The second [view] 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.

Section: He is not cleared of impotence by intercourse in the anus, because it is not a location for intercourse, so it resembles intercourse in areas other than the vagina. For this reason, neither the permissibility for the first husband to remarry her, nor the state of ihsan (chastity/being a married person) is attached to it. If he has intercourse with her in the vagina while she is menstruating, in post-partum bleeding, while in a state of ihram, or while fasting, he is cleared of impotence. Al-Qadi mentioned that the qiyas (analogy) of the madhhab is that he is not cleared of impotence, due to the explicit statement of Ahmad that ihsan and permissibility for the first husband are not achieved by it, and because it is forbidden intercourse, resembling intercourse in the anus. Our evidence is that it is intercourse in the place of intercourse, so he is cleared of impotence by it, just as if he had intercourse with her while she was ill and intercourse was harmful to her. Furthermore, impotence is incapacity for intercourse, and it does not remain with the existence of intercourse, for incapacity is the opposite of ability, so it does not remain with the existence of its opposite. What he mentioned is incorrect, because those are rulings that may be negated with the existence of their cause due to an impediment or the absence of a condition, while impotence itself is a factual matter, and it is not conceivable for it to remain with its negation. As for intercourse in the anus, it is not intercourse in its proper place, unlike our issue. Ibn 'Aqil chose the view that impotence is negated by it, because it is more difficult, and whoever is capable of it is even more capable of others.

Section: If he has intercourse with one woman, he is not cleared of impotence with respect to another. Ibn 'Aqil chose the view that he is cleared of impotence with respect to all women, so neither her claim nor the claim of another shall be heard against him. This is the requirement of the statement of Abu Bakr, [and it is the statement of] everyone who said that he is tested by marrying another woman. This has been narrated from Samurah and 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz. This is because impotence is a constitution and a natural disposition that does not change with the change of women, so if it is negated with respect to one woman, it does not remain with respect to another. Our evidence is that the ruling for every woman is considered by itself. Therefore, if his impotence was established with respect to them [all], and some of them accepted it, her right alone would fall, not the others. Furthermore, the annulment is to repel the harm resulting from the incapacity to have intercourse with her, which is established with respect to her and is not removed by intercourse with another. As for his saying: "How can his incapacity for one be valid while not for another?" We say: his desire may be stirred with respect to one of them due to his excessive love for her, his inclination toward her, and her uniqueness in beauty and the like, as opposed to the other. Based on this, if he married a woman and had intercourse with her, then divorced her, then married her [again], and became impotent with her, she has the right to demand [annulment]; because if it is permissible that he be impotent with one woman and not another, then [it is even more so] in one marriage versus another. According to the statement of Abu Bakr and those who agreed with him: this is not valid; rather, whenever he has intercourse once, his impotence is never established.