and she denied it. The basis for al-Khiraqi’s view is the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "The burden of proof is upon the claimant, and the oath is upon the one who denies." Furthermore, it is a right belonging to a human being for which it is permissible to offer a demand, thus an oath is required therein, similar to debts.

Section: If he abandons intercourse without an oath, he is not considered to have committed ila'. This is because ila' is [defined by] the oath. However, if he abandons it due to an excuse such as illness, travel, or the like, no period is set for him. If he abandons it, causing her harm, is a period set for him? There are two narrations [on this]. One is that a period of four months is set for him; if he has intercourse with her [within it], then so be it, otherwise he is summoned after that to perform intercourse. If he refuses, he is ordered to divorce her, just as is done in the case of ila' exactly; because he harmed her by abandoning intercourse during the period of ila', thus its ruling applies to him, just as if he had sworn an oath. Furthermore, what is obligatory to perform when he has sworn an oath to abandon it is [also] obligatory to perform if he has not sworn an oath, such as maintenance and other obligations. This is corroborated by the fact that an oath does not make the non-obligatory obligatory if one swears to abandon it; thus, its obligation alongside the oath indicates its obligation prior to it. Also, because its obligation in ila' was only to satisfy the woman's need and remove harm from her, and her harm does not differ based on ila' or its absence, so the obligation does not differ.

If it is said: "Then ila' is left with no effect, so why have you dedicated a chapter to it?" We reply: "On the contrary, it has an effect; it indicates the intent to harm, and therefore the ruling is attached to it. Even if the intent to harm does not appear from him, its indication suffices. When the oath is absent, we need another piece of evidence that indicates harmful intent; thus, ila' is considered due to its indication of the requirement, not for the sake of the oath itself." The second [narration] is that no period is set for him. This is the school of Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i; because he is not an ila' swearer, so no period is set for him, just as if he did not intend to harm. Furthermore, linking the ruling to ila' indicates its negation in its absence, for if this ruling were established without it, it would have no effect. And Allah knows best.