by acting upon all of them. The marriage is invalid whichever of these occurs. And because if he stipulates in the marriage of one of them the marriage of the other, he has made the private part of each one the dowry of the other, so it is invalid, just as if he had stated that verbally. As for if they do name a dowry along with that, saying: "I marry you my daughter on the condition that you marry me your daughter, and the dowry of each of them is one hundred, or the dowry of my daughter is one hundred and the dowry of your daughter is fifty, or less or more," the position transmitted from Ahmad, in what we have found [of his texts], is that it is valid. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i; because of the previously mentioned hadith of Ibn 'Umar, and because he did specify a dowry, so it is valid, just as if he had not stipulated that. Al-Khiraqi said: It is not valid; due to the hadith of Abu Hurayrah, and what Abu Dawud recorded from al-A'raj, that al-'Abbas ibn 'Ubayd Allah ibn al-'Abbas gave his daughter in marriage to 'Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Hakam, and 'Abd al-Rahman gave him his daughter in marriage, and they had specified a dowry, so Mu'awiyah wrote to Marwan, and ordered him to separate them, and he said in his letter: "This is the shighar which the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) forbade." And because he stipulated the marriage of one for the marriage of the other, so it is not valid, just as if they had not named a dowry. This is confirmed by the fact that the absence of naming [a dowry] does not invalidate the contract, as evidenced by the marriage of the mufawwada (the woman for whom no dowry was specified), which proves that the invalidating factor is the condition, and it has been found; and because it is a loan in a contract, so it is not valid, just as if he said: "I sell you my garment for ten, on the condition that you sell me your garment for twenty." This [disagreement concerns] when he does not explicitly state the joint linkage, but if he says: "I marry you my daughter, on the condition that you marry me your daughter, and the dowry of each of them is one hundred and the private part of the other," then the marriage is invalid; because he explicitly stated the joint linkage, so the contract is not valid, just as if he had not mentioned any specified [amount].

Section: Whenever we say that the contract is valid if they specify a dowry, there are two views regarding it; one of them,