This is because restitution (fay'ah) [occurs] after four months, because He mentioned the restitution after it with the letter 'fa', which necessitates sequence. Then He said: {But if they determine divorce, then indeed Allah is Hearing, Knowing}. If it had occurred with the passage of the duration, he would not have needed to determine it. His saying: {Hearing, Knowing} necessitates that the divorce is heard, and what is heard can only be speech. Also, because this is a duration designated for him as a deferment, so he is not entitled to [be subject to] a demand within it, like all other deferred periods. Furthermore, this is a duration not preceded by an enactment, so it is not preceded by an occurrence, like the duration of impotence ('unnah). The duration of impotence is an argument for us, for divorce does not occur except after its passage. Moreover, the duration of impotence was designated for him to be tested within it, and his incapacity for intercourse is known by his refraining during its duration, whereas this [duration] was designated as a delay and postponement for him, and one is not entitled to demand [performance] except after the passage of the term, just like a debt.

Section: The duration begins from the time of the oath. It does not require the designation of a duration, because it is established by text and consensus, so it does not require designation, just like the duration of impotence. He is not demanded to have intercourse during it, for the reasons we mentioned. If he has intercourse with her during it, he has hastened her right before it was due, and he exits the state of Ila', just as someone who owes a debt pays it before the due date. Likewise, if he has intercourse after the duration, either before or after the demand, he exits the state of Ila'. It is the same whether he has intercourse with her while she is sane or insane, awake or asleep, because he has performed what he swore against. If he has intercourse with her while he is insane, he does not break the oath; Ibn Hamid mentioned this, and it is the view of al-Sha'bi. Abu Bakr said: He breaks the oath and the expiation is upon him because he did what he swore against. The first is more correct because he is not legally accountable, and the pen is lifted from him. He exits the state of Ila' by his intercourse because he has fulfilled her right, and there occurred from him, regarding her, what would occur from a sane person, yet the expiation falls away from him due to the lifting of the pen. Ibn Hamid mentioned this, and it is one of the two views of the companions of al-Shafi'i. The Judge mentioned what