The minimum, maximum and forms of mahr

The mahr is the wife's right established by the marriage contract. Islamic law has settled its nature, its amount, the modalities of its payment and the causes of its invalidity, yet the jurists of the schools have differed on several points: may one marry in exchange for the teaching of the Quran or for a service? What becomes of a mahr that is increased, reduced, waived, kept secret or deferred after the contract? The sheets below lay out these differences school by school, drawing on the Quran, the Sunnah and the classical works.

Marrying in exchange for the teaching of the Quran

The jurists differed over the validity of a marriage whose mahr would be the teaching of the Quran, when a man marries a woman on condition of teaching her the Quran or a determined portion of it. Two opinions emerge.

First opinion: the mahr cannot be the teaching of a portion of the Quran. This is the madhhab of the Hanafis, of the Malikis according to one view, and of the Hanbalis. They require the mahr to be property, on the basis of Allah's saying:

"And lawful to you are all women beyond those described, provided that you seek them with your wealth"

Surah An-Nisa, 24

The verse makes wealth a condition of the mahr; whatever is not property therefore cannot be a mahr. Likewise His saying:

"half of what you specified"

Surah Al-Baqara, 237

orders that the specified mahr be halved upon divorce before consummation, which presupposes that the specified mahr can be divided, and that is only possible with property.

As for the hadith of Sahl ibn Sa'd (may Allah be pleased with him):

A woman came to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and declared that she was giving herself to Allah and His Messenger. He said: "I have no need of women." A man said: "Marry her to me." He said: "Give her a garment." The man replied: "I cannot find one." He said: "Give her at least an iron ring." The man proved unable, so the Prophet asked: "What do you possess of the Quran?" He said: "Such and such surahs." He said: "I have married her to you with what you possess of the Quran."Reported by Bukhari (4741)

the proponents of the first opinion reply that it cannot establish the validity of the mahr, for eight reasons:

• This hadith is of the rank of solitary reports, and the text of the Book is not abandoned for a solitary report; moreover its apparent meaning is set aside, since a surah of the Quran cannot be a mahr by consensus.
• Teaching the Quran is a communal obligation (fard kifaya): whoever teaches a person anything of the Quran has merely discharged an obligation. Abdallah ibn Omar (may Allah be pleased with him) reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Convey from me, even if only one verse." How could what Allah makes obligatory upon a person become the price of intimacy? If that were permitted, marrying in exchange for teaching Islam would be permitted too, which is false; and if that were permitted, rulers could take bribes for judging, whereas Allah has made that forbidden.
• The meaning of "I have married her to you with what you possess of the Quran" is: because of what you possess of the Quran, on account of its greatness and its blessing, not that the marriage was concluded without the designation of property.
• His possession of the Quran does not make it a substitute, and teaching is not even mentioned in the report: the Prophet did not say "I have married her to you on condition that you teach her the Quran". It is therefore understood that he meant: I have married you to her in exaltation of the Quran and because of what you possess of it, as in the story of Abu Talha: he proposed to Umm Sulaym and she said: "I believe in this man and bear witness that he is the Messenger of Allah; if you follow my religion, I will marry you." He said: "I am upon what you are upon." He married her, and her mahr was Islam, meaning she married him for his Islam, Islam itself never being anyone's mahr in reality.
• It is possible that the Prophet commanded this man to teach his wife the Quran while the mahr remained due upon him, since he did not say that teaching the Quran would be her mahr.
• This case is specific to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): Allah permitted His Messenger to take as wife the woman who gives herself to him without a mahr, without extending this to anyone else:

"and a believing woman who gives herself to the Prophet, if the Prophet wishes to marry her: a privilege for you, excluding the other believers"

Surah Al-Ahzab, 50

The proof is that she said to the Messenger of Allah: "I have given myself to you," and the report mentions neither his consulting her nor her saying "marry me with her". It is objected that the hadith could imply an unreported request from her; the answer is that he might equally have set a different mahr that went unreported, and neither interpretation is weightier than the other.

• Seventh, it has been said that the case was specific to this man, based on the report that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) married a man in exchange for a surah of the Quran and then said: "It shall not be a mahr for anyone after you," reported by Sa'id ibn Mansur (1/176) from Abu an-Nu'man al-Azdi in mursal form; al-Hafiz weakened it in "al-Fath" (9/120).
• Eighth, teaching the Quran can only be an act of worship (qurba) on the part of the one who performs it; it therefore cannot be a mahr, like fasting, prayer or the teaching of faith. Moreover, teaching varies between the teacher and the learner and can hardly be delimited: it resembles the unknown thing.

On this basis the dower of the like (mahr al-mithl) becomes due: a woman is only handed over in exchange for property, and since returning the designated counter-gift is impossible, its value becomes due. The dower of the like is the original compensation in this chapter because it is the value of intimacy; one turns to the specified mahr only when the specification is valid and constitutes an estimate of that value. The marriage remains valid, for its validity does not depend on the specification at all, since it is valid without any specification (references: "Ahkam al-Quran" by al-Jassas (3/91-92), "Bada'i as-Sana'i" (2/277-279), "Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari" by Ibn Battal (7/267-269), "al-Mughni" (7/163-164), "al-Insaf" (8/234), among others).

Second opinion: it is permitted to make the teaching of the Quran, or of a known portion of it, the mahr. This is the madhhab of the Shafi'is, of the Malikis according to one view, and of the Hanbalis according to a narration, based on the hadith of Sahl ibn Sa'd, whose meaning is: on condition of teaching what you possess of the Quran, the Quran itself not being lawful as a mahr. The version of Ata ibn Abi Rabah from Abu Hurayra (may Allah be pleased with him) mentions the teaching explicitly, without the garment or the ring:

The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) asked him: "What do you memorize of the Quran?" He said: "Surah al-Baqara, or the one after it." He said: "Rise and teach her twenty verses; she is your wife."Weak hadith, reported by Abu Dawud (2112) and an-Nasa'i in "as-Sunan al-Kubra" (5480)

Teaching is indeed a defined and lawful benefit; it may therefore be made a mahr, like teaching a permissible poem, for any benefit that may be claimed by a contract of hire may be claimed by a contract of marriage, like the benefit of slaves or of land. To those who interpret the hadith as "because of your merit in the Quran", the answer comes in two ways: first, the Prophet had initially asked for a garment and then an iron ring as mahr, and, not finding one, he made the Quran a substitute for it, which implies that it serves as a mahr; second, this interpretation is refuted by Abu Hurayra's hadith "Rise and teach her twenty verses". Nor is this privilege specific to the Messenger of Allah, for he was not the groom but the one who concluded the marriage.

Moreover, whatever is specific to the Messenger of Allah requires a proof indicating its exclusivity, otherwise he would have a partner among his nation. By analogy, every lawful benefit that one person may grant another gratuitously may be granted as a mahr. The comparison with prayer and fasting is broken: copying mushafs and building mosques, though acts of worship, may serve as a mahr, whereas prayer and fasting admit no delegation and their benefit accrues only to the one who performs them, unlike teaching the Quran. As for the objection "it is a communal obligation, so no wage may be taken", the answer is that a wage is permitted for communal obligations such as washing the dead, carrying biers and digging graves. The designated benefit must finally be known, for the unknown mahr is invalid (references: "al-Hawi al-Kabir" (9/404-407), "al-Bayan" (9/374), "Tafsir al-Qurtubi" (13/273), "al-Mughni" (7/163-164), "al-Insaf" (8/234)).

Can a benefit or a service constitute a mahr?

The origin of the disagreement is whether a wage may be taken for teaching the Quran: whoever forbids it refuses to make it a mahr, whoever permits it accepts it. Ibn Nujaym the Hanafi thus wrote that the fatwa of his day was the lawfulness of hiring for the teaching of the Quran and fiqh, hence the validity of such a mahr ("al-Bahr ar-Ra'iq" (3/168), "Fath al-Qadir").

The Hanafis require the mahr to be a legal property (mal mutaqawwim), based on An-Nisa 24 and Al-Baqara 237. From this follow several cases:

• Marrying in exchange for teaching the Quran or the rules of the lawful and unlawful, or for the hajj or the 'umra: the specification is invalid, the designated thing not being property; if the designation reaches ten dirhams or more, she has only that; if less, it is completed to ten; otherwise the dower of the like is due.
• Marrying in exchange for divorcing another wife or for waiving retribution: invalid, since neither is property.
• Marrying on condition of not moving her from her town or of not taking another wife: invalid for the same reason.
• Marrying in exchange for carrion, blood, wine or pork: the specification is invalid, carrion and blood being property for no one, and wine and pork not being legal property for the Muslim.
• The free man who marries on condition of serving her for a year: the specification is corrupt and the dower of the like is due according to Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf; according to Muhammad the specification is valid and she receives the value of a year of service. For Muhammad the benefits of a free person are property in other contracts, but delivery is impossible since employing one's free wife is forbidden (humiliation); for Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf this benefit is not legal property, yet outward works (pasturing her animals, farming her land) make the specification valid.
• Marrying in exchange for the benefits of his house, his slaves, his mount or his land for a known term: the specification is valid, these benefits being property or joined to property by law in other contracts.

Among the Malikis the question has three answers: (1) it is valid but disliked, based on the hadith of Sahl ibn Sa'd; (2) the marriage concluded for a benefit (a house, a slave, a mount, service in farming or building, the journey of the pilgrimage, teaching a surah, taking her on pilgrimage) passes definitively without annulment, the most widespread view; (3) it is invalid, the marriage is annulled before consummation and established after it with the dower of the like, with restitution of the value of the wage at the time of annulment, even after consummation. As for the ju'l (conditional reward), its prohibition is unanimous: "I marry you and I make my mahr the bringing back of your runaway slave" is a marriage with an option, annulled before consummation but not after.

The Shafi'is validate the free person's benefit as a mahr: sewing, building, teaching the Quran and the like for which hiring is valid, based on Allah's word reporting Shu'ayb:

"I wish to marry you to one of these two daughters of mine, on condition that you work for me eight years"

Surah Al-Qasas, 27

Pasturing his flock is presented there as a mahr in a former law, without disapproval, as is the hadith of the marriage against the Quran. Teaching covers everything that must be learned: al-Fatiha, the Quran, hadith, fiqh, poetry, calligraphy, or teaching the wife or her child what is obligatory for her. If the husband divorces her before the teaching, it becomes impossible since she has become a non-mahram to him and suspicion is strong; the reply is that looking at a non-mahram for the purpose of teaching her is lawful only for obligatory teaching such as al-Fatiha, as as-Subki preferred, or only for one who feels no desire (amrad), as Jalal ad-Din al-Mahalli preferred, the relied-upon view being the first. Marrying a woman of the Book in exchange for teaching her the Quran is valid if her conversion is hoped for; teaching the Torah or the Gospel between two unbelievers followed by conversion or litigation brought before the Muslims after the teaching leaves her with no other right, and if it precedes the teaching, the dower of the like is due to her.

The Hanbalis in the madhhab invalidate marriage in exchange for teaching a specified portion of the Quran, since intimacy is opened only through wealth (An-Nisa 24, and An-Nisa 25 where "affluence" means wealth), and based on the munkar report cited above, reported by an-Najjad. The hadith of the self-gift means: "I married you to her because you are of the people of the Quran, as he married Abu Talha for his Islam"; teaching is not mentioned in it, and it may be specific to that man. In every case where the specification is invalid or the contract silent about the mahr, the dower of the like is due. Conversely, marrying in exchange for teaching chapters of fiqh or hadith, lawful poetry, an art, a craft or writing, if specified, is valid: even if he does not know the subject, he learns it and then teaches it; if she learns it from another, he owes her the wage; if the teaching becomes impossible, he owes her the wage; if he taught her and she forgot the craft, nothing weighs upon him; if he makes her repeat endlessly and she forgets each time, it does not count as teaching by custom; in a dispute her word prevails, the origin being non-performance; if she demands that another teach her, he is not bound; if he divorces her before consummation and before the teaching, he owes her half the wage of the equivalent teaching, since she has become a non-mahram and the fitna is not averted; after consummation, the full wage; if he divorces her before consummation but after the teaching, he owes half the wage, since divorce before consummation obliges only half the mahr and restitution by half of the teaching being impossible ("al-Mughni" (7/163-164), "al-Insaf" (8/234), "Kashshaf al-Qina" (5/145), "Manar as-Sabil" (3/7)).

Increasing the mahr or reducing it after the contract

The majority of jurists permit increasing the mahr or diminishing it after the obligation (that is, after the right has become fixed), based on Allah's saying:

"No sin shall be upon you in what you mutually agree to after the obligation"

Surah An-Nisa, 24

The verse covers every subsequent agreement: reducing part of the mahr, deferring it, gifting all of it, releasing it or increasing it, and its generality covers the increase as well as the decrease. The scholars detailed the rules school by school:

• The Hanafis (except Zufar): increase after the marriage is permitted; it is firm in case of consummation or death; upon divorce before consummation the increase falls away and she receives half the original designation. Reduction is likewise permitted, the mahr being her right; the wife may gift her mahr to her husband under An-Nisa 4, and her guardians cannot object; but if she married herself while reducing her mahr, they may object according to Abu Hanifa, the mahr belonging to their right and her conduct bringing shame upon them.
• A narration from Abu Yusuf: upon divorce before consummation the increase is halved together with the original, based on Al-Baqara 237, the increase being a fixed obligation that is halved like the original.

Abu Ja'far at-Tahawi reports the Hanafi position, then: Zufar and ash-Shafi'i liken the increase to a gift with a future term, valid if she takes possession of it, lapsed otherwise. Malik says: the increase is valid; if he divorces her before consummation he recovers half of the increase; if he dies before she receives it, she has nothing of it, for it is an unreceived gift.

The Malikis: once the mahr is fixed and known, the spouses' subsequent agreement to waive it in whole or in part, or to increase it, is without objection (An-Nisa 24); if one of them does not manage his own affairs, it belongs to the guardian (Al-Baqara 237). The husband who increases his wife's mahr: the increase follows the ruling of a gift; if he dies before she receives it, the increase alone lapses, by his death or insolvency before consummation; the death of the wife does not void the gift, acceptance having taken place. If the increase is stipulated as part of the mahr and he divorces her before consummation, it is likewise halved, whether or not it is of the same kind as the mahr. Abu al-Qasim al-Jallab reports from Ibn al-Qasim that half of the increase falls upon divorce before consummation and that death before consummation removes it entirely; al-Jallab himself holds the increase due ("at-Tafri'" (1/400), "Ahkam al-Quran" by Ibn al-Arabi (1/500), "Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil" (3/181-183), "Tahrir al-Mukhtasar" (3/55)).

The Hanbalis: the increase after the contract attaches to it, Ahmad stating it explicitly: the man who increases his wife's mahr after seeing her acts validly; if he divorces her before consummation, she receives half of the original mahr and of the increase (An-Nisa 24), the period after the contract being a time for fixing the mahr. If she releases him from the mahr or gifts it to him and he then divorces her before consummation, or they conclude a khul', he recovers half of it, like one who releases a debtor and then becomes his creditor through another channel. Also detailed: release of half followed by divorce (he recovers within the remaining half), payment of the mahr by a third party as charity, the various forms of khul' (including the wife's request "grant me khul' for whatever of my mahr has been delivered to me" or "on condition of no claim against you in the mahr", which amounts to khul' for half and frees the husband of the whole), the waiver by the woman given discretion over the mahr (mufawwada) or assigned a corrupt mahr (wine, an unknown thing), valid before or after consummation since the cause (the contract) has occurred; if he divorces her after the waiver before consummation, he recovers half the dower of the like, or she receives the mut'a according to another view. Finally, the husband is freed of the mahr, whether specified or described in his liability, only by delivering it to the wife or to her agent if she is adult and of sound judgment, even if a virgin; delivery to the father or another guardian does not free him, and he recovers from the guardian what he handed over if the wife denies receipt ("al-Mughni" (7/204-205), "Kashshaf al-Qina" (5/162-173), "Matalib Uli an-Nuha" (5/212), "Manar as-Sabil" (3/16-17)).

The waiver of the mahr by the wife or her guardian

The scholars agree on the validity of waiving the mahr; they differed over the identity of the one intended by Allah's saying:

"except where they waive, or he waives in whose hand is the knot of marriage. To waive is nearer to piety. Do not forget liberality between yourselves. Allah sees well what you do"

Surah Al-Baqara, 237

It is unanimous that "except where they waive", in the feminine, designates the wives: their waiver consists in abandoning the remaining half of the mahr after divorce. The disagreement concerns whether this includes the virgin: the Hanafis, the Shafi'is in the madhhab and the Hanbalis extend it to the virgin as to the previously married woman (thayyib), the verse not distinguishing between them, and the Muslims agree that virgin and thayyib are equal in half the mahr upon divorce before consummation. This presupposes an adult woman of sound judgment: the minor or the woman under interdiction can neither waive nor give, according to the majority view reported by Ibn Rushd, apart from a dissenting minority relying on the verse's generality. The Malikis restrict "except where they waive" to women already consummated; for the virgin the waiver belongs to her guardian, not to her.

Over "he in whose hand is the knot of marriage" two readings clash: the husband, who completes the whole mahr after a divorce before consummation ("I choose her separation and withhold none of her mahr"), or the guardian, who waives half the mahr of his virgin daughter. The majority (Hanafis, later Shafi'i school, Hanbalis) hold it is the husband: Allah encouraged him to waive as He encouraged her, and the apparent sense of the verse indicates that the one managing the contract is the husband, not the guardian, who therefore cannot waive anything of the mahr, before or after consummation. Five arguments establish this reading: the knot designates a concluded matter, and after the contract the marriage is in the husband's hands; waiver presupposes ownership, which belongs to the husband; the essence of waiver is abandonment, proper to the husband, while the guardian's would be only a gift or release in a figurative sense; addressing the verse to the husband generalizes it to every divorcing husband, whereas the guardian would restrict it to the father or grandfather with a minor virgin; finally "to waive is nearer to piety" does not fit the guardian, whose piety lies in protecting the wealth of the one in his care, not in freeing himself of it. The Sunnah confirms it:

The holder of the knot of marriage is the husband.Weak hadith, reported by ad-Daruqutni (3762); and Sharik reported it from Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him)

Jubayr ibn Mut'im married a woman of Banu an-Najjar, fixed her mahr, then divorced her before consummating; he recited this verse and said: "I am more entitled than she to waive," then handed her the whole mahr.Reported by ad-Daruqutni (3758, 3760) and al-Bayhaqi in "as-Sunan al-Kubra" (14226)

By analogy too: the two spouses are equally rewarded in what they are commanded and encouraged to do; if the wife is encouraged to waive in order to draw the men, the husband is likewise encouraged to draw the women. Al-Jassas adds that the verse is mutashabih (open to two meanings) and must be referred back to the muhkam, that is, to the explicit verses (An-Nisa 4; An-Nisa 20: "if you wish to exchange a wife for another and you have given one of them a qintar, take nothing back from her"; Al-Baqara 229: "it is not lawful for you to take back anything of what you have given them"), Allah having ordered the ambiguous to be referred to the explicit and having blamed those who follow the ambiguous seeking discord:

"As for those in whose hearts is deviation, they follow the ambiguous part of it, seeking discord"

Surah Aal Imran, 7

The verse moreover cannot refer to the guardian, literally or figuratively, for "he in whose hand is the knot of marriage" presupposes an existing knot: no knot is in the guardian's hand before or after the contract, whereas it was in the husband's hand before the divorce.

The Malikis, ash-Shafi'i in his earlier position and the Hanbalis according to one view, hold that the verse designates the father for his virgin daughter: since the adult woman is encouraged to waive, the guardian of the minor is encouraged likewise, so that husbands are urged in both cases; the father may waive half the mahr of his virgin daughter divorced before consummation. According to Malik this is not possible before the divorce; Ibn al-Qasim allows it if there is a benefit, such as the husband's hardship; after consummation no guardian may waive, the word belonging to the woman who has become a thayyib. Five arguments of the verse support the guardian reading: the verse begins by addressing the husbands, passes to the wives by metonymy, then addresses a third party who is not being directly addressed; after divorce only the guardian can contract a new marriage; the guardian's special prerogative is holding the contract, the husband's the enjoyment; the husband remains debtor of the remaining half to the adult woman or the guardian of the minor, so the waiver belongs to the one entitled to the debt; finally Allah encouraged both sides to waive and addressed the minors through their fathers. Ibn Rushd reports the famous question: may the father waive half the mahr of his virgin daughter divorced before consummation, and the master for his slave girl? Malik permits it, Abu Hanifa and ash-Shafi'i forbid it. The disagreement stems from the ambiguity of the verb "waive" (to cancel or to give) and of the pronoun (husband or guardian). A minority allows every guardian to waive half the mahr due to the woman. The majority of scholars maintain that the minor and the interdicted woman cannot give away half of their mahr (references: "al-Muwatta" (2/527), "al-Istidhkar" (5/430-432), "Ahkam al-Quran" (1/293-294), "Tafsir al-Qurtubi" (3/206-207), "adh-Dhakhira" (4/371), "al-Furuq" (3/252-253), "al-Mughni" (7/195), "al-Hawi al-Kabir" (9/513-516), among others).

When he marries her on condition that her father or her mother receive wealth other than the mahr

The jurists differed over a marriage stipulating a mahr for the wife and a sum for her father: is the contract valid and the father entitled to his share, or is it invalid with the dower of the like, or valid with everything for the wife?

• The Hanafis: if a father marries his daughter for ten thousand while stipulating a thousand for himself, and he receives and consumes them, the husband may claim them from him if he made it a binding obligation upon himself; if he made it a gift, restitution follows the rules of gift ("Mukhtasar Ikhtilaf al-Ulama" (2/269-270)). The "Fatawa Hindiyya" specify: marrying for two thousand of which one thousand is for the father or for such a person is of no effect, it being a condition of an invalid gift, and the full dower of the like is due if the dower of the like exceeds the thousand ("al-Attabiyya"); according to Ibn Sama'a from Muhammad, if the wife herself says "I give myself to you for two thousand, one thousand for me and one thousand for my father", all is valid and the two thousand belong to her ("al-Muhit", "Fatawa Hindiyya" (1/308-309)).
• The Malikis: the "Muwatta" reports that Omar ibn Abd al-Aziz wrote to some of his governors during his caliphate that everything the one marrying (father or other) stipulates of gift or honor belongs to the woman if she seeks it. Malik: the gift by which the marriage is concluded belongs to the daughter if she wants it; if her husband separates from her before consummation, he owes her half of the gift by which the marriage was concluded. Ibn al-Qasim adds: if the father stipulates the gift at the time of the contract it belongs to the daughter; if he gives it after the marriage it is an honor that does not belong to her. They rely on this hadith:

Whatever woman is given a mahr, a gift or a trousseau before the protection of the marriage, it belongs to her; whatever comes after the protection of the marriage belongs to the one to whom it was given; and what a man has most right to is that by which his daughter or his sister is honored.Weak hadith, reported by Abu Dawud (2129), an-Nasa'i (3353) and Ahmad (6709)

• The Shafi'is: marrying for a thousand on condition that a thousand go to her father or to another, or on condition of giving it to him, corrupts the mahr in both cases: if the sum does not come from the mahr it is a contract within a contract; if it comes from it, part of the compensation for intimacy is assigned to another; the dower of the like is due. According to a second path, corruption concerns only the first wording, the word "give" not requiring that what is given go to the father. The phrase "I married her for a thousand on condition that I have a thousand" is more corrupt than "on condition that you give me a thousand", the latter being a promise of gift on her part. Al-Mawardi reports from ash-Shafi'i: "if the contract is concluded for a thousand on condition that a thousand go to her father, the mahr is corrupt, for the thousand is not her mahr and he has no right to stipulate it"; Malik holds the condition void as regards the father and the two thousand become the wife's mahr; Qatada holds the mahr valid at a thousand and the condition binding upon the father, the husband owing a thousand by the condition. Malik's proof is that the conditions of contracts must concern the object or the price, and the father is neither; Qatada's is that what was not designated as mahr cannot become a designated mahr, and if what was stipulated for the father could count as an increase of the mahr, what was stipulated upon the father would amount to a decrease, which is absurd ("al-Hawi al-Kabir" (9/503)).
• The Hanbalis: the father may stipulate for himself part of his daughter's mahr: marrying for a thousand for her and a thousand for him is valid, based on the verse of Shu'ayb (Al-Qasas 27) who stipulated for himself the hire of pasturing his flock, and on the hadiths "you and your wealth belong to your father" and "your children are among the purest of your earnings, so eat from their wealth". If he stipulates the whole mahr for himself, that is valid, Shu'ayb having stipulated all of it. Upon divorce before consummation the husband recovers half of the total; the father returns nothing of what he took: if the father received both thousands, the husband recovers a thousand; if he divorced her before receiving them, one thousand falls away and one thousand remains due to the wife, of which the father takes what he wishes. Al-Qadi says they share it in two halves, transmitted by Muhanna from Ahmad, though not as a binding rule: the father takes what he wishes and leaves what he wishes. Ibn Qudama: if a guardian other than the father (grandfather, brother, uncle) stipulates for himself, the condition is void by Ahmad's explicit statement, and the whole designation belongs to the wife; ash-Shafi'i holds the dower of the like due, since one returns to the mahr what she diminished on account of the condition, whose amount is unknown, making the whole unknown and corrupt. Marrying for two thousand on condition of giving a thousand to her brother: the mahr is valid, this condition neither adding to nor subtracting from the mahr, and thus having no effect on it, unlike the previous one. Finally, the father's stipulation must not be injurious to his daughter's wealth: otherwise it is void and everything belongs to the wife, as with other guardians ("al-Mughni" (7/171-173), "al-Kafi" (3/110), "Kashshaf al-Qina" (5/151-152)).

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.