which repels the punishment that is warded off by ambiguities. Our argument is that it is intercourse in the vagina of a woman whose prohibition is subject to consensus, without ownership or an ambiguity of ownership, and the one performing the act is among those subject to the penalty, and is aware of the prohibition; therefore, the punishment is incumbent upon him, just as if the contract had not existed. The form of a permissible act only constitutes an ambiguity if it is valid; yet the contract here is void and forbidden, and his action is a transgression requiring punishment, which, when combined with adultery, does not constitute an ambiguity, just as if he had forced her—and he would be punished for that, and then for the adultery with her. Furthermore, it is invalidated by [the concept of] acquisition (istila'), for acquisition is a cause for ownership in permissible things, and it is not an ambiguity. As for when one buys his sister through fosterage, we reject that analogy; and even if we were to concede it, the ownership that necessitates permissibility is valid and established, and the permissibility only failed due to an opposing factor. This differs from our case, for the factor of permissibility is non-existent, because the marriage contract is void and ownership through it is not established, so the requirement is missing, and thus they are distinct. It therefore resembles the case of one who buys wine and drinks it, or a slave and has intercourse with him. Once this is established, there is disagreement regarding the punishment. It is narrated from Ahmad that he is to be killed in all cases. Jabir ibn Zayd, Ishaq, Abu Ayyub, and Ibn Abi Khaythama held this view. Isma'il ibn Sa'id narrated from Ahmad, regarding a man who married his father's wife or a mahram woman, saying: He is to be killed and his wealth is to be taken to the public treasury (bayt al-mal). The second narration is that his punishment is that of an adulterer. This is the view of al-Hasan, Malik, and al-Shafi'i, due to the generality of the verse and the report. The basis for the first view is what al-Bara' narrated: I met my uncle, who was carrying the banner, and I asked him: Where are you heading? He replied: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) sent me to a man who had married his father's wife after him, to strike off his head and take his wealth. Narrated by Abu Dawud, al-Juzajani, Ibn Majah, and al-Tirmidhi, who said: It is a hasan (good) hadith. Al-Juzajani identified his uncle as al-Harith ibn 'Amr. Al-Juzajani and Ibn Majah also narrated with their chain of authority from