Mālik and others. Likewise, he permits a father to marry his daughter off for less than the dowry customary for a woman of her standing. According to one of the two positions reported from him, the father holds the marriage bond in his hand and may waive half the dowry.

His position is that a father may take ownership of his child’s property insofar as this does not harm the child. Thus, if he marries his daughter off and stipulates that he himself receive part of the dowry, this is permissible. Given this authority to dispose of property and take ownership of it, all that remains is his seeking the dissolution of her marriage, and he has the right to do so by the consensus of the Muslims. He also permits a father to partially emancipate a slave owned by the person under his guardianship when this serves a beneficial purpose.

It may therefore be said: the stronger view is that, if the woman is under her father’s guardianship, he may arrange a compensated divorce as an exchange and a means of ransoming her from her husband. The father has this authority just as he has authority to conduct other exchanges and to ransom her from captivity. He may do so, however, only when it serves her interests.

It may also be said: divorce may not be in her interests, but the husband has the right to divorce her, and the father cannot prevent him. If someone other than her offers the husband compensation, she cannot prevent that person from offering it. Waiving her dowry and the rights to which marriage entitles her, however, may harm her. Moreover, the father’s purpose in securing her release may be to serve his own interests rather than hers, and there is agreement that he has no authority to waive her rights merely for his own benefit. According to those who uphold the waiver, both the waiver and the divorce take effect. According to those who do not permit the father to make such a waiver, if he guarantees it, the divorce takes effect without dispute, and the father owes the husband