a stick (20) of arak wood (21)." Al-Juzajani also narrated it. Malik and al-Shafi'i held this view. Abu Hanifah said: The services of a free person cannot be a dowry, because they are not wealth, and Allah the Almighty said: {that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property}. To us, there is the statement of Allah the Almighty: {I intend to wed one of these two daughters of mine to you on condition that you serve me for eight years} (22). And the hadith we mentioned. Also, because it is a benefit for which compensation is permissible in a lease, it is permissible as a dowry, like the benefit of a slave. As for their statement that "it is not wealth," it is denied, as it is permissible to exchange compensation for it and through it. Furthermore, even if it were not wealth, it has been treated as wealth in this [context], so it is likewise in marriage. Muhanna narrated from Ahmad: If he marries her on condition that he serves her for a year or more, how would this be? It was said to him: What if a woman has (23) estates and lands she cannot cultivate? He said: This is not correct. Abu Bakr said: If the service is known, it is permissible; and if it is unknown and cannot be regulated (24), then she is entitled to the dowry of an equal (sadaq al-mithl). It is as if he interpreted the question of Muhanna to mean that the service was unknown, and therefore it was not valid. Abu Talib narrated from Ahmad: Marriage on the condition of building a house, sewing a garment, or doing something [specific] is permissible; that is (25) because it is something known for which compensation can be taken, so it is permissible for it to be a dowry, just like tangible assets. If he marries her on condition that he brings back her runaway slave from a specific place, it is valid; because it is a known work for which wages (26) can be taken. If he gives her as a dowry the act of bringing it back from wherever it is, it is not valid, because it is unknown.

Section: If he marries her on the condition that he takes her to Hajj, the naming [of the dowry] is not valid. Al-Shafi'i held this view. Al-Nakha'i, Malik, al-Thawri, al-Awza'i, the scholars of opinion (Ashab al-Ra'i), and Abu 'Ubayd said: It is valid. To us, the cost of transport is unknown and cannot be fixed to a limit, so it is not valid, just as if he were to give her something unknown as a dowry.