According to the first, he may recover it from her, because she is the one who received it. The second husband has already paid her the dowry he owed and is therefore not liable for two dowries. The woman’s position is different: since she chose separation from the first husband and marriage to the second, she must return the dowry, because the separation originated with her.

According to the second, he may not recover it from her, because the woman is entitled to the dowry in return for the lawful intercourse he had with her, while the first husband is entitled to the dowry because his marital rights over her have ended. The second husband is therefore liable for two dowries.

Some leading jurists regard this ruling transmitted from ʿUmar concerning “the case of the missing husband” as among the views furthest removed from analogical reasoning, prompting certain leading jurists to make the remarks they did about it. Nevertheless, it is the soundest view and the most consistent with analogical reasoning; every other view advanced on this matter is mistaken.

It is mistaken to say that she must be returned to the first husband even though he neither chooses nor wants her, when they have been separated in a manner permissible under Islamic law and he has approved that separation. For even if the ruler discovers that the facts were contrary to what he had believed, the right at issue belongs to the husband. Once he approves the ruler’s action, the objection is removed.

It is likewise mistaken to hold that she remains the second husband’s wife in all circumstances, even after her husband reappears and it becomes clear that the facts do not support the action taken. He did not part with his wife; rather, they were separated on grounds that have proved unfounded. He is now seeking his wife, so how can they be kept apart? If he demanded his property or its equivalent, it would be restored to him. How, then, can his wife not be restored to him, when his family