my penis in your vagina." He is not a mouli, because the act of intercourse, through which fay'ah (restitution) is attained, is achieved without the penetration of the entire penis. But if he said: "By Allah, I will not insert my glans into your vagina," he is a mouli, because the fay'ah cannot be attained without that.

Section: And if he says to one of his two wives: "By Allah, I will not have intercourse with you," then says to the other: "I have associated you with her," he does not become a mouli regarding the second, because an oath by Allah is not valid except with an explicit word derived from His Name or His Attribute, and associating them is a metonymy (kinayah), so the oath is not valid through it. Al-Qadi said: He is a mouli regarding both of them. And if he said: "If I have intercourse with you, you are divorced," then said to the other: "I have associated you with her," and he intended it, then the divorce of the second has become contingent upon intercourse with her as well, because divorce is valid through metonymy. So if we say that this is Ila' regarding the first, it becomes Ila' regarding the second, because she has become like her in its meaning; otherwise, it is not Ila' regarding either of them. Similarly, if a man performed Ila' against his wife, and another said to his own wife: "You are like so-and-so," he would not be a mouli. The followers of Ra'y (rational opinion) said: He is a mouli. Our position is that it is not explicit as an oath, so he is not a mouli by it, just as if he had not compared her to her.

Section: Ila' is valid in any language, whether Persian or otherwise, from someone who masters Arabic and from one who does not, because an oath is contracted in a language other than Arabic, and the expiation becomes binding through it. The mouli is the one who swears by Allah to abandon intercourse with his wife, and who abstains from it due to his oath. If he performs Ila' in Persian while not knowing it, and he does not know its meaning, he is not a mouli, even if he intends what it necessitates according to those who speak it. The same ruling applies if one who does not master Arabic performs Ila' in Arabic; because it is not valid for him to have the intention of Ila' with an expression whose meaning he does not know. If the spouses differ regarding his knowledge of that, the statement is his if he was speaking a language other than his own, because the principle is the absence of his knowledge of it. As for if an Arab performs Ila' in Arabic, then says: "It slipped onto my tongue without intention," or if the Persian speaker says that in his Ila' in Persian, it is not accepted in terms of the legal ruling, because it contradicts the manifest situation.