In summary, it is not permissible by consensus for a woman in her waiting period (iddah) to marry, regardless of which type of waiting period it is, due to the Almighty's saying: "And do not determine the marriage contract until the prescribed term reaches its end" (1). Furthermore, the waiting period was only established to ascertain the innocence of the womb, so that it does not lead to the mixing of fluids and the commingling of lineages. If she does marry, the marriage is void because she is prohibited from marriage for the right of the first husband; thus, it is a void marriage, just as if she married while she was still under his marriage contract. It is mandatory that separation occurs between them. If he has not consummated with her, the waiting period remains as it was and is not interrupted by the second contract, because it is void, the woman does not become a "bed" (firaq) through it, and nothing is owed based on that contract. Her lodging and maintenance from the first husband fall away because she has become rebellious (nashiz). If he has had intercourse with her, the waiting period is interrupted, whether he knew of the prohibition or was ignorant of it. Abu Hanifa said: It is not interrupted, because the fact that she is a "bed" for someone other than the one for whom she is observing the waiting period does not prevent it, just as if she were had intercourse with by ambiguity while she was a wife; she observes the waiting period even though she is a "bed" for the husband. Al-Shafi'i said (5): If he has intercourse with her while knowing that she is in a waiting period and that it is prohibited, he is an adulterer, so the waiting period is not interrupted by his intercourse, because she does not become a "bed" through it [and no lineage is affiliated with him. If he was ignorant that she was in a waiting period or of the prohibition, the waiting period is interrupted by the intercourse, because she becomes a "bed" through it] (7). The waiting period is intended for exoneration, and her being a "bed" contradicts that, so it must be interrupted; as for his approaching her, it is not permissible. Our argument is that this is intercourse by ambiguity of marriage, so the waiting period is interrupted by it, just as if he were ignorant. Regarding their statement that she does not become a "bed" through it, we say: However, the lineage of the child resulting from his intercourse is not affiliated with the first husband; they are two separate matters. Once this is established, he must separate from her. If he does not do so, mandatory separation between them must be enforced. If he separates from her or they are separated, it is incumbent upon her