His statement, “unless her husband prevents her from taking possession of it, in which case he is liable for it,” means that if her husband prevents her from taking possession of it—for example, if he stipulates a camel as her bridal gift and she says, “Give it to me,” but he replies, “No, wait,” and refuses, then it perishes—he is liable for it, because he was the one who prevented her from taking possession of it. He is therefore like one who wrongfully usurps property, and one who does so is liable for it. Moreover, he is also liable for its yield during that period. Thus, if the camel could have been rented out, he is liable for its rental income as well as for its value if it perishes, because she is entitled to the increase of a specified bridal gift, as mentioned earlier.

If he gives her the fruit of his orchard as her bridal gift, then, if it has become visible, it may validly serve as a bridal gift even before its soundness has become apparent. This differs from a sale, for a sale is a pure exchange contract, and is therefore not permitted, due to the Prophet’s ﷺ prohibition of it (1). This, however, is valid, just as the scholars have said that it may be pledged, endowed as a charitable trust, or bequeathed. If it perishes, she is entitled to its value.

His statement, “in which case he is liable for it”: the appropriate grammatical form here is the nominative, and the accusative is not permissible. For if we were to say that it is coordinated with what precedes, the meaning would become: “unless her husband prevents her from taking possession of it, unless he guarantees it,” which is unsound. This frequently occurs in Arabic speech, in hadith, and in ordinary people’s speech: when what follows the fa’ is an answer to what precedes it, or an explanation of its ruling, it does not grammatically follow it; rather, it is in the nominative as a new sentence.

His statement, “She may dispose of it”: the pronoun in his statement, “she may,” refers to