the stipulated amount is invalid, the customary bridal gift becomes due; and whenever rectification is possible, it must be made. For this reason, the author says that she is entitled to the customary bridal gift.

It may be argued that the husband was negligent, for when the guardian says to him, “I will marry her to you for less than the customary bridal gift,” he should ask: “Has she consented or not?” It may also be said that the guardian has misled him. Yet the husband, too, has been negligent: how can he marry a woman for five thousand riyals when he knows that the customary bridal gift for someone like her is ten thousand riyals? He must ask.

If the guardian says, for example, “If she agrees, then all is well; otherwise, I guarantee to you the additional amount until she is satisfied,” the matter is clear. In reality, this case is attended by the guardian’s misleading conduct in marrying her off for less than the customary bridal gift, as well as the husband’s negligence. In any event, since both factors are involved, the basic ruling is that the husband is liable for the bridal gift in full. If the husband refuses and says, “You married her to me for five thousand; I will not give ten thousand,” we would then say that she may seek recourse against the guardian, for there is, in fact, a direct actor and an indirect cause: the direct actor is the husband, since the benefit accrued to him, while the indirect cause is the guardian. The stronger view is that the husband is liable, because no marriage is without a bridal gift, and this stipulated amount was set by someone who had no authority to determine it, since the one entitled to decide concerning the bridal gift is the wife. Accordingly, we say to the husband: you must complete the bridal gift.

The author of al-Furuʿ mentioned that she may seek recourse against the guardian, because he misled her. We say: yes, the guardian did mislead her, but the husband was also negligent in that he did not ask. Accordingly, we say that she may seek recourse against