His statement, “After either of the two,” means after consummation or seclusion.
His statement, “The stipulated dowry becomes due,” means the specified dowry. After consummation, it may be said that the author’s statement is correct: the stipulated dowry is due. Some scholars, however, maintain that the stipulated dowry is not due; rather, she is entitled to the customary dowry, because the marriage contract is invalid, and whatever follows from it is likewise invalid. This woman has been consummated with under a mistaken presumption of law, so she is entitled to the customary dowry. The relied-upon position in the school is that the stipulated dowry is due to her, because they agreed that intercourse with her would be lawful in return for this specified compensation; it therefore becomes due.
But why should the stipulated dowry be due after seclusion? They explain this by analogy, treating an invalid marriage contract as equivalent to a valid one. Yet this analogy is unsound, for one of the conditions of analogy is that the original case and the derived case be alike. So how can an invalid contract be likened to a valid one? Accordingly, al-Muwaffaq and a group of the school’s scholars held that seclusion does not entitle her to anything, because this is an invalid contract with no legal effect. It is like being alone in seclusion with a woman to whom one has not contracted marriage. This view is correct: seclusion in an invalid marriage contract does not make anything due, since an invalid contract cannot be assimilated to a valid one.
His statement, “The customary dowry is due to any woman with whom intercourse takes place under a mistaken presumption of law.” Thus, if intercourse takes place with a woman under such a presumption—whether due to a mistaken presumption arising from a contract or from belief—she is entitled to the customary dowry. This is because the husband had intercourse with her believing it to be lawful, and its consequent legal obligation is the customary dowry. This is clear in the case of a mistaken presumption based on belief, since there is no contract in which a dowry was specified. But in the case of a mistaken presumption arising from a contract, if he had specified a dowry for her,