the excused [person], for restitution via intercourse is impossible in her case, so it is not possible to demand it from him; thus, he is like the majbub (one whose penis has been cut off).

Section: Ila' is valid from every husband who is mukallaf (legally competent) and capable of intercourse. As for the young boy and the insane person, their Ila' is not valid because the Pen is lifted from them, and because it is a statement which, if violated, necessitates an expiation or a right; thus, it does not take effect from them, like a vow (nadhr). As for the one who is incapable of intercourse, if it is due to an accidental cause (76) that is expected to pass, such as illness or imprisonment, his Ila' is valid, because he is capable of intercourse [in principle], and thus his abstention from it is valid (77). If it is a condition not expected to pass, such as castration or paralysis, his Ila' is not valid, because it is an oath to abandon an impossibility; thus, it does not take effect, just as if he swore not to turn stones into gold. Furthermore, Ila' is an oath that prevents intercourse, and this [case] is not prevented by his oath, as he is [already] incapable of it, and his oath does not harm the woman. Abu al-Khattab said: It is possible that his Ila' is valid by analogy to the one who is incapable due to illness or imprisonment. Al-Shafi'i has two opinions regarding this. The first is more appropriate due to what we have mentioned. As for the eunuch whose testicles have been extracted or crushed, intercourse is possible from him, and he ejaculates thin fluid, so his Ila' is valid. The same applies to the majbub who has enough of his penis remaining to make intercourse possible.

Section: The Ila' of a dhimmi (protected non-Muslim) is valid, and he is bound by what the Muslim is bound by if they seek judgment from us. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifah, al-Shafi'i, and Abu Thawr. If he becomes a Muslim, the ruling of his Ila' does not cease. Malik said: If he becomes a Muslim, the ruling of his oath lapses. Abu Yusuf and Muhammad said: If he swore by Allah, he is not a mu'li (one who performs Ila'), because he does not commit a sin (hanth) if he has intercourse, as he is not a mukallaf. However, if his oath was by divorce or manumission, he is a mu'li, because his divorce and manumission are valid. As for our position, it is the saying of Allah the Almighty: {For those who swear [an oath of Ila'] from their wives, a waiting period of four months [is expected]}. Furthermore, he is preventing himself by his oath from having intercourse with her, so he is a mu'li, like the Muslim,