the absolute agent in a sale (51); if the dowry is set as the dowry of a peer or more, it is valid and binding, and if it is less than that, she is entitled to the dowry of a peer.

Third Section: The dowry must be property (mal); based on the saying of Allah the Almighty: {that you seek them with your wealth}. It is a condition that it has a half that is habitually considered as property, so that if he divorces her before consummation, there remains for her a valid property from that half. This is the meaning of the statement of al-Khiraqi: "It has a half that is obtained." What is not permissible to be a price in a sale, such as that which is prohibited, the non-existent, the unknown, that which has no benefit, that which one cannot acquire complete ownership over—like the sold item of measured or weighed goods before receiving them—and that which cannot be delivered, like a bird in the air or a fish in the water, and that which is not habitually considered as property, such as a grain of wheat or a walnut shell, is not permitted to be a dowry; because it is a transfer of ownership for compensation, so what we have mentioned is not permitted regarding it, just as in a sale. It is considered that its half must be something that is habitually considered as property, and for which compensation is typically offered by custom; because divorce may occur before consummation, and nothing would remain for the woman except half of it, so it is necessary that there remains for her property from which she can benefit. It is the half of the value that is considered, not half of the physical dowry; for if he assigns her a slave as a dowry, it is permissible, even if dividing him is not possible.

1198 - Issue; He said: (And if he assigns to her a specific slave as a dowry, and she finds a defect in him and rejects him, she is entitled to his value).

The gist of this is that if the dowry is specified and she finds a defect in it, she has the right to reject it, like a defective item in a sale, and we do not know of any disagreement regarding this if the defect is significant. If it is minor, it is narrated from Abu Hanifah that it is not to be rejected on its account. Our evidence is that it is a defect on account of which a sold item is rejected, so the dowry is rejected on its account as well, just like a significant one. When she rejects it, she is entitled to its value, because the contract is not annulled by its rejection, so the cause of her entitlement remains, and thus he is liable for its value, just as if he had usurped it from her and destroyed it. If the dowry is of a fungible nature, like measured or weighed items, and she rejects it, she is entitled to its equivalent, because it is closer to it. If she chooses to keep the defective item and take its compensation (arsh), she may do so, by analogy to gold. If a defect occurs to it while in her possession, then she finds an original defect, she is given the choice between taking its compensation or returning it along with the compensation for the defect that occurred while in her possession; because it is compensation in a contract of exchange, so this is established therein, just like in a sale and all other branches of returning for defects, thus the same rules are established here as in a sale, for the reasons we have mentioned.