And if he gives her as her mahr the divorce of her co-wife, it is not valid, and she is entitled to a mahr equivalent to that of her peers. And whenever the specified mahr is invalid, the mahr equivalent to that of her peers becomes obligatory.

The Shaykh : The author (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "And if he gives her as her mahr the divorce of her co-wife, it is not valid". This means if he says to her, "Your mahr is that I divorce my wife," and she says, "Okay, I agree," is this valid? It is not valid, due to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): . The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade a woman from asking for the divorce of her sister (co-wife). So how much more so if she conditions it to validate the contract? It is not valid. Now, if it is not valid, what do we do? Do we say she is entitled to a mahr equivalent to the wife whose divorce she conditioned, or is she entitled to a mahr equivalent to her own? Pay attention, everyone. We said that if she conditions her mahr to be the divorce of her co-wife, the condition is not correct and is not suitable to be a mahr. But what do we give her? Do we give her the equivalent of the co-wife's mahr, or the equivalent of her own mahr? The author says: "And whenever the specified mahr is invalid, the mahr equivalent to that of her peers becomes obligatory". This is a rule or a criterion. We say: the specified mahr, which is the divorce of the co-wife, is invalid, so she is entitled to a mahr equivalent to that of her peers. Is it equivalent to her, or equivalent to the wife whose divorce was conditioned? It is equivalent to her. She is entitled to a mahr equivalent to that of her peers. Now, an example: this man married a woman, or proposed to a woman, and she said to him, "There is no problem, but I want a mahr." He said, "By Allah, I do not have a mahr right now." She said, "My mahr is that you relieve me of the co-wife; divorce her." He said, "No problem," and the contract was concluded. The guardian said, "I have married you to her with the divorce of her co-wife as the mahr." She said, "I accepted." Is this mahr valid? What is obligatory? We say the contract is valid now; the contract is valid, and she is entitled to a mahr equivalent to that of her peers. It is said: if this woman were to marry, what would be the mahr equivalent to that of her peers? It is said: the mahr equivalent to that of her peers is ten thousand. He must pay ten thousand. Now, another example to apply this rule: he married a woman with twenty cartons of grape juice as the mahr, and it turned out that the grapes had fermented and become wine. Is the mahr valid? It is not valid. Why? Because it is forbidden, and a Muslim cannot consider wine lawful. So what is obligatory for her? She is entitled to a mahr equivalent to that of her peers. Now, he married her and said, "Your mahr is this car," and the car does not belong to him; the car belongs to someone else. Is it valid to be a mahr? Why? It is not his property. But in this case, is she entitled to a mahr equivalent to that of her peers, or is she entitled to the value of the car? According to the author, it is a mahr equivalent to that of her peers. However, there is a consideration here, because the invalidity here is not due to the defect of the mahr itself, but because it is not owned by him. Accordingly, the husband is only obligated to provide a car like this one, and she is only entitled to a car like this one. If this car is worth forty thousand and the mahr equivalent to that of her peers is one hundred thousand, what is obligatory for the husband? A car worth forty thousand. And if the car is worth forty thousand and the mahr equivalent to that of her peers is twenty thousand, what is obligatory? The car, meaning a car like the one worth forty thousand. And on this basis, infer the rest. Then he (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "Chapter."

The questioner : The reasoning?

The Shaykh : What reasoning? The reasoning is that the defect here is not due to the defect of the mahr itself, but because it is the property of another. Therefore, the contract of ownership over it is valid, unlike wine. He said: "Chapter. And if he gives her as her mahr".