The ruling concerning this is exactly the same as if evidence were established regarding it. If the [second] husband alone acknowledges it to him, then he has confessed to the invalidity of his own marriage, so she becomes separated from him, and he is liable for her dowry if this was after consummation, or half of it if it was before, because he is not deemed truthful regarding the woman in order to nullify her right against him. Furthermore, the woman is not to be surrendered to the claimant because the statement of the second husband is not accepted against her; rather, it is only binding upon him regarding his own status, and the [definitive] word is her word. Is she to be made to take an oath along with her word or not? There are two views. The correct view is that she is not made to take an oath, because if she were to acknowledge it, her acknowledgement would not be accepted [against the second husband]; therefore, since she denies it, an oath does not become due by her denial. If the woman acknowledges it and the husband denies it, her acknowledgement is not accepted against the husband to annul his marriage, because her statement is only accepted against herself in matters concerning her own right. Is he to be made to take an oath? There are two potential views: one is that he is not made to take an oath. The Qadi chose this because it is a claim regarding a marriage, so he is not made to take an oath, just as if one claimed the marriage of a woman and she denied it. The second is that he is made to take an oath. The Qadi said: This is the position of al-Khiraqi, due to the generality of his (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) statement: "But the oath is upon the defendant." Also, because it is a claim concerning the right of a human being, he is made to take an oath regarding it, just as in matters of property. If he swears, his oath is upon the negation of knowledge, because it is a negation of the act of another. If his marriage is terminated by divorce, annulment, or death, she is returned to the first [husband] without a new contract, because the prohibition on returning her existed only for the sake of the second [husband]'s right, so when that is removed, the obstacle is removed, and it is ruled that she is the wife of the first, just as if one testified to the emancipation of a slave and then bought him, he would become free under him. She owes no dowry to the first [husband] under any circumstances. The Qadi mentioned that she does owe him a dowry, and this is the view of some of the followers of al-Shafi'i, because she acknowledged that she came between him and his portion (bid'i-ha) without right, so it is similar to the witnesses of a divorce if they retract their testimony. Our argument is that her ownership of the dowry was established, so he does not have the right to reclaim it from her, just as if she apostatized, accepted Islam, or killed herself. If the first [husband] dies while she is in the marriage of the second, it is befitting that she should inherit from him due to his acknowledgement of her marriage, or her acknowledgement of that.