But if he delays payment, as in the case of a woman who marries a man for a dowry of ten thousand, deferred until the month of Sha'ban in the following year: Sha'ban then arrives, he has not consummated the marriage, and the dowry has fallen due. He asks her to surrender herself to him, and she says, “Give me the dowry.” He replies, “The dowry is deferred.” She says, “Its term has now fallen due, so give it to me.” They say in this case that she may not withhold herself, because the dowry became binding as a deferred payment, whereas surrendering herself was not deferred. She was therefore originally required to surrender herself before the due date; thus, the obligation to do so before the due date extends to what follows it.

The second view on this issue is that a dowry which falls due before consummation is like one that was never deferred. That is, if its due date arrives before she has surrendered herself, and he requests her to do so, she may withhold herself, because it is now rightly described as due. The harm that would result to her if she surrendered herself while the dowry was presently due likewise results to her now.

Their argument—that it had been deferred, that she had been obliged to surrender herself before its due date, and that this obligation consequently extends beyond that date—is answered by saying: this is correct, but the husband did not request surrender until after the dowry had become due. Thus, there is no difference between the two cases. This too is a view within the madhhab.

The third case is where she voluntarily surrenders herself while the dowry is presently due, trusting that her husband will hand over the dowry, but he then delays payment. According to the madhhab, she may not withhold herself, because she agreed to surrender herself without stipulating a condition; she therefore cannot retract that agreement. Rather, she is to demand payment from him and have him imprisoned for it.