If they differ regarding the intention, its ruling is the ruling of an absolute (unspecified) one, referring back to the prevailing currency of the land. The Qadi said: If they differ regarding the intention, the dower stipulated in the contract becomes due, because their disagreement renders the substitute unknown, so that which was stipulated in the marriage must be applied. The first view is more correct, because if they had left it absolute, the designation would have been valid, and one thousand of the prevailing currency of the land would have been due; their leaving it absolute would not constitute an ignorance that prevents the validity of the compensation, so likewise if they differ. Furthermore, it allows for an unknown compensation if its ignorance does not exceed the ignorance of a 'dower of the like' (mahr al-mithl), such as an unspecified slave, a camel, or a horse, and the ignorance here is less, so validity is more appropriate.

Section: If he suspends the divorce of his wife upon a condition, then separates from her through Khul' or divorce, then returns and marries her, and the condition is met, she becomes divorced. An example of this is if he says: "If you speak to your father, you are divorced." Then he separates from her through Khul', then marries her, and she speaks to her father; she becomes divorced. Ahmad stated this explicitly. As for if the condition is met during the state of separation, then he marries her, and then it is met a second time, the apparent meaning of the madhhab is that she becomes divorced. There is a narration from Ahmad indicating that she does not become divorced. He stated this regarding manumission (itq), in the case of a man who said to his slave: "You are free if you enter the house." Then he sold him, then he returned, meaning he bought him back; if he returned having already entered the house, he would not become free. If he had not entered, he does not enter (the state of freedom) when he returns to him, but if he enters, he becomes free. If it is explicitly stated in manumission that the condition does not return, it must be the same in divorce, or even more so, because the Law desires manumission. For this reason, Al-Khiraqi said: "If he says: 'If I marry so-and-so, she is divorced,' she is not divorced if he marries her. And if he says: 'If I own so-and-so, he is free,' and he comes to own him, he becomes free." This is the choice of Abu al-Hasan al-Tamimi. Most of the people of knowledge hold that the condition does not return if he separates from her by a triple divorce, even if the condition is not met during the state of separation. This is the madhhab of Malik, Abu Hanifah, and one of the opinions of Al-Shafi'i. Ibn al-Mundhir said: "Everyone we memorize from the people of knowledge has reached a consensus that if a man says to his wife: 'You are divorced three times if you enter the house,' and he divorces her three times, then she marries someone else, then the person who made the oath marries her, and then she enters the house, the divorce does not fall upon her." This is according to the madhhab of Malik and Al-Shafi'i.