1188 - Issue: He [al-Khiraqi] said: "And if he said: 'She knew that I was impotent before I married her.' If she confesses [to this], or it is proven by evidence, then he shall not be granted a period [for potential recovery], and she remains his wife."

The totality of this is that if the woman knows of the man's impotence at the time of the contract—such as if he informs her of his impotence, or if a period had previously been set for him while she was his wife and the marriage was annulled, and then he remarries her, and the like—then a period shall not be set for him, and she remains his wife. This is the opinion of most scholars, including 'Ata', al-Thawri, Ibn al-Qasim, and the People of Opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y). This is also the old opinion of al-Shafi'i. In his new opinion, he said: "He is granted a period; because he may be impotent in one marriage but not in another." Our evidence is that she accepted the defect and entered into the contract with knowledge of it, so no option is established for her, just as if she had known he was castrated (majbub). Furthermore, if she were to accept him after the contract or [after the period], she would not have the right to annulment, and likewise, if she accepts him at the time of the contract, just like all other defects. If she were to agree to stay with him, then he divorced her, and then took her back, she would not have the right to demand [an annulment], and it is the same in this case. As for their argument that he might be impotent in one marriage but not another, it is a remote possibility; for impotence is a natural constitution and inherent state that does not change overtly, which is why an annulment is established for her after the period. If he claims that she knew of his impotence and she denies it, her statement is accepted along with her oath, because the original state is a lack of knowledge. If she confesses, or it is proven by evidence, her marriage is established, and her option is voided.

1189 - Issue: He said: "And if she learns that he is impotent after the consummation, and she remains silent about demanding [an annulment], then demands it later, she may do so, and he shall be granted a period of one year from the day she brings the case against him."

We do not know of any disagreement regarding this. This is because her silence after the contract is not evidence of consent;