so she accepts staying in the hope of that. Similarly, one who performs ila' (oath of abstinence) may perform expiation for his oath and then have intercourse. Since that did not occur, the option was established for her. As for the impotent man, if she accepted him, she has accepted the incapacity resulting from his constitution, which is a state that usually does not change, thus they differ.

1191 - Issue: He said: "And if she confesses that he has reached her once, it is void that he is an impotent man."

Most scholars of knowledge are of this view. They say: whenever he has had intercourse with his wife once, then she claims his incapacity, her claim shall not be heard, and no period shall be set for him. Among them are 'Ata', Tawus, al-Hasan, Yahya al-Ansari, al-Zuhri, 'Amr ibn Dinar, Qatadah, Ibn Hashim, Malik, al-Awza'i, al-Shafi'i, Ishaq, Abu 'Ubayd, and the jurists (ashab al-ra'y). Abu Thawr said: If he is incapable of having intercourse with her, a period shall be set for her, because he is incapable of having intercourse with her, so her right is established, just as if he were castrated after intercourse. Our evidence is that his ability to have intercourse has been verified in this marriage, and his impotence has ceased; therefore, no period is set for him, just as if he had not been incapable. Furthermore, the rights of marriage, such as the settlement of the dowry and the 'idda (waiting period), are established by a single act of intercourse, and that has been achieved. As for castration, incapacity is verified by it, so they differ.

Section: The intercourse by which one is no longer considered impotent is the insertion of the glans into the vagina; because the legal rulings related to intercourse relate to the insertion of the glans, so it is considered a valid act of intercourse. If the man has a severed glans, there are two views regarding him: the first is that he is not cleared of impotence except by the insertion of the entire remainder; because there is no limit here that can be considered, so the insertion of the whole of it is considered; because it is the means by which the occurrence of the ruling of intercourse is achieved. The second is that the insertion of the equivalent of the glans is considered, so that what suffices for the one with a severed member is like what suffices for the one with a healthy one. Al-Shafi'i has two opinions like these two.