The absolute [dowry] is such, because its appointed time is the separation by virtue of custom. Here, however, he has diverted it from custom by mentioning the deferment without specifying it, so it remains unknown. Thus, it is possible that the designation is void, and it is possible that the deferment is void and it becomes immediate.

1201 - Issue: He said: "And if he marries her for a forbidden item, and both are Muslims, the marriage is established, and she is entitled to the 'dowry of an equal' (mahr al-mithl), or half of it if he divorced her before consummation."

There are three issues in this case:

The first: If he designates an unlawful dowry in the marriage, such as wine or swine, the designation is invalid, but the marriage is valid. Ahmad stated this explicitly, and it is the view of the general body of scholars; among them are al-Thawri, al-Awza'i, al-Shafi'i, and the Jurists of Opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y). It was narrated from Abu 'Ubayd that the marriage is invalid. Abu Bakr 'Abd al-'Aziz chose this view and said: Because Ahmad said in the narration of al-Marrudhi regarding a marriage for wealth that is not pure: "I dislike it." So I said: "Do you view the marriage as needing to be reinitiated?" And he favored that. It is narrated from Malik that if it were after consummation, the marriage is established, and if it were before it, it is annulled. Those who argue for its invalidity reasoned that it is a marriage in which the dowry was made forbidden, so it resembles a nikah al-shighar (mutually conditional marriage). Our argument is that it is a marriage that would have been valid had its consideration been valid, so it must be valid even if its consideration is invalid, just as if it were usurped or unknown property. Furthermore, it is a contract that does not become invalid due to ignorance of the consideration, so it does not become invalid due to it being forbidden, like khul' (divorce initiated by the wife). Also, the invalidity of the consideration is no worse than its absence; if it were absent, the contract would be valid, and so it is if it is invalid. The words of Ahmad in the narration of al-Marrudhi are interpreted as recommending [avoidance], for the issue of al-Marrudhi concerns wealth that is not pure, and that [type] does not invalidate the contract by its designation therein, by consensus. What has been narrated from Malik is not correct, for that which is invalid before consummation is also invalid after it, such as the marriage of those who are mahram (unmarriageable kin). As for when the dowry is invalid due to ignorance, absence, or the inability to deliver it, the marriage is established. We know of no disagreement regarding this. Al-Khiraqi's statement: "and both are Muslims" is a precaution against