the 'idda with three months, because the 'idda is not combined from two types, and since its completion by menstrual cycles has become impossible, it is necessary to complete it with months. If pregnancy from the husband becomes apparent, the ruling of what has passed is dropped, and we ascertain that the blood she saw was not menstruation; because a pregnant woman does not menstruate. If she menstruated for three cycles, then pregnancy became apparent to her in less than six months since the third menstruation ended, we ascertain that the blood was not menstruation; because she was pregnant while seeing the blood, and a pregnant woman does not menstruate. If she menstruated for three cycles, then pregnancy became apparent to her, which could have occurred after the completion of the 'idda—in that she delivers it in six months from when she finished her 'idda—then the child is not attributed to the husband, we rule the observance of 'idda to be valid, and this child was a new occurrence. If she delivers it in less than that, we ascertain that the blood was not menstruation; because it is not permissible for it to exist during the period of pregnancy.

Section: And if the woman observing 'idda becomes suspicious—which means she sees signs of pregnancy, such as movement or bloating and the like—and doubts whether it is a pregnancy or not, then it cannot be without three states: One of them is that the suspicion occurs to her before the completion of her 'idda. In this case, she remains under the ruling of observing 'idda until the suspicion is dispelled. If it becomes clear that it is a pregnancy, her 'idda is completed by her delivery. If it is dispelled and it becomes clear that it is not a pregnancy, we ascertain that her 'idda was completed by the menstrual cycles or the months. If she is married before the suspicion is dispelled, the marriage is void; because she married while she was under the ruling of women observing 'idda in appearance. It is possible that if the absence of pregnancy is clarified, the marriage is valid; because we have clarified that she married after the completion of her 'idda. The second state is that the suspicion becomes apparent after the completion of her 'idda and her marriage; in this case, the marriage is valid; because it occurred after the apparent completion of the 'idda, and the pregnancy coupled with suspicion is doubtful, so that which was ruled to be valid is not removed by it. However, it is not permissible for her husband to have intercourse with her; because we have doubted the validity of the marriage, and because it is not permissible for one who believes in Allah and the Last Day to irrigate the cultivation of another. Then we look: if she delivers the child in less than six months since the second husband married her and had intercourse with her, his marriage is void; because he married her while she was pregnant. If she delivers it after more than that, the child is attributed to him, and his marriage is valid. The third state is that the suspicion becomes apparent after the completion of the 'idda and before the marriage. There are two views regarding this: One of them is that it is not permissible for her to marry, and if she marries, the marriage is void; because she is marrying while there is doubt regarding the completion of the 'idda, so it is not valid, just as if the suspicion were found during the 'idda. And because if we were to validate the marriage, it would remain suspended, and it is not permissible for a marriage to be suspended. For this reason, if a man embraces Islam and his wife remains in polytheism, it is not permissible for him to marry her sister; because his marriage to her would be suspended upon the Islam of the first. The second view is that the marriage is permissible for her and is valid; because we have ruled upon the completion of the 'idda, the permissibility of marriage, and the cessation of maintenance and housing, so that which has been ruled upon cannot be removed by an emergent doubt. For this reason, a judge does not overturn what he has ruled upon due to a change in his ijtihad or the retraction of witnesses.