The original state is the continuation of the marriage. The second view is that the word is her word, because the original state is the non-conversion of the second [spouse]. The second issue: She says, "I embraced Islam before you, so I am entitled to the maintenance of the waiting period." He says, "I embraced Islam before you, so you have no maintenance." The word is the word of the woman, because the original state is the obligation of maintenance, and he is claiming its forfeiture. If he says, "You embraced Islam two months after my conversion, so you have no maintenance for those two months," and she says, "[It was] after one month," the word is his word, because the original state is the non-conversion of her in the second month. As for if he claims something that annuls the marriage and she denies it, the marriage is annulled, because he is confessing against himself the termination of his marriage and the loss of his right, so it is similar to what if he claimed that she was his foster sister, and she denied his claim.

Section: And it is the same in what we have mentioned whether the two domains (darayn) agree or differ. Malik, al-Awza'i, al-Layth, and al-Shafi'i also held this view. Abu Hanifa said: If one of them embraces Islam while they are in the Abode of War (Dar al-Harb), and [that person] enters the Abode of Islam, the marriage is annulled. And if a combatant marries a female combatant, then enters the Abode of Islam and secures a covenant (dhimma), his marriage is annulled due to the difference between the two domains. His school of thought implies that if one of the two spouses who are protected subjects (dhimmi) enters the Abode of War, breaching the covenant, his marriage is annulled, because the domain has differed for both of them in action and legal status, so it is necessary that separation occurs between them, just as if she embraced Islam in the Abode of Islam before consummation. Our evidence is that Abu Sufyan embraced Islam at Marr al-Zahran, while his wife remained in Mecca and did not embrace Islam, and it was an Abode of War. Also, Umm Hakim embraced Islam in Mecca, and her husband, Ikrima, fled to Yemen. The wife of Safwan ibn Umayya embraced Islam on the day of the Conquest, and her husband fled; then they [all] embraced Islam and were allowed to remain in their marriages despite the difference in religion and domain. Furthermore, it is a contract of exchange, so it is not annulled by the difference of domain, like a sale. It differs from the situation before consummation, for that which cuts off the marriage is the difference of religion—which is an impediment to remaining in the marriage—not what they have mentioned. Based on this, if a Muslim residing in the Abode of Islam marries a combatant woman from the People of the Book, his marriage is valid, whereas according to them, it is not. Our evidence is the generality of the words of the Almighty: "And [lawful to you in marriage are] chaste women from those who were given the Scripture before you" (38). Additionally, because she is a woman whose marriage is permissible if she were in the Abode of Islam, it is [therefore] permitted to marry her in the Abode of War, just like a Muslim woman.