includes two things of differing value, so it is necessary to apportion the compensation between them according to their value, just as if he sold a share of property and a sword, or as if he purchased two slaves and found one of them to be free or usurped. Ahmad has explicitly stated regarding the one who purchased two slaves, when one of them is free, that he may reclaim the value of that one from the price. He similarly stated regarding the one who married two slave-girls, when one of them is free, that he may reclaim the value of the free woman. If he bought two things and found one of them defective, he would return it and reclaim its portion of the price. The issue he mentioned [as a counter-argument] is not conceded to him; even if it were conceded, the value there is [already] unified, unlike our issue. As for gifting and acknowledgment, there is no value [attached to them] to refer back to, and the gift is divided among them, unlike our issue. Its leading to ignorance of the breakdown does not prevent validity when the total is known. Stemming from this issue is: if he performs khulʿ (divorce for compensation) on two women for one compensation, or enters into a kitabah (manumission contract) with slaves for one compensation, it is valid, despite there being a difference of opinion regarding it. The compensation in khulʿ is divided according to the ratio of the two dowers, and in kitabah according to the ratio of the value of the slaves. According to Abu Bakr, it is divided equally in both issues.

Section: If he marries two women with one dower, and one of them is from those whom it is not valid to contract with because she is forbidden to him, or [for] other reasons, and we hold that the marriage is valid for the other, then she is entitled to her portion of the named [dower]. This is the view of al-Shafi'i in one [of his] opinions, and of Abu Yusuf. Abu Hanifa said: The entire named [amount] belongs to the one whose marriage is valid, because an invalid contract does not have any ruling attached to it at all; thus, it is as if he married her and a wall for a named [price]. Our argument is that it is a contract on two entities, one of which is not permitted to be contracted for; therefore, it is binding upon the other for her portion, just as if he sold his slave and his umm walad (mother of his child). What they mentioned is not correct, for the woman, in exchange for her marriage, is a dower, unlike the wall.