consummation, she is entitled to the full amount. However, the husband may recover from the person who invalidated the marriage what he paid to the wife.

For example, a man marries a young girl, and his sister breastfeeds her. The sister is then the one who invalidated the marriage. The wife is entitled to half of the dowry, and the husband may recover it from the sister, since she was the one who invalidated it and this occurred before consummation. But if it occurred after consummation, the wife is entitled to the full dowry, and he may recover it from his sister, since she was the one who invalidated it.

Thus, in the established school, they distinguish after consummation between a case in which the wife herself invalidates the marriage and one in which someone else does so. The distinction is that, if the wife is the one who invalidates it, she is given the full dowry, and the husband has no recourse against anyone. The author of al-Mughnī said that there is no disagreement on this issue among the scholars of the school.

But if someone other than her invalidates it, her dowry remains hers, and the husband may recover it from the one who invalidated the marriage. Shaykh al-Islam had previously held that if a woman invalidates her own marriage after consummation, she is entitled to no dowry. He said: You hold that when someone other than her invalidates it, the husband may recover from the one who caused the invalidation. So, if she herself invalidates it, he may recover from her; there is no difference. We say: The difference is that the dowry became binding for her in return for the intimacy he made lawful with her, and we do not contradict the hadith. Shaykh al-Islam’s view is closer to analogy than the established school’s position. If you reflect, you will find that injustice is done to the husband, whether this occurs through her own act or through the act of any other person.

His statement, “Whoever says to his wife, ‘You are my sister through breastfeeding,’ the marriage is invalidated,” means that he is held accountable for his admission, because he has acknowledged that she is his sister, and it is not permissible for him to marry his sister.