What is the ruling on paying a sum of money to the elders of the tribe at the time of marriage, in excess of the agreed-upon dowry?

Scholars differed regarding the condition that the wife's father take a portion of the mahr (dowry) for himself. The Shafi'is held that the sadaq (dowry) is invalid and that the mahr al-mithl (dowry of the like) becomes obligatory. In contrast, the Hanbalis permitted it for the father, and no one else, provided that it does not unduly diminish the daughter's wealth. However, if the condition for the sadaq is made by someone other than the father, such as a brother or grandfather, then the condition is null and void, and the entire mahr belongs to the wife.

Ibn Uthaymeen emphasized that the entire mahr is the property of the wife, and it is not permissible for anyone to stipulate a portion of it for themselves, neither the father nor anyone else. However, if the marriage contract has been concluded and the husband wishes to honor the wife's relatives with a gift, or if the father wishes to take ownership of something from the mahr after the wife has received it, there is no harm, provided no detriment is caused to the wife. But stipulating this at the time of the contract is forbidden. He stressed that greedy guardians of women who stipulate a large portion of the mahr for themselves are doing something forbidden.