the waiting period expires, unlike when he pronounces divorce himself rather than having the ruler pronounce it on his behalf on the grounds of sworn abstention [because, when he pronounces divorce himself, he thereby breaches his oath and it is dissolved; whereas, when the ruler pronounces divorce on his behalf on the grounds of sworn abstention, the oath remains binding upon him]. If he marries her again after the waiting period expires, the rules of sworn abstention apply to him once more, and she may require him to decide, since intercourse is prohibited to him while his oath remains unfulfilled. A second period of sworn abstention is set for him, and at its expiry he is required to decide: either he ends his abstention by performing that act, or he pronounces divorce. If he pronounces divorce, his oath is dissolved. If he does not, the ruler pronounces divorce on his behalf a second time on the grounds of sworn abstention, and the oath remains binding upon him. If he takes her back, his taking her back is again invalid unless he ends his abstention by performing that act. If he marries her again after the waiting period expires, the rules of sworn abstention apply to him once more, and she may require him to decide. If she does so, a period of sworn abstention is set for him. At its expiry, he is again required to decide. If he refuses either to end his abstention or to pronounce divorce, the ruler pronounces divorce on his behalf a third time on the grounds of sworn abstention. His oath is then dissolved and does not become binding upon him again, because that marital bond has ended.

This is the ruling for this category, with two exceptions: the first is when he says, “My wife is divorced if I do not divorce her”; the second is when he says, “My wife is divorced if I do not have intercourse with her.” I have set out the rulings concerning these in the Book of Oaths of Divorce.

Section

As for the second category, there are four opinions. The first is that he is prohibited from intercourse from the day he takes the oath, even though he cannot perform the act immediately. This is the apparent meaning of Ibn al-Qāsim’s statement in al-Mudawwana and of the report transmitted from him by ʿĪsā in al-ʿUtbiyya: he is told, “Enter the state of consecration and set out,” even if it is still Muharram. Someone other than Ibn al-Qāsim states in al-Mudawwana that this applies when it becomes clear that he is harming her. Ibn al-Qāsim takes a similar position concerning consideration of harm in cases of declaring one’s wife forbidden as one’s mother’s back.

The second opinion is that he is not prohibited from intercourse until he can perform the act, when the time comes to set out for Hajj. The third is that he is not prohibited from it until he fears missing Hajj. The fourth is that he is not prohibited from it until he has missed Hajj altogether.

If his wife demands intercourse at a stage when it is prohibited to him under one of these views, the prescribed period of sworn abstention is set for him. If that period is set when he takes the oath, according to the first opinion, or when he becomes able to set out, according to the second, and he sets out, reaches Hajj before the period of sworn abstention expires, and performs it, he has fulfilled his oath and ceases to be subject to the rules of sworn abstention. If he does not perform Hajj, a divorce is pronounced on his behalf on the grounds of sworn abstention