The Fourth Chapter: Regarding the dowry. This cannot be devoid of one of two cases: either he is from those permitted to marry slave women, or he is not. If he is one who is permitted to marry slave women and has married her with a valid marriage, she is entitled to the specified dowry. If he has not consummated the marriage and chooses to annul it, she has no dowry, because the annulment was necessitated by her circumstances, so she is like a woman with a defect whose marriage is annulled. If he is not from those permitted to marry slave women, the contract is invalid from its inception, and there is no dowry for it prior to consummation. However, if he consummates with her, he is liable for her dowry. Is the specified dowry or the dowry of her peers (mahr al-mithl) obligatory? There are two narrations regarding this, which we have mentioned previously. The same applies if he is from those permitted to marry slave women, but he married her without the permission of her master, or similar instances that render the marriage invalid.
The Fifth Chapter: That he may claim back what he has paid in damages from the one who deceived him, including the dowry and the value of the children. This is the choice of Al-Khiraqi, and one narration from Ahmad. Ibn al-Mundhir said: Umar, Ali, and Ibn Abbas judged accordingly, and Al-Shafi'i held this view in his early (qadim) position. The other narration is that he cannot claim back the dowry. This is the choice of Abu Bakr, who said: This is the opinion of Ali, and it is the view of Al-Thawri, Abu Thawr, the People of Reason (Ashab al-Ra'y), and Al-Shafi'i in his later (jadid) position; because it [the dowry] became obligatory upon him in exchange for a benefit he received, which is intercourse, so he cannot claim it back, just as if he had purchased usurped property and consumed it. This is in contrast to the value of the child, for it was not obtained in exchange for compensation, as it was necessitated by the child's freedom, and the freedom of the child belongs to the child, not his father.
(26) Omitted from: M. (27) In the original: "and such as". (28) In A, M: "in". (29) In M: "he chose it". (30) Omitted from: the original. (31) In the original, B: "for it is". (32) In B: "its counter-value".
الفصل الرابع: فى المَهْرِ، ولا يَخْلُو من (٢٦) أن يكونَ ممَّن يَجُوزُ له نِكَاحُ الإِمَاءِ أو لا؛ فإن كان ممَّن يجوزُ له نِكاحُ الإِماءِ، وقد نَكَحَها نِكاحًا صحيحًا، فلها المُسَمَّى، وإن لم يَدْخُلْ بها واختارَ الفَسْخَ، فلا مَهْرَ لها؛ لأنَّ الفَسْخَ تَعَذَّرَ من جِهَتِها، فهى كالمَعِيبةِ يُفْسَخُ نِكَاحُها. وإن كان ممن لا يجوزُ له نِكاحُ الإِمَاءِ، فالعَقْدُ فاسدٌ من أصْلِه، ولا مَهْرَ فيه قبل الدُّخولِ. فإنْ دَخَلَ بها، فعليه مَهْرُها. وهل يجبُ المُسَمَّى أو مَهْرُ المِثْلِ؟ على روايتَيْنِ، ذكَرْناهما فيما مضى. وكذلك إن كان ممَّن يجوزُ له نِكاحُ الإِمَاءِ، لكن تَزَوَّجَها بغيرِ إذْنِ سَيِّدِها، أو نحو (٢٧) ذلك مما يَفْسُدُ به النِّكاحُ.
الفصل الخامس: أنَّه يَرجِعُ بما غَرِمَه على مَن غَرَّه، من (٢٨) المَهْرِ وقِيمةِ الأولادِ. هذا اخْتِيارُ (٢٩) الْخِرَقِىِّ، وروايةٌ عن أحمدَ. قال ابنُ الْمُنْذِرِ: كذلك قَضَى عمرُ، وعلىٌّ، وابنُ عباسٍ. وبه قال الشافعىُّ فى القديمِ. والروايةُ الأُخْرَى، لا يَرْجِعُ بالمَهْرِ. وهو اختيارُ أبى بكرٍ. قال: وهو قولُ علىٍّ. وبه قال الثَّوْرِىُّ، وأبو ثَوْرٍ، وأصْحابُ الرَّأْىِ، والشافعىُّ فى الجديدِ؛ لأنَّه وَجَبَ عليه فى مُقابَلةِ نَفْعٍ وَصَلَ إليه، وهو الوطءُ، فلم يَرْجِعْ به (٣٠)، كما لو اشْتَرَى مَغْصُوبًا فأكَلَه، بخلافِ قِيمةِ الوَلَدِ، فإنَّها (٣١) لم تَحْصُلْ فى مُقَابلةِ (٣٢) عِوَضٍ؛ لأنَّها وَجَبَتْ بحُرِّيّةِ الوَلَدِ، وحُرِّيةُ الولدِ للوَلدِ لا لأَبِيه. قال
(٢٦) سقط من: م.(٢٧) فى الأصل: "ونحو".(٢٨) فى أ، م: "فى".(٢٩) فى م: "اختاره".(٣٠) سقط من: الأصل.(٣١) فى الأصل، ب: "فإنه".(٣٢) فى ب: "مقابلته".
