It is not incumbent; because he followed the insertion in a place that is owned, so it was a follower to it in the falling away of the dower. If he withdrew, then inserted, and both were ignorant of the prohibition, there is no hadd upon them, and the dower is upon him for her, and the lineage is attached to him. If (10) both were aware of the prohibition, the hadd is upon them both; because it is an insertion into a stranger without ambiguity (shubhah), so it resembles the case where he divorces her three times, then has intercourse with her, and there is no dower for her; because she is a participant in the zina (illicit intercourse), and the lineage is not attached to him; because it is from zina in which there is no ambiguity. The Qadi mentioned a view that there is no hadd upon them both; because this is something hidden from many people, and it is a view of the followers of al-Shafi'i. The correct view is the first; because the discussion is regarding those who are aware, and it is not in a position of being hidden; for most Muslims know that a triple divorce makes a woman prohibited. If one of them was aware and the other ignorant, you look; if he is the one who is aware, the hadd is upon him, and she gets the dower, and the lineage is not attached to him; because he is a person who has committed zina and is subject to the hadd. If she was the one aware and he was not, the hadd is upon her alone, there is no dower for her, and the lineage is attached to the husband, because his intercourse is an intercourse of ambiguity (shubhah).

Section: If he said: If I have intercourse with you, you are to me like the back of my mother. Ahmad said: He shall not approach her until he offers an expiation (kaffarah). This is an explicit text regarding her prohibition before the expiation, and it is evidence for the prohibition of intercourse in the previous issue by way of notification; because a woman divorced three times is of greater prohibition than the one from whom the zihar (oath of comparison to mother) was made. If he has intercourse here, he has become a person who has committed zihar from his wife, and the ruling of the ila' (oath of abstinence) ceases. It is possible that Ahmad only meant: If he has intercourse with her once, he shall not have intercourse with her again until he offers an expiation; because he became, through the intercourse, a person who committed zihar, since it is not valid to offer the expiation before the zihar; because it is its cause, and it is not permitted to advance the ruling before its cause. If he offered expiation before the zihar, it would not suffice him. Ishaq narrated: I said to Ahmad regarding one who said to his wife: You are to me like the back of my mother if I approach you for a year. He said: If she comes asking, he has no right to withhold from her after the passing of four months. It is said to him: Either you return (fay'ah) or you divorce. If he has intercourse with her, an expiation has become incumbent upon him, and if he refuses and she wants to separate from him, the ruler shall divorce her for her. Therefore, it is appropriate that the narration be construed