do you accept it here? We say: Because the one who took an oath of continence and the impotent man claim that which maintains the validity of the marriage and prevents its annulment, and the original principle is the validity of the contract and its soundness, so their statements were in accordance with the original principle and were accepted. In our issue, that which terminates the marriage and removes it has occurred, which is what leads to final separation, and they have disagreed over that which lifts the ruling of divorce and establishes for him the right of revocation, and the original principle is the absence of that, so his statement is contrary to the original principle and is not accepted. Furthermore, the one who took an oath of continence and the impotent man claim intercourse in a situation where seclusion and the opportunity for intercourse were established; for if that were not present, they would not be entitled to annulment due to the lack of intercourse, so the disagreement pertains to something specific to them. In our issue, neither seclusion nor opportunity was established, for if that were established, the full dowry would have become mandatory; thus, the disagreement is regarding a manifest matter not specific to him, so the statement of its claimant is not accepted without evidence. Whether an oath is legislated in the right of the person whose statement is accepted here is a matter of two views.

Section: Seclusion is like intercourse in establishing the right of revocation for the husband over the woman with whom he has secluded himself, according to the manifest opinion of al-Khiraqi, due to his statement: "Its ruling is the ruling of consummation in all its aspects." This is the view of al-Shafi'i in the old (qadim) school. Abu Bakr said: "He has no right of revocation over her unless he has had intercourse with her," and this is also the view of al-Nu'man, his two companions, and al-Shafi'i in the new (jadid) school, because she has not been consummated, so she is not entitled to have her revocation [pursued], just like the one with whom he did not seclude himself. Our evidence is the saying of the Almighty: "And divorced women shall wait for three menstrual cycles, and it is not lawful for them to conceal what Allah has created in their wombs," up to His saying: "And their husbands have the better right to take them back in that period." Furthermore, she is a woman observing a waiting period from a divorce for which there was no compensation, and she has not exhausted its number, so the right of revocation is established over her, just like the one who was consummated. Moreover, she is a woman in a waiting period whom his divorce can reach, so he possesses the right to revoke her, like the one he had intercourse with. This is distinct from the one he did not seclude himself with, for she is irrevocably separated from him, has no waiting period, and his divorce cannot reach her; rather, revocation is only for the woman in a waiting period whom his divorce can reach.

Section: If the husband of a slave woman claims after her waiting period that he had revoked her during her waiting period, and she called him a liar.