consummation. Thus, if this occurs before consummation, there are four cases:

The first: that they both embrace Islam together; the marriage remains valid.

The second: that the husband embraces Islam while the wife is from the People of the Book; the marriage remains valid.

The third: that the husband embraces Islam while the wife is not from the People of the Book; the marriage is annulled.

The fourth: that she embraces Islam; the marriage is annulled.

“If she embraces Islam before him, she is entitled to no bridal due. If he embraces Islam before her, she is entitled to half of it. If either spouse embraces Islam after consummation, the matter is deferred until the waiting period ends. If the other spouse embraces Islam during that period, the marriage remains valid; otherwise, its annulment is established from the time the first spouse embraced Islam, ...”

His statement, “If she embraces Islam before him, she is entitled to no bridal due,” means that she embraces Islam before him and before consummation, so she is entitled to no bridal due, because the separation came about on her account. We say to her: Had you remained upon unbelief, no separation would have resulted from you. But when you embraced Islam, the separation came about on your account; therefore, you are entitled to nothing of the bridal due. According to the principles of the madhhab, this is clear, since the separation came about on her account, and she could have chosen not to embrace Islam. Yet this encourages her to remain upon her religion of unbelief!

His statement, “If he embraces Islam before her, she is entitled to half of it,” means that he embraces Islam before her, in which case she is entitled to half of it. Thus, if she remains a disbeliever while her husband embraces Islam, she is given half of the bridal due. The reason is that the separation came about on his account, since he could have chosen not to embrace Islam.

There is another view within the madhhab: that the separation is attributed to the spouse who is later in embracing Islam. According to this view, if she embraces Islam and he does not, the separation is attributed to him, and he must pay half of the bridal due. For we say: You are the one who fell short—why did you not embrace Islam? But if she is the one who delayed while he embraced Islam, the separation is attributed to her, and she is entitled to nothing. This is the opposite of what the author stated, and it encourages embracing Islam. From the religious perspective, and in that it encourages Islam, this view is stronger than the madhhab’s position. But in terms of systematic legal reasoning, the madhhab’s position is more firmly grounded, for the reality of the matter is that