for theft.
Malik therefore held that the minimum is one-quarter of a dinar or three dirhams, because that is the threshold for theft in his view.
Abu Hanifah said it is ten dirhams, for that too is the threshold for theft according to him.
Ibn Shubrumah maintained that it is five dirhams, since that is likewise the threshold for theft in his estimation.
The Hanafis also cited, as evidence for fixing the dowry at this amount, a ḥadīth they relate from Jabir, from the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—in which he said:
“There is no bridal-due less than ten dirhams.”
Had this report been sound it would have settled the dispute, for the ḥadīth of Sahl ibn Saʿd would then have had to be understood as specific to that individual case. But the ḥadīth of Jabir is weak in the judgment of the ḥadīth scholars, for, they say, it is transmitted by Mubashshir ibn ʿUbayd from al-Hajjaj ibn Artaah from ʿAtaʾ from Jabir, and both Mubashshir and al-Hajjaj are weak, while ʿAtaʾ never met Jabir. Consequently, this ḥadīth cannot be regarded as conflicting with the ḥadīth of Sahl ibn Saʿd.
Third Issue
With respect to the kind of dowry, it may be anything that can be owned and serve as consideration. The jurists nevertheless disagreed in two particular cases: contracting marriage for wages, and making the emancipation of one’s slave-girl her dowry.
Marriage Contracted for Wages
Within the Mālikī school there are three opinions: permissibility, prohibition, and disapproval. The view most commonly ascribed to Malik is disapproval; hence he held that such a marriage should be annulled before consummation. Two of his companions—Aṣbagh and Sahnun—considered it valid, and this is also the view of al-Shafiʿi. Ibn al-Qasim and Abu Hanifah, however, prohibited it entirely, except in the case of a slave, for Abu Hanifah allowed it there.
Their disagreement rests on two grounds.
- Is the revealed law of those before us binding upon us unless evidence shows it to be abrogated, or is the reverse true? Whoever said it is binding permitted marriage for wages, citing the Almighty’s words:
“I wish to marry one of these two daughters of mine to you on condition that you work for me eight years” (al-Qasas 28:27).
Whoever said it is not binding ruled that marriage for wages is impermissible.
- May marriage in this respect be analogised to hire? Hire is an exception to the general prohibition of contracts involving unknown risk (gharar); thus al-Aṣamm and Ibn ʿUlayyah dissented over it. Commercial dealings are normally concluded by exchanging a definite, tangible object for another definite, tangible object, whereas in hire what is received in return for a tangible object consists of movements and actions that are neither tangible nor intrinsically measurable. For this reason the jurists differed over the point at which the wage becomes due upon the lessee.
Emancipation as Dowry
As for making emancipation the dowry, the jurists of the major centres prohibited it, except for Dawud and Ahmad. Their disagreement arises from the apparent conflict between the transmitted report and legal principles—namely the sound narration that “The Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—set Safiyyah free and made her emancipation her dowry”—while it remains possible that this ruling was specific to him—peace be upon him.