What is the authenticity of the story of 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) when a woman objected to him regarding the fixing of mahr, where he said: "Umar erred and a woman was correct"?

The questioner : ... 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) saying: "Umar erred and a woman was correct"?

The Shaykh : No, this story is weak in its chain of narration despite its popularity among people; indeed, among the specific people, namely the preachers in the mosques. Those who preach say that 'Umar ibn al-Khattab preached one day and ordered the fixing of mahr or its reduction. So a woman stood up and argued with him by saying—Exalted is He—: "" great "".

The questioner : .

The Shaykh , before you remind us of the verse, she said: It is not for you to do that, O 'Umar. And Allah—Mighty and Majestic—says, and she recited this verse. They claim that 'Umar said: "A man erred and a woman was correct." So this story is weak in its chain of narration.

Another questioner : All of it, or some of it...?

The Shaykh : All of it, and I will mention the authentic one.
This story is weak in its chain of narration and defective in its text; that is, in its meaning. As for the weakness of its chain, it comes from a man in the chain whose name is "Mujallad ibn Sa'id," and he is weak, not strong, according to the scholars of hadith, as al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani explicitly stated in his book "Taqrib al-Tahdhib." As for the meaning, the verse was not cited for the subject that 'Umar addressed. The subject that 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) addressed was urging the reduction of mahr and prohibiting excess in it. As for the verse, it addresses something else entirely. That other thing is that if a man had promised his wife a specific mahr, and then a dispute or divorce occurred and he divorced her; it is not permissible for the man to take back any of the mahr he had given to his wife, even if it were a qintar; that is, no matter how much this mahr is; as long as the marriage took place based on this mahr, it must be given in full and he must not take anything from it. And if he takes it, he has only taken it by slander and a clear sin. So the verse addresses one thing, and 'Umar addressed another.
And this may not be sufficient for clarification; so we say: The truth is that Islam did not fix the mahr of women, but it urged reduction and discouraged increasing it; even in "Sahih Muslim," Abu Hurayrah came to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) asking him to help him with a value of money as mahr for a wife he had proposed to. So he asked him how much? He said: Two awqiya of silver. The awqiyah is, of course, less than our awqiyah by a large proportion; I do not know now exactly what its value is; so he said to him (peace and blessings be upon him): ... much less. The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) considered the mahr excessive and said to him: It is as if you are cutting from this mountain... stone... dirt, sand; so this is a prohibition or a discouragement from taking excessive mahr. But if...
Yes?

Another questioner : In forty dirhams.

The Shaykh : In forty dirhams, a dirham of our time?

Another questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : A dirham of our time?

Another questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Meaning, what we explained remains the interpretation understood today.
The important thing is that this Islam which encouraged Muslims to reduce mahr and prohibited them from taking excessive amounts, but on the other hand...

Another questioner: Peace be upon you.

The Shaykh : And upon you be peace, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings.
He said: , so if the Lord of the worlds commanded generally to fulfill contracts, and the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said something specific regarding mahr, saying: , so if a man marries a woman for one million Syrian pounds, this was the agreement. It is a valid agreement from one side, but from another side it is disliked; why? Because of the highness of the mahr? But as long as the man agreed with himself to promise that his wife—meaning his wife—has a mahr of one million Syrian pounds with him, and then separation occurs; he must give the million and not take a single fils from it.
This subject—that is, the subject of fulfilling contracts and conditions—is what the previous verse intended; the verse by which the old woman argued with 'Umar.
So now I think the anomaly of the hadith is clear; because 'Umar is more knowledgeable and more intelligent than to be deceived by the old woman's argument with the verse in his subject, which was about reducing mahr. So 'Umar would say to her: You erred. My research and subject is what the Messenger was singing about, which is lightening mahr. As for the verse, its subject is urging the fulfillment of the contract with the mahr that the man imposed on himself. So the indication of the verse differs from the subject that 'Umar was addressing.
And from another side, what indicates the anomaly of the hadith is that it is authentic from 'Umar that he warned the Muslims at that time not to exaggerate in the mahr of their women, and he threatened them that if it reached him that one of them took a mahr of more than four hundred dirhams—the mahr that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) gave to his women—he would take the excess over the four hundred and deposit it in the treasury of the Muslims. This story is authentic. So this "Mujallad ibn Sa'id" added to it that the woman objected to him and argued with the previous verse.
So the story of the old woman as it came is invalid, but it came authentic and existing in "Sunan Abu Dawud and al-Tirmidhi" and "al-Mustadrak of al-Hakim" and "Musnad Ahmad" and many books of the Sunnah. And Ahmad narrated it in the Musnad of 'Umar in several places without what? The story of the old woman, yes, correct.
So when we look at the established story from 'Umar, we find it is contrary to the story of the old woman with 'Umar; because he prohibited the increase and threatened to take the increase and add it to the treasury of the Muslims, and no one objected to him; and how would anyone object to him when he is only calling them to follow the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family)?!
Other than that?