as both are invalid. As for the woman who stipulated a dowry for herself, she did not consent except for compensation, and the compensation she stipulated was not obtained for her. Therefore, it is mandatory to provide her the equivalent of the compensation she missed out on, which is the 'dowry of an equal' (mahr al-mithl), or half of it if before consummation. This is because the original principle is the obligation of the 'dowry of an equal', as it was necessitated by the contract, evidenced by the fact that it is established by consummation and death. This was only deviated from in the case of the 'mufawwada' (a woman married without a specified dowry) by the text reported regarding her; therefore, in all cases other than that, it remains upon the original principle.

The third issue: If he designated an invalid dowry for her, the 'dowry of an equal' becomes mandatory, no matter how high it reaches. Al-Shafi'i and Zufar stated this. Abu Hanifa and his two companions (Abu Yusuf and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan) said: The lesser of the specified amount or the 'dowry of an equal' becomes mandatory, because sexual access is not valued except through the contract, so if she consented to less than her 'dowry of an equal', it is not valued at more than what she consented to, as she consented to forgo the excess. Our argument is that what is guaranteed by an invalid contract, its value is considered no matter how high it reaches, like the object of a sale. What they mentioned is not conceded, and furthermore, it is not sound according to them, because if he were to have intercourse with her, the 'dowry of an equal' would become mandatory, and if it had no value, it would not become mandatory. If it is said: It only became mandatory due to the right of Allah the Almighty. It is said: If that were the case, the minimum dowry (mahr al-aqall) would be mandatory, and the 'dowry of an equal' would not be mandatory.

1202 - Issue: He said: (And if he marries her for a thousand for her, and a thousand for her father, that is permissible. If he divorces her before consummation, he returns to her for half of the two thousand, and the father is not liable for anything of what he took.)

The total of the matter is that it is permissible for the woman's father to stipulate something from his daughter's dowry for himself. Ishaq stated this. It has been narrated from Masruq that when he married off his daughter, he stipulated ten thousand for himself, and he spent it on the Hajj and the poor, then he said to the husband: Provide the trousseau for your wife. Something similar was narrated from Ali ibn al-Husayn. Ata', Tawus, Ikrima, Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, al-Thawri, and Abu Ubayd said: All of it belongs to the woman. Al-Shafi'i said: If he does that, she is entitled to the 'dowry of an equal', and the designation is invalid, because he reduced her dowry for the sake of this invalid condition; because the dowry is not mandatory except for the wife, as it is the compensation for her sexual access, so it remains unknown because we need to add to the dowry what was reduced from it for the sake of this condition, and that is unknown, so it becomes invalid. Our argument is the statement of Allah the Almighty in the story of Shu'ayb, peace be upon him: {I wish to marry you to one of my two daughters on the condition that you work for me for eight years}. He made the dowry the labor for tending his sheep, and it was a condition for himself. Furthermore, the father is entitled to take from his child's wealth, evidenced by the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him): "You and your wealth belong to your father," and his saying: "Your children are from the best of your earnings, so eat from their wealth." Abu Dawud recorded it, and al-Tirmidhi recorded something similar and said: It is a good (hasan) hadith. So if he stipulates something from the dowry for himself, it is a taking from his daughter's wealth, and he is entitled to that. Their claim that it is an invalid condition is refuted. The Qadi said: Even if he stipulated the entire dowry for himself, it would be valid, evidenced by the story of Shu'ayb, for he stipulated the entirety for himself. And if he marries her for a thousand for her and a thousand for her father, then she is divorced before consummation, the husband returns to her for half of what she took, and the father is not liable for anything of what he took; because divorce before consummation necessitates half the dowry, and the two thousand are her entire dowry, so he returns to her for half of them, which is one thousand, and the father is not liable for anything because he took one thousand from his daughter's wealth, so it is not permissible to seek return of it from him. This is in the case where he had already handed her the two thousand. If he divorced her before he handed them over, one thousand is dropped from the husband's obligation, and one thousand remains owed by him to the wife, from which the father takes what he wishes. The Qadi said: It is divided between them in halves. And he said: