with anything else. If she is not satisfied with it, it is not established for her until she is satisfied with it. If he divorces her before consummation, she has nothing but the mat'a (consolatory gift), because what he designated does not become established for her as long as she is not satisfied with it, similar to the initial state. If he designates for her less than the dowry of her peer, she has the right to demand its completion, and what he designated does not become established for her until she is satisfied with it. If they dispute and refer the matter to the judge, he does not have the right to designate for her anything other than the dowry of her peer, because an increase is a bias against him, and a decrease is a bias against her, while the middle path is the peer dowry. Moreover, he is only designating a substitute for the intimate relation, so it is appraised accordingly, just like merchandise that is destroyed; one refers back to its valuation by experts. It is necessary to determine the dowry of her peer to reach the possibility of designating it. Once the designation is valid, it becomes like that which was specified in the contract in that it is halved upon divorce, and the mat'a is not obligatory along with it. When the judge designates it, what he has designated becomes binding, regardless of whether she is satisfied with it or not, just as what he adjudicates is binding.

Section: If a third party designates the dowry of her peer for her and she accepts it, his designation is not valid, and his existence is as if he did not exist, because he is neither a husband nor a judge. If he delivers to her what he designated for her and she accepts it, it is possible that it is not valid, due to what we mentioned; in this case, her status is that of a woman for whom no dowry was designated, and he [the third party] may reclaim what he gave her, because his action was not valid and the husband's liability was not discharged by it. It is also possible that it is valid, because he stands in the place of the husband in executing the specified [dowry], so he stands in the place of the husband in executing what the contract necessitates as an unspecified [dowry]. Based on this, if she is divorced before consummation, half of it returns to the husband, because he [the third party] made her the owner of it when he discharged a debt upon him, so it returns to him, just as if he himself had paid it. The followers of al-Shafi'i have these same two views, and they mentioned a third view: [that half of it returns to the third party. Al-Qadi mentioned this as a third view for us]. We have already mentioned what indicates the validity of what we have said. If a man pays the specified dowry on behalf of the husband, it is valid; then, if the husband divorces her before consummation, half of it returns to him, and if she annuls her own marriage by an action on her part, the entirety of it returns to him. According to the other view, it returns to the one who paid it. And Allah knows best.