Is there a distinction in the requirement of *mahr* (dower) between a wife who is a non-relative (*ajnabiyya*) and one who is a close relative (*dhat maharim*) when sexual intercourse (*watu*) has occurred?

Primary text

There is no distinction; *mahr* is required in both cases where sexual intercourse has occurred, whether the woman is a non-relative or one of the close relatives. This is the chosen position of Abu Bakr, the school of Al-Nakha'i, Makhul, Abu Hanifa, and Al-Shafi'i. The evidence for this ruling is that what is guaranteed for a non-relative is also guaranteed for a relative, similar to property and the *mahr* of a female slave. Furthermore, the perpetrator has destroyed the benefit of her private parts through the intercourse, thus the *mahr* is due, just as with a non-relative. Finally, she is a woman whose person is guaranteed by another, thus the perpetrator is obligated to compensate for it, similar to financial liability, which differentiates this case from sodomy, as sodomy is not guaranteed by anyone.