points to the fact that he remains in a state of Ila'. He said: If he has intercourse after he regains his sanity, the expiation is incumbent upon him because his first act of intercourse did not result in a breach of the oath. If his oath remains, the state of Ila' remains, just as if he had not had intercourse. This is the view of al-Muzani. It is appropriate that the duration of Ila' should be restarted for him from the moment he has intercourse, because he should not be demanded to provide restitution while he has already fulfilled it, nor should divorce be enacted upon him, due to the negation of [the necessity of restitution] while it exists. However, a duration is set for him because of the persistence of the ruling of his oath. It is said: The duration is set for him once he regains his sanity, because he is, at that point, prevented from intercourse by the ruling of his oath. Those who hold the first view say: He has already fulfilled her right, so the state of Ila' does not remain, just as if he had broken the oath. It is not impossible for the state of Ila' to be negated while the oath remains, just as if he swore not to have intercourse with a non-mahram woman, then married her.

Section: If a sane person has intercourse while forgetting his oath, does he break it? There are two narrations. If we say he breaks it, his Ila' is dissolved and his oath is gone. If we say he does not break it, is his Ila' dissolved? There are two views, by analogy to the insane person. The same applies to when he performs Ila' against one of his two wives, then finds her on his bed, thinks she is the other, and has intercourse with her; this is because he is ignorant of her, and the ignorant person is like the forgetful person regarding the breach of oath. Likewise, if he thinks she is a non-mahram, but she turns out to be his wife. If she introduces his penis into herself while he is asleep, he does not break the oath, because he did not perform what he swore against, and because the pen is lifted from him. Does he exit the ruling of Ila'? There are two possibilities: one is that he exits it, because the woman reached her right, so it is like the case where he had intercourse. The second is that he does not exit the ruling of Ila', because he has not fulfilled her right, and he remains abstaining from intercourse by the ruling of the oath, so he is still an "muli" (one performing Ila'), just as if this had not been done to him. The ruling is the same if he has intercourse while asleep, because he does not break his oath thereby.

Section: If he has intercourse with her in a forbidden manner, such as having intercourse while she is menstruating, or experiencing post-natal bleeding, or in a state of Ihram, or while she is observing a mandatory fast, or if he is in a state of Ihram, fasting, or performing Zihar, he breaks his oath and exits the state of Ila'. This is the school of al-Shafi'i. Abu Bakr said: The analogy of the school is that he does not exit the state of Ila', because this is intercourse for which he is not commanded in terms of restitution, so he does not exit the state of Ila' by it, like intercourse in the anus. This is not correct; because his oath has been dissolved, and he no longer remains abstaining from intercourse by the ruling of the oath, so the state of Ila' does not remain, just as if he had made expiation for his oath, or as if he had had intercourse with her while she was ill. Ahmad has stated, regarding someone who swore an oath and then made expiation for it, that he does not remain an muli, due to the lack of the ruling of the oath, even though he had not fulfilled her right; so it is even more appropriate for it to cease with the cessation of the oath due to his breach of it.