And some of them said: It is not valid at all, because it is a guarantee of something that has not yet become obligatory. Our position is that uncertainty does not prevent the validity of a guarantee, as evidenced by the validity of guaranteeing the maintenance of a poor person, even with the possibility that one of them might die and the maintenance obligation lapse, yet the guarantee remains valid; thus, the same applies here.

Section: The mahr (dowry) becomes obligatory for a woman married in a valid marriage, a woman who has had intercourse in an invalid marriage, and a woman who has had intercourse due to a misconception (shubha), without any disagreement that we know of. It is also obligatory for a woman forced into adultery. There is another narration from Ahmad: that she has no mahr if she is a thayyib (previously married woman). Abu Bakr favored this view. Along with that, no compensation (arsh) for loss of virginity is obligatory. The Qadi mentioned that Ahmad stated, in a narration by Abu Talib, regarding a foreign woman if he forces her into adultery while she is a virgin: that he is liable for the mahr and the compensation for loss of virginity. This is the view of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa said: There is no mahr for a woman forced into adultery. Our evidence is the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "She is entitled to the mahr for what he made lawful of her private part." This is an argument against Abu Hanifa, for the one who forces her has made her private part lawful [in his action], as making something lawful (istihlal) is the act of engaging in it outside the place of permissibility, as in his saying (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "He has not believed in the Quran who treats its prohibitions as lawful." It is also an argument against those who demand compensation because he made the mahr obligatory alone without compensation, and because he has consumed that for which a substitute is due by way of misconception, and in an invalid contract under duress, so its substitute becomes obligatory just like the destruction of property and eating the food of another. Our argument that compensation is not obligatory is that it is an act of intercourse guaranteed by the mahr, so no compensation is obligatory along with it, like any other act of intercourse. This is confirmed by the fact that the mahr is a substitute for the usufruct consumed through intercourse, and the substitute for what is destroyed does not differ based on whether it is in an invalid contract or whether it is purely transgression. Furthermore, compensation is included in the mahr because what is obligatory for her is the mahr mithl (standard dowry), and the mahr of a virgin exceeds the mahr of a thayyib due to her virginity, so the increase in the mahr is in exchange for what was destroyed of the virginity, thus its compensation cannot be demanded a second time.