upon women. Thus, it is not permissible for a woman to be in the confinement of two men, just as in the confinement of marriage (15).

1355 - Issue: He said: "And he may marry her after the expiration of the two waiting periods."

This means that it is permissible for the second husband to marry her after the expiration (1) of the two waiting periods. As for the first husband, if his divorce was a triple divorce, she is not permissible for him by this marriage, even if he had intercourse within it, because it is an invalid marriage. If his divorce was less than three, he may also marry her after the two waiting periods. And if it was a revocable divorce (raj'iyyah), he may take her back during her waiting period from him. There is another narration from Ahmad that she becomes permanently forbidden to the second husband. This is the opinion of Malik and the earlier of the two opinions of al-Shafi'i, based on the saying of Umar: "He shall never marry her" (2). Furthermore, because he sought the right prematurely (3), he is denied it when the time arrives, like an heir who kills the person he inherits from. Additionally, because it corrupts lineage, it incurs a permanent prohibition, like li'an (imprecation). Al-Shafi'i said in the new opinion: He may marry her after the expiration (4) of the first's waiting period, and he is not prevented from marrying her during her waiting period from him, because it (5) is an act of intercourse that establishes lineage, [so it does not prevent] (6) him from marrying her during her waiting period from him, like intercourse within a marriage. Furthermore, the waiting period was only legislated to preserve lineage and safeguard the seminal fluid, and the lineage is established as his in this case; it is therefore similar to a case where he enters into a khul' (divorce initiated by the wife) with her, then marries her during her waiting period, and this is a sound (7) view consistent with legal reasoning. Our evidence for the permissibility of marrying her after the two waiting periods is that the matter is either that her prohibition (8) is due to the contract, or due to intercourse in an invalid marriage, or both, and all of that does not necessitate prohibition, as evidenced by the case if he were to marry her without a guardian and have intercourse with her, and because if he were to commit adultery with her, she would not be permanently forbidden to him; thus, this is even more deserving.