because marriage is a right of the husband over her, so her claim of a right belonging to someone else is not heard. If we say the first [opinion], the husband is asked; if he denies it and there is no evidence, the statement is his without an oath, because if the woman is not asked to swear an oath when the right is upon her, then it is more appropriate that the one to whom the right belongs should not be asked to swear an oath while he is denying it. It is possible that he could be asked to swear an oath, because her claim is only heard due to its inclusion of a claim of financial rights for which an oath is prescribed. If evidence for the marriage is established, what the marriage entails of her rights is proven for her. As for her being permissible to him, it depends on the hidden state of affairs; if he knows she is his wife, she is lawful to him, because his denial of the marriage is not a divorce, nor did he intend divorce by it. If he knows she is not his wife, either due to the lack of a contract or because she has become irrevocably separated from him, she is not lawful to him. Is he permitted to her in the outward aspect? There are two possibilities; one is that he is permitted to her, because the judge has ruled on the marriage. The second is that he is not permitted to her, due to his admission against himself that she is forbidden to him, so his statement is accepted regarding his own right, but not against what is upon him, just as if he married a woman, then said: 'She is my sister through breastfeeding.' Once this is established, then her claim of marriage is like the claim of the husband in what we have mentioned regarding investigating the cause of the marriage and the conditions of the contract. The school of al-Shafi'i is close to what we have mentioned in this section.

Section: As for other contracts [besides marriage], such as sales, leasing, reconciliation, and others, they do not require investigation and mentioning the conditions according to the most correct of the two opinions, because they are not treated with excessive precaution and they do not require a guardian or witnesses, so they do not require investigation, like a claim of physical property. It is the same whether the item sold is a slave girl or something else, because it is a sold item, so it resembles a slave. Likewise, if the item claimed is a physical object or a debt, he does not need to mention the cause, because the causes for that are many and not restricted, and the claimant might be unaware of the cause.