This is the school of al-Zuhri. This is based on the [assumption] that the divorce occurs upon the expiration of the period of ila', [without a pronouncement]. The mention of that has already preceded. As for if the judge rescinds the marriage, the muli does not have the right to return to her except through a new marriage contract, whether it is during the waiting period or after it. The number of his divorce pronouncements is not reduced by it, because it is not a divorce; thus, it is like the rescission of marriage due to a defect or impotence (unnah). If the muli or the judge divorces [her] three times, she is not lawful for him until after a second husband, sexual intercourse, and a new marriage contract. Once this is established, if he divorces fewer than three times and takes her back during her waiting period, the period of ila' is interrupted by the divorce, and the period that passed before the return is not counted against him; because she became forbidden to him without the oath, so the period was interrupted just as if the divorce had been final (ba'in). If he takes her back, the period is resumed from the time of his return. If what remains of it is less than four months, the ila' lapses; but if it is more than that, we wait four months for him, then we stop him to either return (fay') or divorce. Then the ruling here is like the ruling in his first suspension. If he divorces, or the judge divorces on his behalf once, then he takes her back, and more than four months of the period of ila' remain, we wait for him four months, then he is required to perform fay' or divorce. If he divorces, then the three [pronouncements] are complete, and she becomes forbidden to him. This is the school of al-Shafi'i. The school of Abu 'Abd Allah ibn Hamid dictates that if he divorces, the [other] period is resumed from the time he divorced. Thus, if four months are completed before the expiration of the waiting period of the divorce, he is stopped a second time; if he returns, [well and good], otherwise he is ordered to divorce. The school of Malik and Abu 'Ubayd is similar to this. If the waiting period expires before the period of ila', she becomes final (ba'in) and the ila' is interrupted. If he takes her back during the waiting period before the period of ila', he is waited upon for the remainder of four months from the time he divorced. From Ibn Mas'ud, 'Ata', al-Hasan, al-Nakha'i, Qatada, and al-Awza'i, it is [narrated] that divorce abolishes the ila'. This could mean that it interrupts its period, so its duration before the return is not counted; thus, the statement of al-Khiraqi would be like it. It could also mean that it removes its ruling entirely; because he has fulfilled her right through the divorce, so the ruling of the ila' falls away, as if he had had intercourse with her. The answer to this is that the ruling of the oath remains regarding the prohibition of intercourse, so the ila' remains, as if he had not divorced, unlike fay', for it lifts the oath due to the occurrence of the violation (hinth) in it.

1306 - Issue; He said: (And if we stop him after the four months, and he says: "I have had intercourse with her." If she is a deflowered woman (thayyib), the word is his word, along with his oath.)

This is the view of al-Shafi'i; because the basis is the continuation of the marriage, and the woman claims that which necessitates its termination, while he claims that which aligns with the basis and maintains it; therefore, the word is his word. It is like if he claimed intercourse in a case of impotence. Furthermore, this is a hidden matter, and it is not known except from his side, so his word is accepted regarding it, like the word of a woman concerning her menstruation. An oath is required of him; because what the woman claims is possible, so it is necessary to negate it with an oath. Ahmad textually stated, in the narration of al-Athram, that an oath is not required of him; because it is not judged by refusal [to take an oath] in this. This is the choice of Abu Bakr. As for if she is a virgin (bikr), and they disagree regarding the intercourse, she is shown to trustworthy women; if they testify to her defloration (thuyubah), then the word is his word, and if they testify to her virginity (bakarah), then the word is her word; because if he had had intercourse with her, her virginity would have ceased. The apparent meaning of the word of al-Khiraqi is that there is no oath here; because of his statement in the chapter of the Impotent (annin): "If they testify to what she said, he is granted a year's delay," and he did not mention his oath. This is the view of Abu Bakr; because the evidence testifies for her, so the oath is not required with it.

Section: If this woman had not been consummated with, and he claimed that he had had intercourse with her, and she denied it, then he divorced her and wanted to take her back, the word would be her word. So we accept his word regarding intercourse in [the context of] ila', but we do not accept it in establishing the return for him. The explanation of that has already preceded in the book of (Rajah).