What compensation is due if the parties agree generally on the currency but disagree on the specific intended type (e.g., Qiradhi dirhams versus unrestricted) when there is no explicit mention of a specific coin?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Khul' (Redemption Divorce)
Primary text
If the parties agree generally on the currency without specifying its type, the standard currency of the locality is obligated. If they agree that they both intended Qiradhi dirhams, then what they both intended is obligatory. If they disagree on the intention, the ruling reverts to the case of an unrestricted divorce, meaning the prevalent currency of the locality is required.
Supporting text
Al-Qadi stated that if they disagree on the intention, the dower specified in the marriage contract must be paid because their dispute renders the agreed-upon substitute (badal) unknown (majhul). The first opinion is stronger because if they had simply used the unrestricted term, the specification of a currency would be valid, and the standard currency of the locality would be due; thus, their dispute should not create an uncertainty that invalidates the compensation. Furthermore, an unknown compensation is permissible if its uncertainty does not exceed the uncertainty of the dower of the like (mahr al-mithl), and the uncertainty here is less.