A secret mahr and a publicly declared mahr

This part belongs to the full section: All sections of this part.

A secret mahr and a publicly declared mahr

The jurists differed over the case of spouses agreeing on a mahr in secret and then publicly declaring another, larger or smaller: which of the two binds the husband?

• The Hanafis (as do the Shafi'is in the madhhab and the Hanbalis in the madhhab): if the spouses secretly agree on one thousand dirhams but publicly declare, at the contract, two thousand for appearances, the mahr due is that of the public declaration (two thousand), for the secret agreement does not bind and the public declaration counts as an increase of the mahr; a correct designation in a valid contract is due. Unless they bear witness that the real mahr is the secret one and that the public declaration is for show (sum'a): then the secret mahr is due, jesting over part of the designation preventing its becoming obligatory. If they disagree, the wife's word prevails. If the contract was concluded secretly at one thousand and then publicly renewed at two thousand with a declaration of show, the first mahr is due, the second contract being idle after the first, marriage not tolerating dissolution. Absent testimony, Abu Hanifa holds the public mahr (an increase for her); Abu Yusuf and Muhammad the secret mahr.
• If the secret mahr and the public mahr are of different kinds (one thousand dirhams in secret, one hundred dinars publicly): without any mention of show, what was publicly contracted is due; with a mention of show, she receives the dower of the like according to the apparent narration of Abu Hanifa, or the public mahr (one hundred dinars) according to another narration.
• The Shafi'is: what was contracted is due (one hundred or two hundred), whether the witnesses of the secret and the public were the same or not; if the contract is repeated, what was contracted first is due, little or much ("al-Umm" (7/156), "Rawdat at-Talibin" (5/135-136), "Mughni al-Muhtaj" (4/374)).
• The Hanbalis: if the contract is repeated over two mahrs, one secret and one public, the greater is due absolutely (An-Nisa 24): if the secret is greater, the contract created it and the publicity does not cancel it; if the public is greater, he granted it to her, like an increase after the contract.
• If the husband claims there was only one contract, concealed then declared, and the wife two distinct contracts, her word prevails with her oath; she receives the mahr of the second contract if there was consummation, and half of the first if he claims that half fell by divorce before consummation.

The Malikis, the Shafi'is according to one view and the Hanbalis according to one view hold the secret mahr binding, smaller or greater. The Malikis specify: if the spouses agree secretly on a mahr and publicly declare another differing in amount, description or kind, the secret mahr is the one relied upon; if they dispute and the wife takes an oath, if the husband swears, the secret mahr applies; if he backs out after her oath, the public mahr applies. The oath has no place if the witnesses of the secret testify that the public mahr has no basis ("at-Taj wal-Iklil" (2/592), "Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil" (3/273), "al-Mughni" (7/201-202), "I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in" (3/88-91)). It is recommended that the wife fulfill her promise to take only the secret mahr, so as to avoid any deception, based on the hadith:

Believers are bound by their conditions.Hadith cited by the jurists as proof

Does the husband's gift to his wife count as part of the mahr?

The jurists differed: the husband gives his wife gold, a necklace or other gifts; do these count toward the mahr? Most of the scholars answer no.

• The Hanafis: if a suitor sent a present and her father did not marry her to him, he may take it back in kind, even altered by use, or in value if it perished; everything sent as a gift and still in existence is recoverable, but not what perished or was consumed, and provided no cause of irrecoverability (dyeing, mixing) occurred ("al-Bahr ar-Ra'iq" (3/199-200), "Durar al-Hukkam" (4/145), "ad-Durr al-Mukhtar" (3/153)).
• If they dispute the nature of the item sent (gift or part of the mahr), the husband's word prevails with his oath, except for food prepared for eating (roast, cooked meat, perishable fruits) where the wife's word prevails by istihsan, custom being to offer it; honey, ghee, walnuts and almonds follow the husband's word. What he owes her of headcovering or protective garment he may not withhold from the mahr, the apparent evidence refuting him.
• If the wife says "it is part of the mahr" and the husband "it is a deposit", the wife's word prevails if the item is of the same kind as the mahr, otherwise the husband's. If the husband's word prevails, the item is returned to him if intact and she recovers her mahr.
• If her father sent a gift and the husband claims it is part of the mahr, the father may recover his if it came from his own wealth and remains intact; if it came from the daughter's wealth with her permission, he cannot take it back, it being a gift from her ("adh-Dhakhira"; the "Fatawa Samarqand" report the case of the wife who had compensated the gifts and was later divorced: the husband who denies the transfer recovers the gifts, and she recovers her compensation).
• If the wife waived her husband's mahr or gifted it to him and later died, and her heirs claim she did so during her final illness while he denies it, the husband's word prevails ("Tabyin al-Haqa'iq" (2/158-159)).
• The Malikis: a gift made before or at the time of the contract is halved upon divorce before consummation, it being a gift given for the sake of the marriage, whether stipulated or not, in accordance with custom or not, destined for the wife or for another. A gift made voluntarily after the contract is halved according to Imam Malik upon divorce before consummation; according to Ibn al-Qasim nothing of it reverts to the husband, a view also reported by Ibn Nafi' from Malik and apparent in the madhhab. In a corrupt marriage annulled before consummation, the husband takes back whatever he finds of the gift in the wife's hand, even if altered, separation prevailing; after consummation he takes nothing back ("al-Bayan wat-Tahsil" (5/67-69), "Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil" (3/281-283)).
• The Shafi'is: buying jewelry or fine cloth to adorn one's wife does not transfer ownership to her; an offer and acceptance or the intention of gift is required. If they dispute (gift or loan), the husband's word prevails, the origin being non-transfer, and his heir is like him. What the husband gives as a reconciliation gift (sulha) when his wife is angry, or on the wedding morning (sabahiyya), as customary in some lands, becomes her property only through explicit wording or the intention of gift; according to another view reported in the "Fatawa Ibn al-Khayyat", she becomes its owner by the mere delivery. What he gives his betrothed before the contract without the intention of donation may be recovered if the marriage does not take place, provided he acknowledged the absence of such intention; if he divorces after the contract he recovers nothing, the view of al-Adhra'i against al-Baghawi ("I'ana at-Talibin" (3/643-644), (4/135-137)).
• The Hanbalis: the husband's gift is not part of the mahr. A gift made before the contract to a woman promised to him who was then married to another is recoverable, so Taqi ad-Din, for he spent it on the like of the marriage and it was not delivered to him. Ibn Taymiyya adds: if the suitor gave something for a marriage agreed upon but not contracted, and the woman died before the contract, he does not recover it, the non-completion not being from them; likewise if the suitor dies, his heirs do not recover. What is received because of the marriage (what is called the makila) follows the ruling of the mahr in whatever removes it, halves it or confirms it; the guardian has no share in it unless she gifts it to him, except the father, who may take of her wealth what he wishes, with or without condition, and if he wrote into it a mahr for her it does not leave her through her divorce, custom being that he takes it. If the marriage is dissolved by an imposed separation, such as annulment for incapacity before consummation, the whole mahr and whatever he paid, even as a gift, is returned to him, for he gave on condition of the contract's persistence; likewise for any imposed separation before consummation. The gift remains with the wife if the separation confirms the mahr or half of it, the end of the contract not being from her. As for fees paid because of the contract (broker, measurer, weigher), they are not returned if the separation results from mutual consent, but are returned in case of annulment for a defect ("Kashshaf al-Qina" (5/170-171), "al-Insaf" (8/296-297), "Matalib Uli an-Nuha" (5/215-216)).

The wife furnishing her household with her mahr

The scholars agree that the wife is not obliged to furnish her household if her husband has not given her her mahr. They differed over the case where he has: must she buy the wedding trousseau with it, or does the mahr remain exclusively her property?

Most of the people of knowledge (the Hanafis, the Shafi'is, the Hanbalis, the Zahiris, and Ibn Wahb among the Malikis) hold: the woman is not obliged to furnish herself with her mahr; it belongs to her alone and she disposes of it freely, with no obligation to buy or prepare the marital home; no text of Islamic law imposes this upon her or upon her guardian, apart from voluntary generosity, as is the current custom in many Muslim lands, in Egypt for example, where the bride's father furnishes half of the household's furnishings: that is generosity on his part, not an obligation. The proof that the mahr is the woman's property:

"And give the women their mahr graciously"

Surah An-Nisa, 4

The verse attributes the mahr to the woman, it being the price of her intimacy and her own property; and "but if they willingly give up to you a part of their mahr, then consume it freely and wholesomely" confirms her ownership, Allah permitting them to take of it only with the consent of their souls ("Bada'i as-Sana'i" (2/290), "Asna al-Matalib" (3/120), "Kashshaf al-Qina" (5/156)).

Ibn Hazm in "al-Muhalla" defends this position: the woman may not be compelled to furnish herself, neither with her mahr nor with the rest of her wealth; the whole mahr is hers, without the husband's permission or objection, and this is the view of Abu Hanifa, ash-Shafi'i and Abu Sulayman. He criticizes at length Malik's position, which obliges a wife receiving dinars or dirhams to buy with all of it a trousseau (garments, bedding, jewelry) for her husband, forbidding her to pay her debts from it beyond three dinars; Ibn Hazm sees in it great contradiction and the absence of any proof from the Quran, the Sunnah, analogy or reason. As proof he cites Fatima's marriage: Ali sold his coat of mail for 480 (four hundred and eighty) dirhams, brought them to the Prophet, who took a handful of it for perfume and ordered the wedding to be prepared, whereupon were prepared a striped bed, a leather pillow stuffed with palm fiber, and the filling of the house like a heap, which is not worth 480 dirhams (reported by Ibn Hibban in his "Sahih", 6944). He also cites Ali's ruling that a father who substituted another daughter for the one promised must equip the one he actually married with a mahr equivalent to what he received for her sister, and that the husband must not touch her until the other's waiting period ends; and the hadith:

A woman is married for four things: her lineage, her wealth, her beauty and her religion; choose the one with religion, may your hands be covered with dust.Reported by Bukhari and Mouslim

pointing out that the Prophet neither commanded nor encouraged marrying for wealth in it, but merely reported people's practice while disapproving of it. He cites likewise:

Do not marry women for their beauty, for their beauty may lead them to rebellion; do not marry women for their wealth, for their wealth may make them tyrannical; marry them for their religion, and a black slave girl of rough features with religion is better.Reported from Abdallah ibn Amr (may Allah be pleased with him), cited by Ibn Hazm

The Malikis, by contrast: if the wife receives her mahr before her husband consummates the marriage, he may compel her to furnish the household with it, within the customary standard for the trousseau of a woman like her marrying a man like him, townswoman or Bedouin, even if the custom is buying a slave girl or a house. If the mahr is something measured, weighed, an animal, merchandise or real estate, there is no obligation to sell it for furnishing; the obligation applies only to cash received (gold, silver, money). If the husband demands what has fallen due of her mahr so that she furnish, and she refuses to take it to escape the obligation, it is judged, in the widespread view, that she receive it and furnish. If the husband stipulates equipment greater than what she received or custom requires it, he is bound by what he stipulated. The wife does not spend from the mahr on herself nor pay her debts from it, unless she is needy, or for a small debt such as one dinar out of a large mahr. If he divorces her before consummation while she is in hardship, half of what she spent follows her debt. If the husband stipulates furnishing exceeding the mahr, or custom so requires, and the wife then dies before consummation, the heirs claim their share of the mahr and the husband asks them to produce the stipulated or customary trousseau to assess his inheritance share: they are not bound to that, what the husband added for the trousseau is deducted from the mahr, and he chooses between being satisfied with a trousseau equal to the mahr or divorcing with nothing upon him, so long as the marriage was not consummated; if the marriage was completed by consummation, the father is compelled, from her wealth, to the customary furnishing. Al-Qadi Abd al-Wahhab says that if the wife bought the trousseau with the mahr and was then divorced before consummation, the husband recovers half of what she bought, without being repaid in kind; Abu Hanifa and ash-Shafi'i require restitution of half in kind. The Maliki proof is custom ("Command what is customary": Surah Al-A'raf, 199), the Prophet having taken Fatima's mahr and spent it on her trousseau of perfume, bedding and the like, and Ali's ruling, which bound the father to the furnishing and told the divorced husband demanding half: "You wasted your wealth," without anyone contradicting him ("al-Ishraf ala Nakt Masail al-Khilaf" (3/367-368), no. 1202). Finally the husband may enjoy the trousseau (shawra) with his wife, and forbid her to sell or gift it, his enjoyment of it being his right; if she received nothing and furnished from her own wealth, he can only place her under interdiction if she gives away more than a third; the husband is not bound to compensate the trousseau, but must buy her the indispensable equipment ("Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil" (4/187), "Sharh az-Zurqani" (4/442), "Tahrir al-Mukhtasar" (3/409)).

A condition of the mahr: that it be known

The scholars agree that the rule is that the mahr be known; they differed over its validity if unknown. The Shafi'is and the Hanbalis in the madhhab require the mahr to be known and such that sale of it would be valid: it is the compensation in an exchange contract and cannot be unknown, like the price of sale or hire. Marrying for an unspecified house, an ambiguous mount, an unspecified slave ("one of my slaves"), the yield of a tree, what his slave earns, the contents of his house, what either spouse or what Zayd will judge, something without benefit (insects), impossible to deliver (a bird in the sky, a fish in the water), or not capable of ownership (a walnut shell, a grain of wheat): the mahr is invalid for gharar or lack of appropriability, and the dower of the like is due ("Rawdat at-Talibin" (5/109-110), "al-Mughni" (7/169-170), "Mughni al-Muhtaj" (4/362)).

The Hanafis, the Malikis and some Hanbalis validate the unknown mahr and oblige the middle (al-wast), with details. The Hanafis require that the uncertainty not exceed that of the dower of the like: marrying for "an animal", "a mount", "a garment" or "a house" unspecified invalidates the specification, uncertainty of genus being excessive, and the full dower of the like is due; but designating a slave, a slave girl, a horse, a camel, a donkey or a garment of Marw or Herat (known genus and species, unknown description and quantity) validates the specification and she receives the middle, the husband having the choice of delivering the middle or its value. Marriage is indeed an exchange of property for what is not property, and an animal of known genus and species may be fixed as a debt in the liability, as in the hadith: "For a believing soul: one hundred she-camels"; the obligation of the middle is justice, as it takes both sides into account, the husband being harmed by obliging the good and the wife by obliging the bad, in keeping with the meaning of the hadith: "The best of affairs is their middle".

Designating something measured or weighed without description validates the mahr: the husband delivers the middle or its value, per al-Karkhi in his "Jami'". Designating "this slave, or a thousand, or two thousand" corrupts the specification according to Abu Hanifa, and the dower of the like is judged: if it resembles the lower of the two amounts or is less, she receives the lower, unless the husband consents to the higher; if it resembles the higher, she receives the higher, unless the wife consents to the lower; if it lies between, she receives the dower of the like. A marriage with corrupt conditions ("a thousand if I have no wife, two thousand otherwise"; "a thousand if I do not move her from her town, two thousand otherwise"; "a thousand if she is a freedwoman, two thousand if she is Arab") remains valid, for perpetual marriage without term is not annulled by corrupt conditions. As for the mahr: the first condition (a thousand without prior wife) is valid by consensus; if fulfilled she receives what was designated under it; otherwise the dower of the like, with no deduction from the original nor addition beyond the higher, says Abu Hanifa; Abu Yusuf and Muhammad validate both conditions; Zufar corrupts them, like the famous hire question: "if you sew it today, one dirham; tomorrow, half a dirham" ("Bada'i as-Sana'i" (2/282-285), "al-Hidaya" (1/208-209)).

The Malikis validate marriage for the trousseau ("I marry her and make her trousseau her mahr"), for a bounded number of she-camels, sheep or slaves, or for the dower of the like: she receives the middle of each, and the middle of the trousseau according to her condition, townswoman or Bedouin; all of it is due immediately. The "Mudawwana": whoever marries for a slave that is not specified, without description or term, the marriage is valid, a middle slave is due, and he may pay her its value only with her consent ("at-Taj wal-Iklil" (2/574-575), "Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil" (3/255-256)).

Ibn Qudama among the Hanbalis: the mahr is not valid unless known and such that sale of it would be valid, the choice of Abu Bakr and the madhhab of ash-Shafi'i. Al-Qadi (Abu Ya'la) validates the unknown whose uncertainty does not exceed that of the dower of the like: Ja'far ibn Muhammad transmitted from Ahmad the case of a man married for one thousand dirhams and a slave, who divorced before consummation: the slave is valued at the middle according to the service rendered by the servant of a woman like her; likewise a horse, a mule, an animal of known genus, a garment of Marw or Herat, a bushel of wheat or ten ratls of oil. If the uncertainty exceeds that of the mahr ("a garment", "a mount", "what so-and-so will judge", "wheat", "barley", "oil", "what he earned in the year"), the mahr is invalid, the middle being unknowable and delivery impossible. The proof of the validity of the first case is the hadith:

The bonds of marriage are that upon which the families agree.Hadith cited by Ibn Qudama in "al-Mughni"

Malik validates the unknown, which adds nothing to the mere omission of mention; Abu al-Khattab validates "a slave of my slaves", "a shirt of my shirts", "a turban of my turbans": Ahmad said, in Muhanna's narration, concerning one who marries for a slave of his slaves, that it is valid and that if they are ten, she is given the one in the middle, and if they dispute, lots are drawn, the uncertainty being slight and the specification possible by drawing lots, unlike the absolute slave whose uncertainty is great ("al-Mughni" (7/168-169), "al-Insaf" (8/237)).

If the mahr is unlawful or unknown, is the marriage annulled?

The jurists agree that the marriage stands if the mahr is invalid for uncertainty, non-existence or inability to deliver; Ibn Qudama knows of no disagreement on it ("al-Mughni" (7/170)). They differed over a mahr that is unlawful (wine, pork, or what cannot be a mahr): is the contract dissolved by the corruption of the mahr, or valid with the dower of the like? The disagreement turns on whether marriage follows in this the ruling of sale: whoever admits it annuls the marriage as sale is annulled by a corrupt price; whoever denies it holds that the validity of the mahr is not a condition of the contract's validity, the mention of the mahr not being a condition of the contract's validity ("Bidayat al-Mujtahid" (2/21)).

• The Malikis in the widespread view and the Hanbalis according to a narration: the marriage is dissolved if the mahr is something whose ownership is forbidden (wine, pork, a free person), for the mahr must be property lawfully appropriable (An-Nisa 24: "with your wealth"), and marriage is an exchange contract whose corrupt compensation corrupts the contract, all the more than in other exchanges since the compensation there is owed as Allah's right. If it is discovered before consummation, the marriage is annulled with nothing for her; after consummation she receives the dower of the like. It is also said: the marriage proceeds in all cases; or that it is annulled in all cases, the annulment counting as a divorce; and nothing weighs upon the husband for whatever perished ("al-Ishraf ala Nakt Masail al-Khilaf" (3/350-351), "al-Mawahib al-Jalil" (5/186)).
• The majority of jurists (the Hanafis, the Malikis according to one view, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis in the madhhab): the corrupt mahr does not annul the marriage, based on the hadith of Ibn Abbas:

There is no marriage without a discerning guardian and two just witnesses.Sound report halted at Ibn Abbas, reported by al-Bayhaqi (13428) and al-Baghawi in "Sharh as-Sunna" (2264)

The report negates marriage without guardian and witnesses and affirms it with them; yet this marriage has a guardian and two witnesses, with no distinction between valid and corrupt mahr. Moreover, the corruption of the mahr produces only its falling away, and its falling away only the absence of mention, which does not annul the marriage; marriage with a corrupt mahr is therefore like marriage without mention. In this case, if he consummates or dies, she receives the full dower of the like according to the majority of scholars, for intimacy was lost through the contract and its value is the dower of the like, like one who buys a slave for a garment that perishes in the buyer's hands: the seller recovers the slave's value when restitution in kind becomes impossible. If he divorces her before consummation, she likewise receives half the dower of the like according to the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis in the madhhab, and the mut'a according to the Hanafis; Ibn Qudama reports that the partisans of opinion (ashab ar-ra'y) justify the mut'a by the fact that had no mahr been designated she would have received the mut'a, and a corrupt designation is like no designation. Al-Qadi reports in "al-Jami'" that there is no difference between one who designated no mahr and one who designated something unlawful like wine or unknown like a garment; two narrations are given there: the mut'a upon divorce before consummation, or half the dower of the like; al-Khiraqi distinguishes: corrupt designation, half the dower of the like; the woman given discretion (mufawwada), the mut'a, which is the madhhab of ash-Shafi'i, the woman without compensation having recovered her intimacy intact, while obliging half the mahr would either combine two things or abolish the textual mut'a, both being corrupt ("al-Mughni" (7/170-171), "Bada'i as-Sana'i" (2/277), "al-Hawi al-Kabir" (9/394-396)).

Paying the mahr in advance or deferring it

The scholars have a detailed discussion on paying the mahr in advance and deferring it, all agreeing on the validity of paying it in advance, deferring it to a known term, or combining the two (part in advance, part deferred); they discussed the case of the spouses' silence: should the mahr be judged due, deferred, or referred to custom?

• The Hanafis: the mahr may be due, deferred, or partly each. In a valid marriage the mahr is due by the contract, for it creates ownership and the mahr is the compensation for that creation, as in sale; in a corrupt marriage it is due only through consummation. The mahr is due immediately after the contract: if the wife demands it, the husband must deliver it first, his right over her being fixed by the contract while her right over the mahr is fixed only by receipt; she may therefore withhold herself until receipt. If the mahr is deferred without a term ("one thousand deferred") or to a term of excessive uncertainty ("until solvency", "until the wind blows", "until the sky rains"), it is due immediately, deferral being invalid. If the spouses are silent, the apparent narration obliges immediate payment; the correct and relied-upon view refers to custom: in a land where part is paid in advance and the rest deferred until divorce, solvency or death, it is judged so, without measuring it at a quarter or a fifth, for established custom is like an established condition. "Half due and half deferred or in installments" (as customary in many Muslim lands) without a fixed term for the deferred part: some say immediate payment; others, at the moment of separation by divorce or death, the correct view, for the term (divorce or death) is known in itself. If part is due and part deferred to a known term, the husband may consummate as soon as he delivers the due part, by consensus. If the whole is deferred to a known term and he stipulates entering before full payment, that is permitted to him according to Abu Yusuf ("Bada'i as-Sana'i" (2/287-289), "al-Bahr ar-Ra'iq" (3/191)).
• The Malikis: a term in the mahr is disliked, even for part of it, even for a year, so that people do not resort to marriage without a mahr while displaying a mahr the wife later waives, and because it contravenes the practice of the predecessors. Payment in advance is preferable; deferral to a known term is valid provided it does not exceed fifty years: beyond that the contract is corrupt, annulled before consummation and established after it with the greater of the dower of the like or the designation. An unknown term, or part in advance and part deferred to an unknown term not tied to a moment ("half due and half at the fixed year, the rest upon death or separation", or the term left to his discretion) renders the marriage void, annulled before consummation by consensus, even if she accepts to waive the unknown part or to have it paid in advance; it is established after consummation with the greater of the designation and the dower of the like, unless custom sets a moment of payment. Marriage without mention of a term ("for one hundred", absolute) is valid and interpreted as due immediately. It is permitted to marry for a known mahr payable at consummation if that is known to both, in the widespread view (the Nile flood for the farmers of Egypt, spring for the dairy folk, the fruit harvest for the growers); otherwise the marriage is annulled before consummation and established after it with the dower of the like. Deferral until solvency is valid if the husband has assets (merchandise displayed in the markets, a share in a waqf or an office), not if he is destitute, and it is annulled before consummation for the added uncertainty ("Aqd al-Jawahir ath-Thamina" (2/475-476), "at-Taj wal-Iklil" (2/582), "Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil" (3/257-269)).
• The Shafi'is: the mahr may be due or deferred. If due, the wife may withhold herself, even without excuse, until she receives the specified and due mahr, all or part of it, or the valid obligation, to prevent the loss of her intimacy; the husband must then deliver it, and if he demands that she submit while delaying delivery of the mahr, with excuse or without, she is not bound to answer until he delivers her the mahr in full. If the mahr is deferred, she may not withhold herself, having accepted the deferral. If the term falls before she submits: in the more correct view there is no withholding, she having accepted the deferral first; in the other narration withholding is permitted, as at the outset. If part is deferred and part due, she may refuse in order to receive the due part according to "al-Hawi"; ad-Damiri holds that apparently she may not withhold, having accepted the deferral of part; Ibn as-Salah says that if she received the due part she may no longer refuse, as if the whole were deferred ("Nihayat al-Muhtaj" (6/390), "Mughni al-Muhtaj" (4/365), "ad-Dibaj" (3/313)).
• The Hanbalis: if the mahr is designated in the contract without specification of due date, the marriage is valid and the mahr is due, the origin being absence of term. If it is deferred, or part of it deferred to a known moment, or to several moments each having a known moment, that is valid, marriage being an exchange contract in which this is permitted as for the price, and it holds whether he separates from her or keeps her, like any deferred right. If he defers the mahr or part of it without mention of the term, its validity is explicit and its term is definitive separation, the absolute wording being referred to custom, which is not to demand the deferred mahr before death or separation; hence the current usage of part due and part falling at death or separation: the mahr of the revocable divorce falls due only at the end of the waiting period. Ahmad said: "when one marries for an immediate part and a deferred part, the deferred part falls due only by death or separation," as did an-Nakha'i and ash-Sha'bi. If the term is unknown ("upon Zayd's arrival"), the deferral is invalid for uncertainty ("al-Mughni" (7/169-170), "Kashshaf al-Qina" (5/149), "Matalib Uli an-Nuha" (5/182)).

Ibn Qudama sums up: the mahr may be paid in advance, deferred, or partly advanced and partly deferred, for it is the compensation in an exchange like the price; absolute mention implies immediate due date, as with the price; deferral to a term fixes it at that term; as for deferral without term, al-Qadi says the mahr is valid and its term is separation, Ahmad having said that the deferred part falls due only by death or separation, as did an-Nakha'i and ash-Sha'bi, while al-Hasan and Hammad said otherwise.