But is he entitled to reclaim from her half of the rent she received before the divorce?

The answer is: No, he is not entitled to reclaim it, because she became the owner of the bridal gift, and the rent is a separate increase which she acquired upon taking possession of it.

If he gives her a cow as her bridal gift and specifies it, then the woman milks it and sells the milk, and he subsequently divorces her before consummation, he is entitled to recover half the cow, while she retains the milk that she had been selling, because it is a separate increase from an asset of which she owned the entirety.

His statement, “before taking possession”: then after taking possession is all the more so. The implication here is one of greater priority. It is known that implications are of three types: an equal a fortiori implication, a stronger a fortiori implication, and an implication by contrast.

For example, consuming an orphan’s wealth is forbidden, and burning it is even more so, because eating it involves a measure of benefit, whereas burning it entails its destruction and waste: neither the orphan nor the one who burned it derives any benefit from it.

Allah the Exalted says: “So do not say to them even ‘uff,’ nor rebuke them.” [Quran 17:23] If someone were to say, “How burdensome you both are to me! How severe you are upon me! I am utterly fed up with you,” and then strike them, this would be forbidden; it is an implication of greater priority.

They have alleged that the Zahiriyyah do not consider striking one’s parents forbidden. They say: Allah says, “So do not say to them even ‘uff,’” whereas this person struck them but did not speak, so there is nothing blameworthy upon him, since he did not say, “uff”!

But this is not correct, for although they do not deem it forbidden from