the value, then he has given what corresponds to the person, so he is not liable for any excess. If the obligation is less than the value of the slave, he is not liable for more than that, because it is the indemnity for an injury, so he is not obligated for more than it, and the choice of either surrendering the slave or redeeming him belongs to the master. We have mentioned this in other than this place more clearly than here.

Section: If the master gives his slave permission to marry a specific woman, or a woman from a specific town, or from a specific category, but he marries someone else, his marriage is invalid, and the ruling regarding it is as we have mentioned. If he gives him permission for a valid marriage, but he performs an invalid marriage, it is the same, because he has not been given permission for that. If he gives him permission for marriage in general terms and he performs an invalid marriage, it is possible that it is also the same, because permission for marriage does not encompass the invalid one, and it is possible that his permission does encompass it because the wording in its generality covers it. If he gives him permission for an invalid marriage and intercourse occurs within it, the entire dower is upon his master, because it is by his permission. And Allah knows best.

1132 - Issue: He said: "And if he marries a slave girl on the condition that she is a free woman, then has intercourse with her, and she bears a child from him, the child is free, and he must redeem them, and the specified dower [is his right], and he seeks recourse for it against the one who deceived him. They are to be separated if he is not from among those for whom it is permissible to marry slave girls. But if he is from those for whom it is permissible to marry them, and he is content to remain [in the marriage], then whatever she bears after this contentment is considered a slave."

There are six sections in this issue:

First: The marriage does not become invalid due to deception (ghurur). This is the opinion of Abu Hanifah. Al-Shafi'i said in one of his two opinions: It becomes invalid, because it is a contract for a free woman, but that [condition] was not found, so it is similar to if he said, "I sell you this horse," and it turns out to be a donkey. Our view is that the object of the contract in marriage is the person, not the attributes, so their absence does not affect its validity, just as if he said, "I have married you to this white woman," and it turns out she is black, or "this beautiful woman," and it turns out she is ugly. He says the same regarding the original [analogy] he mentioned: the contract is valid because