The benefits of the hadith: (She is entitled to the same mahr as her sisters, without excess or deficiency, and she is entitled to the waiting period and inheritance...)

The Shaykh : The following is derived from this hadith:
First: The virtue of 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him), in that he was guided to the correct opinion. When a person exerts effort and Allah guides him to the truth, this is a blessing from Allah upon him. For this reason, it is counted among the virtues of 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) that he was often guided to the correct opinion; he would say something, and then the Qur'an would descend confirming it. This is a blessing from Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) upon the servant. Sometimes a person says something based on his own independent legal reasoning without relying on an explicit text, and it turns out to agree with the text.
And among the benefits of this hadith is the permissibility of rejoicing in arriving at the correct opinion, because Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him) rejoiced in it. Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) said when she spoke about this: The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) permitted Suwaydah to rejoice in a way that is not blameworthy. Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) was narrating that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) permitted Suwaydah on the night of the festival of sacrifice to depart from Muzdalifah at night. She said:
If someone were to ask: How do we reconcile this with what Allah the Exalted said about Qarun: ?
The answer to this is very easy:
The blameworthy joy is the joy of arrogance and insolence. As for the praiseworthy joy, it is the joy in the blessing of Allah. Allah has commanded us to rejoice in His grace and mercy, and He said: .
So if joy means arrogance, insolence, looking down upon creation, self-admiration, and pride, then it is blameworthy. But if a person rejoices in what Allah has bestowed upon him and in Allah's grace toward him, then it is praiseworthy and does no harm.
Among the benefits of this hadith is the permissibility of marriage without specifying a mahr, because Ibn Mas'ud did not deny that. In fact, the Qur'an indicates its permissibility in what?
. Now, among the benefits of this hadith is that if no mahr is stipulated for her, she is entitled to the mahr of her like, based on his statement here: .
But when does she become entitled to the mahr of her like?
She becomes entitled to the mahr of her like if there is something that establishes the mahr. However, if he divorces her before the mahr is established, she is entitled to a gift. Pay attention to the difference: If a woman is divorced and her mahr was not specified, then if the separation occurs in a state where the mahr is established, she is entitled to the mahr of her sisters. If it occurs in a state where the mahr is not fully established, she is entitled to a gift.
We give an example to clarify the matter: A man married a woman and did not specify a mahr for her, then divorced her before consummation. What is the ruling?
She is entitled to a gift. We do not say: She is entitled to half the mahr of her like; she is entitled to a gift, based on the saying of Allah the Exalted: , He said: .
The second example: A man married a woman and did not specify a mahr for her, and he consummated the marriage, then divorced her. What is obligatory?
The obligatory amount is the mahr of her like, not a gift. It is said: What is the mahr of a woman with these six characteristics that we mentioned? If it is said: Her mahr is, for example, ten thousand, we say she is entitled to ten thousand.
It is thus clear that marriage without specifying the mahr is permissible, and she is entitled to the mahr of her like if there is something that establishes the mahr. If he separates from her before there is something that establishes the mahr, she is entitled to a gift, provided that the annulment did not come from her. If the annulment came from her before consummation, she is entitled to nothing, because she is the one who chose the annulment.
Now, among the benefits of this hadith is that death establishes the mahr. And what does "establishes" mean?
It means that if the husband or the wife dies, even before consummation, the full mahr is established for the wife. This is if the husband dies. And if she dies?
The mahr becomes for her heirs. The important point is that if the husband or the wife dies, the mahr is established: if it was specified, then the specified amount; if it was not specified, then the mahr of her like. There is no disagreement among the scholars that if one of the spouses dies, the mahr is established—pay attention, everyone.
And it is appropriate here to mention what establishes the mahr other than death:
The mahr is also established by sexual intercourse if he has intercourse with her. The evidence for this is the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): . So if a man has intercourse with his wife and then divorces her, the full mahr is established for her by the text.
The mahr is also established by seclusion. If the husband is alone with his wife, and she is of an age where intercourse is possible, the mahr is established if he separates from her after this seclusion, even if intercourse did not take place. This is the well-known view in the school of Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him)—pay attention, everyone. The evidence for this is that seclusion is a place where intercourse is likely to occur, especially if the spouses are young. It is rare for him to be alone with her in the absence of others and then leave her without intercourse. I say: It is rare for him to be alone with her in the absence of people and then leave her without intercourse; this is rare. For this reason, the consensus of the Companions was transmitted that seclusion establishes the mahr and obligates the waiting period. How long is this?
Three.
The fourth: It is transmitted from Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) that the mahr is established by making permissible anything that is not permissible except by the marriage contract. If a man makes permissible from a woman something that is not permissible except by the marriage contract, the mahr is established by analogy to seclusion, because seclusion is not permissible except for a mahram or a husband. On this basis, if he kisses her in the presence of people without seclusion, is the mahr established or not?
The student: Yes, it is established.

The Shaykh : As if Faisal is saying: No?
The student: It is not established.

The Shaykh : It is not established. I say: It is not established. Yes, it is established. This was narrated by Harb from Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him). Harb is one of the students of Imam Ahmad, and he narrated from him: "That if he makes permissible from her something that is not permissible except by the contract, the mahr is established by analogy to seclusion". However, this is contrary to the opinion of the majority of scholars, because the other scholars say: The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: , regarding what he made permissible of her private parts. It is known that making permissible the private parts is not like making permissible other things. So intercourse in the case of a gift for a woman is not like what? Like kissing. No doubt, and the lesser cannot be analogized to the greater.
But what Imam Ahmad mentioned, considering what was transmitted from the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) that seclusion is an establishing factor, undoubtedly has a valid aspect. Because if he makes permissible from her something that is not permissible except by the marriage contract, such as kissing, embracing, or otherwise, the mahr is established.
Now, it is also appropriate for me to speak about what halves the mahr:
If the separation comes from the husband before something that establishes the mahr occurs, she is entitled to half the mahr, based on the saying of Allah the Exalted: . If the separation comes from her before something that establishes the mahr occurs, she is entitled to nothing. An example of this: A man contracted marriage with a woman, and before he consummated the marriage, it became clear to him that she had a defect that warranted annulment of the marriage. So he annulled his marriage because of her defect. Is she entitled to anything?
No, why?
Because the separation came from her side.
If it comes from a third party, there are two opinions in the school of Imam Ahmad:
Does the mahr get halved and the husband claim it back from the one who ruined it, or does it not get halved and the woman is not entitled to anything?
There are two opinions in this: The apparent view is that it gets halved, the woman is given the half, and the husband claims it back from the one who caused the separation. This is justice, because the woman did nothing wrong, so we cannot say she is not entitled to a mahr. And this man is an aggressor, so he is dealt with according to his aggression.