in the narration of Muhanna regarding someone who married [a woman] for a slave among his slaves: It is permissible; if there are ten slaves, she is given one of the medium ones, and if they dispute, lots are cast among them. I said: Is the drawing of lots valid in this? He said: Yes. The rationale for this is that the ignorance here is slight, and determination is possible through the drawing of lots, unlike when he gives her a slave in absolute terms, for then the ignorance becomes significant, and it is not valid. Our argument is that the dowry is a consideration in a contract of exchange, so it is not valid to be unknown, like the consideration in a sale or lease. Furthermore, an unknown item is not suitable as a consideration in a sale, so its designation is invalid, like that which is prohibited, and just as if its ignorance exceeded the ignorance of the dowry of an equal. As for the report, what is meant by it is what they have agreed upon from that which is suitable as a consideration, as evidenced by other things that are not suitable. As for blood money, it is established by the Law (Sharia), not by contract; it is outside of analogy regarding its estimation, and whoever is burdened by it, it is not appropriate that it be made a basis [for general rulings]. Moreover, the animal established therein is described by its age and estimated by its value, so how can an absolute slave be measured against it in both aspects? Furthermore, it is not a contract; rather, it is a liability for something destroyed, where mutual consent is not considered, so it is like the values of destroyed items. How then can a consideration in a contract, where their mutual consent is considered, be measured against it? Moreover, measuring a consideration in a contract of exchange against a consideration in another contract of exchange is more correct and appropriate than measuring it against a liability for a destroyed item. As for the dowry of an equal, it is only mandatory in the absence of a valid designation, just as the values of destroyed items are mandatory, even if they require deliberation. Do you not see that we resort to the dowry of an equal in the absence of a designation, and we do not resort to an 'absolute slave'? If he sold a garment for an 'absolute slave' and the buyer destroyed it, we would resort to its valuation and not mandate an 'absolute slave'. Then, we do not concede that the ignorance of an 'absolute slave' of the same species is less than the ignorance of the dowry of an equal; for it is the custom in tribes and villages that their women have a dowry that hardly varies except by virginity and non-virginity only, so it becomes