah said: "What is obligatory is the lesser of the specified amount or the dower of the like, because if she were satisfied with less than her dower of the like, she has no right to more than it, like a valid contract. And if the specified amount were more, the excess would not be obligatory because it is [by an invalid contract]." Our position is the statement of the Prophet (peace and blessings of God be upon him): "She has the dower for what he has made lawful of her private part." He made the dower obligatory for her through the act of intercourse, and intercourse only makes the dower of the like obligatory. Furthermore, the contract is not a cause [for obligation], based on the report, and [the fact that] if he divorced her before touching her, she would have nothing. Since it is not a cause, its existence is like its non-existence, and the act of intercourse remains the sole cause for obligation; therefore, it necessitates the dower of the like, as is the case with intercourse in a marriage of uncertainty (wat' al-shubha). Additionally, if the specification were corrupt, the dower of the like would be obligatory, so if the contract is corrupt from its inception, that is even more appropriate. The statement of