"And if I have a wife, the mahr is two thousand; if I do not have a wife, it is one thousand; the stipulated amount is valid"

The Shaykh : All right, "And if I have a wife, the mahr is two thousand; if I do not have a wife, it is one thousand; the stipulated amount is valid". He gave her a mahr and said, "If I have a wife, the mahr is two thousand, and if I do not have a wife, the mahr is two thousand. Is this valid or not? This is valid, even according to the author's statement. The difference between the two cases, according to the author, is that she has a legitimate interest in the second case, because if the home is empty for her, that is more pleasing to her, and one thousand is sufficient for her. But if he has a wife, one thousand is not sufficient for her. Do you understand, everyone? So the difference between the two cases, according to the author, is that in the second issue, she has a legitimate interest. Indeed, the presence of a co-wife does not make her comfortable; it disturbs her and takes half of her husband's time. If he does not have a wife, one thousand is sufficient. The correct view, as the author stated in the issue of the wife, is that she has a legitimate interest in that. Accordingly, the stronger opinion is that the two issues are equal, and that if he gives her one thousand if her father is alive, and two thousand if her father is dead, the stipulation is valid. Likewise, if he gives her one thousand if he does not have a wife, and two thousand if he has a wife, the stipulation is valid. Then he said, " And if the mahr is deferred, or part of it, it is valid. If a specific time is designated, otherwise its place is the separation." All right, if the mahr is deferred, or part of it, meaning he marries her for ten thousand, five thousand in cash and five thousand deferred for one year, is this permissible or not? It is permissible, because the right belongs to her. So if she agrees to the deferral of part of it, there is no harm. All right, and if he marries her for ten thousand deferred for one year, and after one year he pays her ten thousand, is this valid? Why? Because the right belongs to her, and the default in transactions is...