‘Ubayd: All of that belongs to the woman. Al-Shafi'i said: If he does that, she is entitled to the dower of the like (mahr al-mithl), and the naming is invalidated; because he has reduced her dower due to this invalid condition; for the dower is not obligatory except for the wife, as it is the compensation for her sexual availability (bud'), so it remains unknown; because we would need to add to the dower what was reduced from it due to this condition, and that is unknown, so it becomes invalid. Our counter-argument is the statement of Allah, the Exalted, in the story of Shu'ayb, peace be upon him: {I desire to marry you to one of these two daughters of mine, on condition that you serve me for eight years} (1). He made the dower the wages for tending his sheep, which is a condition for himself, and because the parent has the right to take from the wealth of his child, as evidenced by his saying - peace and blessings of Allah be upon him -: "You and your wealth belong to your father" (2). And his saying: "Your children are from the best of your earnings, so eat from their wealth." Narrated by Abu Dawud, and similarly by al-Tirmidhi (3). And he said: A hasan (good) hadith. So, if he stipulates for himself a part of the dower, that is considered taking from his daughter's wealth, and he is permitted to do so. Their claim that it is an invalid condition is refuted. Al-Qadi said: Even if he stipulated the entire dower for himself, it would be valid, based on the story of Shu'ayb, for he stipulated the entire amount (4) for himself. And if he marries her for a thousand for her and a thousand for her father, and she is divorced before the consummation, the husband recovers from the thousand she received, and the father is not held responsible for anything he took; because divorce before consummation necessitates half the dower, and the two thousand are her entire dower, so he recovers half of them (5) from her, which is one thousand, and the father is not held responsible for anything; because he took a thousand from his daughter's wealth, and it is not permissible to recover it from him. This is in the case where he had already handed over (6) the two thousand to her. And if he divorced her before he had handed them over, one thousand would lapse for the husband, and one thousand would remain owed to the wife, from which the father takes (7) whatever he wishes. Al-Qadi said: It is divided equally between them. And he said: