is like that of anyone else. Thus, when we know that the woman has become remorseful, and there are signs of sorrow in her and that she avoids occasions of suspicion, then we know that she has repented and she becomes lawful for marriage.

The author did not mention the adulterer as being prohibited until he repents, because our jurists—may Allah have mercy on them—hold that an adulterer may marry, even if he is an adulterer—may Allah protect us—and even if he persists in adultery! Yet it is among the oddities of legal scholarship to cite part of a text while disregarding another part. The adulteress and the adulterer are alike in the verse: “The fornicator does not marry except a fornicatress or an idolatress, and none marries her except a fornicator or an idolater.” So how can a distinction be made between them?

Let us give another example: the Prophet—may Allah’s blessings and peace be upon him—forbade a man to bathe with water left over by a woman, and a woman to bathe with water left over by a man (1). Yet they said: A man may not purify himself with water left over by a woman, whereas a woman may purify herself with it, even though the evidence is the same! Indeed, the evidence actually runs contrary to what they maintained: it is authentically reported that the Prophet—may Allah’s blessings and peace be upon him—performed ablution with water left over by Maymunah—may Allah be pleased with her. She said, “O Messenger of Allah, I am in a state of major ritual impurity.” He replied, “Water does not become impure by major ritual impurity” (2). We mention these examples only