Section: If he marries her for two slaves, and one of them turns out to be free or usurped, the dowry remains valid for the one he owns, and she is entitled to the value of the other. This was explicitly stated by Ahmad. If it was one slave, and half of him turns out to be free or usurped, she has the choice between returning him and taking his value, or keeping his half and taking the value of the remaining part. This was explicitly stated by Ahmad, because the partnership is a defect, so she has the right to rescind the contract, just as if she had found him defective. If it is said: Why do you not say that the naming is void in its entirety, and she recovers the full value in both issues, as is the case in the division of a transaction? We say: Because the value is a replacement that is only resorted to when the original is unattainable. Here, the owned slave is capable of being delivered, and there is no defect in him, and he is named in the contract, so it is not permissible to resort to his replacement. As for the division of a transaction, when the contract is voided in its entirety, we resort to the price, which is not a replacement for the sold item, but rather the contract is rescinded, so he returns to his capital. Here, the contract is not rescinded; rather, he returns to the value of the free portion of them due to the inability to deliver it, while the slave [is capable of being delivered], so there is no basis for obligating his value. As for when half of him is free, there is a defect in him, so it is permissible to return him due to his defect. Abu Hanifa said: If he assigns two slaves as a dowry and one of them is free, she is entitled to the single slave as a dowry, and she has nothing besides him. Our evidence is that he assigned a free man as a dowry, so his naming did not lapse into nothingness, just as if he were alone.

1200 - Issue: He said: "And if he marries her on the condition that he will purchase a specific slave for her, and he is not sold, or more than his value is requested for him, or he is unable to obtain him, she is entitled to his value."

Ahmad stated this in a narration by al-Athram. Al-Shafi'i said: The naming is not valid, and she is entitled to the dowry of a similar woman, because he made the property of another person a consideration (compensation), so it is not valid, like a sale. Our evidence is that he assigned the acquisition of a specific slave as her dowry, so it is valid, just as if he married her on the condition of returning her runaway slave from a known location. We do not concede that he made the property of another person a consideration; rather, the consideration is his acquisition and transferring ownership of him to her.