al-Khiraqi. It is also possible 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' (return), 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).