an amount equal to the dowry, according to Abū Hanīfa, Mālik, Ahmad, and al-Shāfiʿī’s earlier position. According to al-Shāfiʿī’s later position, he owes only the dowry customary for a woman of her standing.

If, however, the father did not guarantee it, and the husband made the divorce conditional upon being released from liability, saying to him, “If you release me from liability, she is divorced,” Ahmad’s explicit position is that the divorce takes effect if the husband believed that he would thereby be released. The husband may then recover an amount equal to the dowry from the father, because the father misled him. This is also one of the two positions transmitted within Abū Hanīfa’s school. According to the other, no divorce takes effect. This is al-Shāfiʿī’s position and also one position within Ahmad’s school, because the husband was not, in fact, released from liability.

Those who hold the first view say: the waiver took place, and the father can be held liable on the basis of that waiver. If, however, the husband pronounced a divorce without making it conditional upon the waiver, the divorce takes effect. According to Ahmad, however, the father is liable to the husband for the dowry because he misled him. According to al-Shāfiʿī, the father owes him nothing, because he was not bound by any obligation. Allah knows best.

He—may Allah have mercy on him—was asked:

A woman’s husband divorced her three times, and she released him from his marital obligations before learning that she was pregnant. When the pregnancy became apparent, she demanded that he provide an allowance for the pregnancy. Is she entitled to do so?

He answered:

If the circumstances are as described, maintenance for the pregnancy was not included in the waiver, and she is entitled to claim it. Even if she knew of the pregnancy and released him solely from his marital obligations, this would not