who is an adult, and there are two scholarly opinions regarding her marriage if she is a minor. As for their argument that she has not experienced permission, we say: this is invalidated by a woman who has had intercourse due to a misunderstanding (shubha), or in a state of slave-ownership, or one who was married while she was a minor.

Section: If her virginity is lost without sexual intercourse, such as by jumping, severe menstruation, or by a finger, a wooden rod, or the like (29), then her ruling is the same as that of virgins. This was stated by Ibn Hamid; because she has not tested the intended goal (of intercourse), nor has her intercourse in the vagina occurred, so she resembles one whose virginity has not been lost. If she was had sexual intercourse with in the anus, she does not become a thayyib (previously married woman), nor is her ruling the same as theirs, because she is not a woman who has been had sexual intercourse with in the vagina.

Section: If the husband and the woman disagree regarding her permission to her guardian (30) for her marriage before the consummation, the statement is that of the woman, according to the opinion of the majority of jurists. Zufar said regarding the thayyib the same as the scholars, but regarding the virgin: the statement is that of the husband; because the base principle is silence, and speech is a recent occurrence, and the husband (31) claims the base principle, so his statement is accepted. Our evidence is that she denies the permission, and the statement is that of the one who denies. Also, because he claims that she was consulted and she heard and remained silent, and the base principle is the absence of that, which is a response to (32) his saying [that the base principle is with him] (33). If they disagree after the consummation, the judge (al-Qadi) said: the statement is that of the husband; because enabling him for sexual intercourse is evidence of permission and the validity of the marriage, so the manifest situation is with him. Is the woman asked to swear an oath if we say that the statement is hers? The judge said: the analogy of the school is that there is no oath upon her, just as if he claimed she was his wife (34) and she denied it. This is also the position of Abu Hanifah. Al-Shafi'i, Abu Yusuf, and Muhammad said: she is asked to swear an oath. If she refuses, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad said: the marriage is established. Al-Shafi'i said: the husband is asked to swear an oath, and the marriage is established. Our evidence is that it is a disagreement over marriage, so it is not established by refusal (nukul), nor does the claimant swear an oath with it, just as if the husband claimed the original marriage and she denied it, for if