The ila' [returns]. If the one who swore the ila' was a slave, and his wife bought him, then emancipated him, and married him, the ila' returns. If the wife became separated through apostasy, or through one of them embracing Islam, or otherwise, and then he married her with a new marriage, the ila' returns, and the period is resumed in all of that, regardless of whether she returned to him after a second husband or before him; because the oath was from him while in a state of marriage, so its ruling remains as long as the marriage exists. Likewise, if he said to his wife: "If you enter the house, then by Allah, I will not have intercourse with you," then he divorced her, then she married someone else, then the first [husband] married her, the ruling of the ila' returns; because the condition stipulated while in the state of marriage does not dissolve with the cessation of the marriage. If she enters the house while she is in a state of irrevocability, and he then returns and marries her, the ruling of the ila' does not hold in his regard; because the condition was met while she was a stranger, and an ila' is not contracted by swearing an oath regarding a stranger, unlike when she enters while she is his wife.

1308 - Issue; He said: (And if he swore an oath of ila' regarding her, and they disagreed regarding the passage of the four months, his statement is accepted regarding the fact that they have not passed, along with his oath.)

It is so because the disagreement regarding the passage of the period is based upon the disagreement regarding the time of his oath; for if they agreed upon the time of the oath, it would be calculated from that time, and it would be known whether the period had expired or not, and the disagreement would vanish. As for if they disagree regarding the time of the oath, and he says: "I swore on the first of Ramadan," and she says: "Rather, you swore on the first of Sha'ban," then his statement is accepted; because it originated from him, and he is more knowledgeable about it. Thus, his statement is accepted, as if they disagreed regarding the origin of the ila', and because the base principle is the non-existence of the oath on the first of Sha'ban, so his statement denying it is in accordance with the base principle. Al-Khiraqi said: This is to be with his oath. This is the school of al-Shafi'i. Abu Bakr held the view that he does not have to take an oath. Al-Qadi said: This is more correct; because it is a disagreement regarding the rulings of marriage, so an oath is not legislated for it, as if he claimed the marriage of a woman and she denied it.