And if the spouses or their heirs disagree regarding the amount of the mahr, its specific item, or what it is fixed by, then his word is accepted regarding the amount, and her word is accepted regarding its possession.

The Shaykh : The author (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "And if the spouses or their heirs disagree regarding the amount of the mahr, its specific item, or what it is fixed by, then his word is accepted regarding the amount, and her word is accepted regarding its possession." This disagreement between the spouses regarding the mahr, if the spouses are both alive or if they have died and their heirs are involved, concerns the amount of the mahr. For example, if the wife or her heirs say the amount is ten thousand, and the husband or his heirs say the amount is five thousand, then the husband's word is accepted. Why? Because of the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): Here, the five thousand is agreed upon by both the husband and the wife. The amount exceeding the five thousand is claimed by the wife, and the husband denies it. So we tell her: the burden of proof is on the claimant, and the oath is on the one who denies. Clear, clear, everyone. The wife said that the mahr named for her was ten thousand, and he said it was five. There is no evidence. Whose word is accepted? The husband's word. The evidence is the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): Now, are the five thousand agreed upon or not? The five thousand are now agreed upon because the five thousand are part of the ten thousand. So we say the mahr is five thousand, and the additional five thousand included in the ten thousand is whose claim? The wife's claim. So she is the claimant, and the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) says: This evidence is from the Sunnah. The evidence from reason is that the husband is the debtor, and every debtor's word is accepted in denying what entails debt, unless there is evidence. This is also one of the principles of jurisprudence: every debtor's word is accepted in denying what entails debt, unless there is evidence. It is known... This is the statement of the author (may Allah have mercy on him). The apparent meaning of his statement is that there is no difference between the husband claiming a customary amount or a non-customary amount. So if the mahr for most people is ten thousand, and the wife says, "My mahr that was named for me is ten thousand," and he says, "It is two thousand," whose word is accepted according to the author's opinion? The husband's word, and he only owes two thousand. But the circumstances and the custom of people indicate that the wife's word should be accepted, because we are in a context where the minimum mahr given is ten thousand. It is not reasonable for a woman to accept... two thousand when people are at ten thousand. Therefore, it should be said, and this is the correct view, that unless the husband claims something contrary to custom, if the husband claims something contrary to custom, then the wife's word is accepted, but with an oath. Are you with us, everyone? Unless the husband claims something contrary to custom, if he claims something contrary to custom, then the wife's word is accepted with an oath. Good. Is there a basis for this view? We say yes, it has a basis. The basis is that people are in a uniform state of custom. The jurists (may Allah have mercy on them) mentioned that if a man divorces his wife after having intercourse with her, the mahr belongs to whom? The mahr belongs to the wife. The wife said, "The coffee pot on the shelf in the sitting room is mine," and the husband said, "No, it is mine." Whose word is accepted? The husband's, because this is the custom; such items belong to the husband. If the husband, after divorcing her, said, "The comb used to comb hair is mine," and the woman said, "No, it is mine," and the husband has no hair, he shaves every week. Whose word is accepted? The wife's. Why? This is the apparent case, because this is the apparent case. Similarly, regarding the mahr, if the wife says ten thousand and he says two thousand, and the custom of people is that it does not go below ten thousand, can we say the husband's word is accepted? No, because we would ask how the woman would accept two thousand from you when people are at ten thousand. In any case, the author's statement is that if they disagree regarding the amount of the mahr, the wife's word is accepted, and we cited a report and reasoning for this. But the stronger view is that the wife's word is accepted if the husband's statement contradicts custom and tradition. This is one point. The second point is also that they disagreed regarding the specific item of the mahr. The woman says, "The mahr is your right house; you gave me your right house," and he said to her, "I gave you my left house." They now disagree regarding the specific item; she says this one, and he says this one. Or she said, "You gave me this car as mahr," and he said, "No, it is this car." Whose word is accepted? The husband's, because the husband is the debtor, so he is the one against whom the claim is made, so the husband's word is accepted. And we say in this case, as we said in the case where they disagree regarding the amount of the mahr, if the husband's statement contradicts custom and tradition, his word is not accepted. Suppose the car she specified is worth forty thousand, and the car he specified is worth four thousand, and the custom is that the mahr among people is forty thousand. Do we accept the husband's word? No, we do not accept it because it contradicts custom. So we say in this case what we said in the case where they disagree regarding the amount of the mahr. "Or regarding what it is fixed by, then his word is accepted." They disagreed regarding what the mahr is fixed by. The mahr is fixed, as we said, by intercourse. The man divorced her, and she said, "The entire mahr is established for you because you secluded yourself with me on such-and-such day in such-and-such house, and seclusion establishes the entire mahr." The husband said, "I never secluded myself with you; it was only the contract, and now I am divorcing you." How much must the husband pay? Half. So the husband now says you have only half, and she says I have the whole. Whose word is accepted? The husband's, because the original state is the absence of intercourse; the original state is that he did not have intercourse with her. "And regarding its possession, her word is accepted." If they disagree regarding its possession, the wife's word is accepted. An example of this is a man who married a woman for ten thousand riyals and had intercourse with her. When he had intercourse with her, the next day she said to him, "So-and-so, give me my mahr." He said, "I gave it to you yesterday." She said, "You did not give it to me." Whose word is accepted? The wife's, because the wife is now the claimant, and he has admitted that the mahr is in his debt, but he claimed that he delivered it. We say to him: the burden of proof is on you, the burden of proof is on the claimant. Do you understand or not, Asama? Good. One of you understands? He promised her ten thousand riyals, then had intercourse with her, and after two or three days she said, "Give me the mahr." He said, "I gave you the mahr before the intercourse." She said, "You never gave it to me." Whose word is accepted? The wife's, because the original state is the absence of possession; the original state is that she did not possess it, so the wife's word is accepted. Good. This also should be said: unless the wife's statement contradicts custom. If her statement contradicts custom, we take the custom. For example, here in the Kingdom, is the mahr deferred or advanced? It is advanced. So if she claims that she did not receive it, we say this is contrary to custom; the custom is that it is advanced. You hardly find a Saudi man marrying a Saudi woman with a deferred mahr, neither the whole nor part of it. In other countries, what is the original state? The choice. The whole mahr or part of it? Part of it. Good. In other countries, if she says, "You did not deliver to me except half the mahr," and he said, "No, the whole mahr," then her word is accepted because her statement does not contradict custom. Clear, everyone. Good.