a specific slave, 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. If this is established, then if he is able to obtain him at his equivalent price, it is incumbent upon him to acquire him and deliver him to her. If he comes to her with his value, she is not obligated to accept it, because he is able to deliver her dowry to her, so it is required of him, just as if he had assigned a slave he owns as a dowry. If his master does not sell him, or if he is unable to reach him due to his destruction or otherwise, or if more than his value is requested for him, then she is entitled to his value, because the ability to take possession of the named, valued object has become impossible, so its value becomes obligatory, just as if he had perished. If the thing he assigned for her is a generic item (mithli), and it is impossible to purchase it, she is entitled to its equivalent, because the equivalent is closer to it.

Section: If he marries her for a slave described in the liability (dhimma), it is valid, because it is valid to be a consideration in a sale. If he comes to her with his value, she is not obligated to accept it. This is what Al-Shafi'i stated, and it was chosen by Abu al-Khattab. Al-Qadi said: She is obligated to accept it, by analogy to the camels in blood money (diyah). Our evidence is that she is entitled to a slave from him via a commutative contract, so she is not obligated to accept his value, like the object of a forward sale (salam). Also, because it is a slave that has become obligatory as a dowry, it resembles the case where he is defective. As for blood money, it is not obligatory to accept the value of the camels; rather, currency is a root in blood money just as camels are a root, so one has the choice between paying whichever of the roots he wishes. Thus, the guardian is obligated to accept it for her by way of value, which is different from our issue. Furthermore, blood money is outside the analogy (qiyas), so it cannot be contradicted by it, nor can it be used for analogy. Moreover, the analogy of a consideration to other considerations is more appropriate than comparing it to non-commutative contracts. Furthermore, it is invalidated by the case of the specific slave.

Section: If he marries her on the condition that he will free her father, it is valid, as explicitly stated by Ahmad. If more than his value is requested for him, or he is unable to obtain him, she is entitled to his value. This is the opinion of Al-Sha'bi, and its reasoning is what has preceded. If