Muhanna reported it from Ahmad; because he stipulated the half for himself, and only half of the dowry was obtained. This statement is not by way of obligation, for the father has the right to take what he wishes and leave what he wishes, and since he has the authority to take without a condition, he is likewise able to do so when he has stipulated it.

Section: If someone other than the father from among the guardians, such as the grandfather, the brother, or the paternal uncle, stipulates this, then the condition is invalid. Ahmad stated this explicitly. The entire designated amount belongs to her. Abu Hafs mentioned this, and it is the view of those we named at the beginning of the issue. Al-Shafi'i said: The 'dowry of an equal' becomes mandatory. The Qadi mentioned this as well in "al-Mujarrad", because when the condition is void, we need to return to the dowry what the wife diminished from it for its sake, and its amount is not known, so the whole becomes unknown and it becomes invalid. If he gives her two thousand as a dowry on the condition that she gives her brother one thousand, the dowry is valid; because it is a condition for which the dowry is not increased nor decreased, so it does not affect the dowry, unlike the preceding case. Our argument is that everything she stipulated is a compensation for her marriage, so it is a dowry for her, just as if he had assigned it to her. When it is a dowry, the uncertainty is removed. Likewise, if the father is the one who stipulates, the whole would be a dowry, and he would merely be taking from his daughter's wealth, because he is entitled to that, provided that it is not detrimental to his daughter's wealth. If it were detrimental to her wealth, the condition would not be valid, and the whole would belong to her, as if any other of her guardians had stipulated it. The Qadi mentioned this in "al-Mujarrad".

Section: If he stipulates the entire dowry for himself, then divorces her before consummation after the dowry has been delivered to him, he returns half of what he gave the father; because that is what he assigned to her, so we return half of it; according to the saying of the Almighty: {then half of what you have assigned}. It is possible that he returns to her for the amount of its half, and what the father took is considered his own; because we assumed that the entirety became hers, then the father took it from her, so it becomes as if she had received it and then he took it from her. Likewise, if he gave her one thousand as a dowry for her and one thousand for her father, then she renounced Islam (ridda) before consummation, would he return for the thousand the father received, or for that which is upon her? There are two views.