is absent from the subsidiary case, while the former joins the two because the effective cause establishing the ruling is present in the subsidiary case. These matters are discussed at length elsewhere (1).

[A Chapter on the Rāfidī’s discussion of reprehensible juristic positions that he alleges Ahl al-Sunnah hold, and the response to him]

Chapter. (2)

The Rāfidī (3) said: “As a result, they adopted reprehensible positions, such as declaring it lawful for a man to marry his daughter begotten through illicit intercourse; holding that the prescribed penalty does not apply to anyone who has intercourse with his mother, sister, or daughter (4), despite knowing both that this is forbidden and that she is his relative, provided that he concludes a marriage contract while knowing it to be invalid; nor to anyone who wraps a piece of cloth around his penis and commits fornication with his mother or daughter (5); nor to one who commits sodomy, even though it is more obscene and abhorrent than fornication; and attributing the child of a woman in the East to a man in the West. Thus, if (6) a man gave his daughter—while she was in the East—in marriage to a man who was in the West with her father, and the two men never parted from each other by night or day (7) until a period of (8) six months had elapsed, whereupon the daughter gave birth in the East (9), the child would be attributed to the man (10) while he and her father (11) were in the West,