What is the ruling on Shighar marriage when a specific dowry (*sadaq*) is named for each party, even if the exchange of the women is stipulated?
Chapter on Marriage of Polytheists
Al-Mughni
Book of Marriage
Primary text
The established position narrated from Ahmad holds that the marriage contract is valid if specific dowries are named for each woman, even if the exchange condition is stated. This is supported by the opinion of Al-Shafi'i, based on the Hadith of Ibn Umar, arguing that since a dowry was named, the contract is sound, similar to a case without the exchange condition. This is further supported by the reasoning that the absence of a named dowry does not inherently void the contract (as in *nikah al-tafwid*), indicating the invalidating factor is the condition itself, which is present here if no dowry is named.
Supporting text
Al-Kharqi holds that the marriage is void even with a named dowry, based on the Hadith of Abu Hurayrah and a report involving Al-Abbas ibn 'Ubayd Allah, where 'Uthman ibn 'Affan ordered separation because the contract was deemed Shighar, despite the dowry being set. This view maintains that stipulating one marriage contingent upon the other invalidates the contract regardless of a named dowry, as the core issue is the contingent nature of the agreement.