because it is a time in which she does not possess the right to annulment, nor the right to refuse his intimacy; therefore, her silence does not constitute a waiver of her right, just as her silence after the setting of the period and before its expiration does not. If she were silent after the period, her option would also not be voided; for the option is not established except after bringing the matter to the judge and proving his incapacity, so silence before that is of no consequence.

1190 - Issue: He said: "And if she says at any time: 'I have accepted him as an impotent man,' she shall not have the right to demand [an annulment] thereafter."

The totality of the matter is that whenever she accepts him as an impotent man, her option is voided, whether she says this immediately after the contract, after the setting of the period, or after its expiration. We know of no disagreement regarding the invalidation of her option by her saying this after the expiration of the period. As for before it, al-Shafi'i said in his new opinion: Her option is not voided, because her right to annulment is only established after the expiration of the period, so it is not valid to waive it before it, like a person with a right of preemption (shafee') who waives his right before the sale. Our evidence is that she accepted the defect after the contract, so her option is dropped, just as with all other defects, and as it is after the expiration of the period. What they mentioned is not correct, for the impotence which is the cause of the annulment is present, and the period is only for the purpose of knowing its existence and verifying her knowledge of it; it is like evidence in other defects. It differs from the right of preemption, for the cause of that is the sale, which has not yet occurred. If it is said: 'If a woman accepts her husband's insolvency, then chooses annulment, she possesses that right; and if he performs ila' (oath of abstinence) against her, and she accepts staying with him, then later demands [an annulment] due to his impotence, she is entitled to that,' we reply: The difference between the two is that the obligation of maintenance is renewed every day. Thus, if she agrees to waive what is due to her in the future, it is not dropped, because she waived it before its obligation, similar to waiving the right of preemption before the sale. This is contrary to the defect. Furthermore, insolvency may be followed by solvency, so she accepts staying in the hope of that happening.