Islamic Fiqh > Marriage and family > Ila (the abstinence oath) > The ila of the non-Muslim
Contents
Updated on 25 September 2026 at 3:23 PM
This part belongs to the full chapter: See all parts.
The ila is the oath by which a husband forgoes intercourse with his wife. The Quran allots it a term of four months, at the end of which the wife demands either the return (fay') or divorce. The sheets below present the positions of the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali schools on the oath's validity, its duration, the return, the expiation, the resulting divorce, the persons concerned and the forms of the oath.
"For those who swear abstinence from their wives is a waiting period of four months. If they return, then Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."
Surah Al-Baqarah, 226
The jurists debated whether the disbeliever's ila is valid, and whether, once he embraces Islam, he remains bound by the separation and owes the expiation if he breaks the oath.
The majority of jurists, namely the Hanafis (with detail among them), the Shafi'is, the Hanbalis and the Malikis in one opinion, hold the disbeliever's ila valid like the Muslim's, by the generality of Allah's words, "those who swear abstinence from their wives" (Surah Al-Baqarah, 226), which covers without restriction; and whoever's divorce or oath is valid before the ruler has a valid ila like the Muslim (al-Ifsah, 2/185-186; al-Bayan, 10/274; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 5/17).
The Hanafis specify: the dhimmi who swears by manumission or divorce not to approach her is mu'il by consensus. If he swears by charity or pilgrimage, he is not mu'il by consensus. If he swears by Allah or by one of His attributes, he is mu'il according to Abu Hanifa, for example: "By Allah, I will not approach you"; if he approaches her, no expiation is due from him in the rulings of this world. The point of counting him mu'il: if the term passes without return, she is separated by divorce. Abu Yusuf and Muhammad hold that swearing by Allah or by one of His attributes does not make him mu'il.
Abu Bakr al-Jassas argues: the ila's ruling attaches only to what binds a right that requires punishing the perjury; the dhimmi's ila by manumission and divorce is therefore valid, for it binds him as it binds the Muslim. But charity, fasting and pilgrimage do not bind him if he breaks the oath: the disbeliever has no nearness to seek, and zakat and obligatory charities are not imposed on him in the rulings of this world. As for the oath by Allah, Abu Hanifa makes him mu'il even though no expiation is due, for the ruling of Allah's name attaches to the disbeliever as to the Muslim, just as Allah's name pronounced over the slaughtered animal renders its meat lawful, while the name of Christ does not (Ahkam al-Qur'an, 2/54; Tuhfat al-Fuqaha, 2/209; Sharh Fath al-Qadir, 4/189; al-Bahr al-Ra'iq, 4/66; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, 3/422-423).
Ibn Qudama relates that the dhimmi's ila is valid and binds him like the Muslim's, if they appeal to us, the view of Abu Hanifa, al-Shafi'i and Abu Thawr; if he converts, his ila's ruling is not interrupted. Malik said: if he converts, the ruling of his oath lapses. Abu Yusuf and Muhammad: if he swears by Allah he is not mu'il, for he commits no perjury by having relations, not being bound by obligations; if the oath is by divorce or manumission, he is mu'il, for his divorce and manumission are valid (al-Mughni, 7/425; al-Kafi, 3/238).
The Malikis, in the madhhab, hold the disbeliever's ila invalid in his disbelief, whether he persists in disbelief or converts after the term: whoever abstains in disbelief then converts is not bound, by "Say to those who disbelieve that if they desist, what has passed will be forgiven them" (Surah Al-Anfal, 38), by the Prophet's word "Islam wipes out what came before", by his being of those whose manumission by oath is invalid, like the insane, and by their marriage being corrupt in our view: consummation in a corrupt marriage grants him no right, so no suspension is owed on his account.
The Mudawwana relates (I say): the dhimmi who swears by manumission, divorce, by Allah or by charity not to approach his wife, then converts: is he mu'il? Malik replied: no; when he converts all of that falls away from him; do you not see that his divorce does not bind him? So too his ila, for the ila drags divorce with it (al-Mudawwana al-Kubra, 6/105; Ahkam al-Qur'an, 1/248; al-Ishraf, 3/474, no. 1292; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 3/125; Hashiyat al-Dasuqi, 3/344).
Al-Dasuqi relates that al-Shafi'i held the disbeliever's ila concluded by the generality of the verse, the connecting particle carrying the generality. It is objected by "If they return, then Allah is Forgiving and Merciful" (Surah Al-Baqarah, 226), for the disbeliever obtains neither forgiveness nor mercy by the return; it may be answered that he is punished for disbelief and for disobedience, so why should the forgiveness of the sin by the return be impossible for him? (Hashiyat al-Dasuqi, 3/344).
The husband who swears not to have relations with his wife either fixes a duration or swears absolutely. The fixed duration is: less than four months, more than four months, or exactly four months.
Less than four months: the jurists of the four schools agree: he is not mu'il, only a swearer. If he has relations before the sworn term, he owes only the oath's expiation. The mu'il is one who cannot return to his wife's bed during the term except by discharging an obligation; swearing less than four months, he returns after the term owing nothing, like one who abstains without an oath, the verse fixing four months as the waiting period (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 3/171-172; al-Mughni, 7/415-416).
Ibn Abbas said: "The ila of the people of the Jahiliyya lasted a year, two years or more. Allah set four months for them. Whoever's ila is less than four months is not a mu'il."
Ibn Hubayra relates their agreement: swearing by Allah not to approach his wife for more than four months, he is mu'il; swearing less than four months, the ila's ruling does not attach. Ibn al-Humam: such is the view of the four imams and most scholars. Ibn al-Qayyim: whoever swears to abstain less than four months is not mu'il, the majority's view, with an anomalous opinion making him mu'il. Al-Kasani: such is the view of most scholars and most of the Companions (Sharh Fath al-Qadir, 4/197; Zad al-Ma'ad, 5/345; al-Ifsah, 2/182).
Some scholars hold the ila's duration unquantified, the little equaling the much, to the point that swearing not to approach her for a day or an hour would make him mu'il even if he leaves her after four months; related from Ibn Mas'ud, while Ibn Abbas held the ila "forever". They are answered by the report from Anas ibn Malik: the Messenger of Allah abstained from his wives for a month; on the twenty-ninth day he lifted the abstention; he was told, you abstained for a month, O Messenger of Allah; he said: "The month is twenty-nine days"; and by the Book's silence over any duration, the abstention having been stated without restriction.
The former reply: the verse, "those who swear abstinence from their wives is a waiting period of four months", fixes a determined term for the ruling of divorce; swearing less does not amount to ila, for the ila is a divorce suspended on perseverance in abstinence for four months or more, not a divorce without that. The ila is the oath that prevents relations for fear of perjury; after a day or a month he may approach her without perjury, so no ila. As for the hadith, whoever swears not to visit his wife for a day, a month or a year is not mu'il in the ruling of divorce, for that does not prevent relations; and Abdallah ibn Abbas's words "the ila forever" are reconciled: the ila stated without a duration holds forever even without mention of eternity, which we hold; the other reading making eternity a condition of validity (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 3/171-172; Mukhtasar Ikhtilaf al-Ulama', 2/473-474; Ahkam al-Qur'an, 2/46; al-Mughni, 7/415-416).
The proof concludes with the account of Omar: passing one night in a spot of Medina, he heard a woman complain: "This night has grown long and its side has turned, with no companion beside me to while away the hours"; in another version: "Does not this night grow long and its side grow heavy; sleepless I lie, with no companion at play. By Allah, were it not for Allah, no lord besides Him, I would have shaken the sides of this bed. Fear of my Lord and modesty suffice me, and I honor my husband, that his station be preserved." He questioned her: her husband had gone to jihad. The next day he asked the women how long a wife endures away from her husband; they said: two months, her patience wanes in the third and is spent by the fourth. Omar therefore set four months: whenever a man stayed four months on campaign he returned home, another taking his place; he wrote to the army commanders that a man not be held away from his wife more than four months, and summoned the woman's husband, saying: "Return to your bed before its sides move."
Conclusion: swearing less than four months and having no relations during the term, nothing weighs on him by the majority, and no demand presses after the term; with the Hanafis no separation is pronounced against him (Mukhtasar Ikhtilaf al-Ulama', 2/473-474; al-Hawi al-Kabir, 10/340; al-Mughni, 7/415-416).
The jurists of the four schools and others agree: the husband who swears not to have relations with his wife for more than four months is mu'il, by "those who swear abstinence from their wives is a waiting period of four months" (Surah Al-Baqarah, 226). If he has relations during the term, he expiates his oath; if he does not approach until it expires, she is separated from him: with the Hanafis by divorce at the end of the term; with the majority he is given the choice between the return, that is intercourse, or divorce, as will be set out in detail (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 3/171-172; al-Mughni, 7/415-416).
The jurists of the four schools differ over the husband who swears not to approach his wife for exactly four months: does he become mu'il or not?
The majority of jurists, namely the Malikis in the famous view, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis in the madhhab, do not count him mu'il: the ila is valid only sworn beyond four months. It is a bare oath: if he has relations during it he commits perjury and owes the expiation; if he does not approach until the term, nothing weighs on him, like any oath.
Allah granted the mu'il a full four-month respite that the wife cannot interrupt, as the creditor of a deferred debt cannot demand before its due date. At the end of the four months, the ila's term, she may claim her right to intercourse before the authority: the husband is held in suspense; if he returns he has relations and expiates, and she remains his wife; otherwise divorce is imposed on him. Once the four months pass, the demand alone is valid; below that, no demand arises without an ila.
The Hanafis, Abd al-Malik ibn al-Majishun among the Malikis (Hashiyat al-Dasuqi, 3/346), and the Hanbalis in one version, count him mu'il for four months and beyond: he bars himself from her bed by oath for four full months, as if he had sworn more. Once the term passes without return she is divorced automatically at its end, by a single irrevocable divorce, and she may even demand it before the four months: he wronged her by withholding her right, so the Law punishes him by the loss of the marriage's grace at the end of that term (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 3/171-172; al-Mughni, 7/415-416).
If he has relations during the four months he commits perjury in his oath, the expiation is due and the ila falls, the oath ending through its violation (al-Mughni, 7/415-416).
Ibn al-Arabi relates two opinions of the scholars on the ila's duration: the more widespread sees in the four months a full respite for the husband, with no contest against him during the term; beyond it the ruling applies and the term is counted to him, his state being weighed at its end.
Other scholars make even a four-month oath the trigger of the ruling. The verse's apparent sense concerns him who abstains more than four months: the verse admits only three readings, the waiting period of him who abstained more than four months, of him who abstained exactly four months, or less than four months. The third is false outright, the first is intended outright, the second tolerates the sense only remotely, the default being no ruling without proof. To the husband who objects, "I swore a term that is mine, no contest against me", there is no answer (Ahkam al-Qur'an of Ibn al-Arabi, 1/245).
The jurists of the four schools agree: whoever swears "By Allah, I will not approach you" without a duration, or deliberates it in his heart, or says "By Allah, never will I approach you" or "never will I have you", is mu'il: like the mu'il of more than four months by the majority (Malikis, Shafi'is, Hanbalis), like the four-month mu'il with the Hanafis. If he has relations during the four months he has committed perjury and expiates; otherwise, with the Hanafis she is separated from him by an irrevocable divorce at the end of the four months; with the majority he is held in suspense after the four months until she demands the return, then chooses between the return, that is resuming and intercourse, or divorce (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 3/162; Fatawa al-Saghdi, 1/369; Hidayah, 2/11; al-Mughni, 7/415-416; Kashshaf al-Qina', 5/410).
The Hanafis specify: sworn "forever", "By Allah, never will I approach you", the oath persists after the separation. If he returns to her by marrying her again after the separation that occurred at the ila's end, the ila returns: the loss of right over her does not void the oath; yet the divorce does not repeat before the new marriage, the right no longer wronged after the separation. If he approaches her: perjury, expiation, the ila lapses, for it lifts by the perjury. If he does not approach her, a second divorce falls at the end of four more months, his right over her having been re-established by the new marriage; and so on with each new union; but if she marries another then returns to him by a new marriage, no divorce occurs through the ila, the divorce of that right having lapsed with the possibility, the oath remaining for want of perjury, and his intercourse counting as expiation (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 3/162; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, 3/427-428).
Ibn Qudama poses the case: if he abstains from her until he divorces her, her idda ends, then he marries her while more than four months of the ila's term remain, she is held in suspense as described. The rule: the wife's separation cuts the ila's term beyond dispute, by rescission, triple divorce, khul' or the completion of the revocable divorce's idda, she becoming a stranger, nothing of her marriage's rulings remaining. If he returns by marrying her, the ila's ruling resumes from the marriage and the term then is suspended: if four months or less remain of his oath, no ila ruling is established, the waiting being four months; if more remains, four months of waiting run, then the demand: the return or the divorce, and if he does not divorce, the ruler divorces her from him, Malik's view (al-Mughni, 7/439).
Abu Hanifa: if the divorce was fewer than three and he marries her after the idda, the ila returns; if he exhausted the count of divorces it does not return, the first marriage's ruling having ceased entirely, his ila resembling that toward a stranger. Al-Shafi'i's companions relate three views from him: two according to the two schools, and a third denying any return of the ila's ruling, Ibn al-Mundhir's view, she having become such that his ila of her would no longer be valid, like the thrice-divorced (al-Mughni, 7/439).
The jurists of the four schools, save an early Shafi'i view, agree: the husband who abstains from his wife swearing four months or more, then has relations with her during that term, has committed perjury in his oath, the ila is dissolved and the oath's expiation becomes obligatory on him, by the Prophet's word:
Whoever swears an oath then sees better than it, let him do what is better and expiate his oath.Reported by Muslim (1650)
Nothing further is demanded of him: he has restored her right, so no demand arises after the waiting term ends. With the Hanafis no divorce falls at the end of the four months; with the majority no suspense follows the term, for he had relations during the term and oath and ila vanished together, he being no longer barred from his wife by oath, like one who swore with an exception. If the expiation precedes the four months, the ila dissolves at the moment of expiation and he is like one who swore less than four months; if it comes after the four months but before the suspense, he is like one who swore more whose term expired before the suspense (Hidayah, 2/12; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 3/133; al-Mughni, 7/418; Kashshaf al-Qina', 5/417).
The Hanafis, with Abd al-Malik ibn al-Majishun among the Malikis, hold that the man abstinent four months or more without return during the term has his wife divorced at the term's end, without return, in punishment of his wrong and as mercy toward her, to free her from his bonds so she may find another husband who restores her right: by the oath he resolved with emphasis to deprive himself of restoring her right, and when the term passed without return though able, he fulfilled the sworn resolve in deed, the wrong against her being confirmed (Hashiyat al-Dasuqi, 3/346).
This is related from a group of Companions: Abdallah ibn Mas'ud and Zayd ibn Thabit said: "When four months pass without his returning, she is divorced at their end." The verse itself shows it in three ways: Ibn Mas'ud read "If they return to them", the return's being tied to the term proving the return is due only within it, a reading followed as a solitary report; Allah fixed four months, any later return exceeding the text's term, which is impossible; lastly the return within the term has its place there, proving it does not after (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 3/176-177).
They add: the term is a set span for the separation that follows it, like the idda or the term of a deferred divorce, "when four months pass you are divorced"; the ila being an accelerated divorce in the Jahiliyya, the Law made it a deferred divorce that takes effect by the term's passing without any new act, like "you are divorced at the month's start"; and "if they resolve on divorce" (Surah Al-Baqarah, 227) names the refusal of return within the term "resolve of divorce", Allah announcing that He hears the ila.
The majority of jurists, Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis, hold instead that the wife of one abstinent beyond four months is not separated automatically: after the term he is held in suspense as soon as she demands, if he has no excuse, between two obligations:
So long as the four months have not passed and she has not demanded, nothing is ordered the husband, and her right does not lapse by delay. She cannot demand of him return or divorce during the waiting term. At its end he is told: "Either you return, that is, have relations, or you divorce"; if he refuses the return and persists, the ruler pronounces the divorce on his behalf, standing in for the recalcitrant, this right admitting delegation like the payment of his debt.
Ibn Umar related: "When four months pass, he is suspended until he divorces; the divorce does not take effect on him until he divorces," that is, the mu'il, an authentic report related by Bukhari (5291). The same is related from Uthman, Ali, Aisha and twelve of the Prophet's Companions, Abu al-Darda's report being judged weak; and Sulayman ibn Yasar said: "I met some twenty of the Prophet's Companions, all of them holding the mu'il in suspense" (al-Shafi'i's al-Musnad, 1/314; Sahih al-Bukhari, 5291; Sa'id ibn Mansur, 1/250, no. 1879).
The majority draw from the verse several proofs: the term is granted to the spouses, not imposed against them, so the demand comes only after, like a debt's due date; "If they return" follows the term by a particle of sequence, as "Divorce is twice. Then either a retention with kindness or a release with grace" (Surah Al-Baqarah, 229) follows the divorce directly; "if they resolve on divorce" makes the resolve the spouses' act, not the passing of time, resolve being an act as in "do not conclude the marriage contract until the prescribed term is reached" (Surah Al-Baqarah, 235); the choice between two obligations occurs only in one state, like the expiations; both acts must lie within the husband's power, the passing of time not being so; the divorce must be a word that is heard, hence the closing "Hearing"; the creditor with a term demands only after it; and lastly Allah granted them one thing, the waiting, and imposed two on them, the return or the divorce, where the Hanafi school imposes on them only the return, the divorce issuing from Allah at the term's end, against the text's apparent meaning (al-Ishraf, 3/464-465; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 3/133-134; al-Mughni, 7/428; Zad al-Ma'ad, 5/347-350).
To this is added: the oath by Allah obliges the expiation, so divorce does not take effect through it like other oaths; the duration is a term fixed by the Law that separation does not precede, like the term of the inna; the ila is neither explicit nor allusive formula of divorce; and it had the force of divorce in the Jahiliyya then was abrogated, like the zhihar, carrying out an abrogated ruling being impossible. Al-Shafi'i said: "The parties of the Jahiliyya swore by three things: divorce, the zhihar and the ila. Allah transferred the ila and the zhihar from the immediate separation they imposed on the wife to the regime established by the Law, and left divorce as it was." Divorce occurs only by explicit formula or allusion, and the ila is neither; the li'an causes a rescission, not a divorce, rescission occurring without a word (al-Ishraf, 3/464-465; Rawdat al-Talibin, 5/569-570; al-Mughni, 7/428).
Ibn Mas'ud's reading proves at most that return during the waiting term is permitted, not that demand within it is due, which is true and not denied; and the argument "permitted return within the term proves demand within it" is refuted by the deferred debt: the four months are the span of patience, the demand coming only at their end, at once or deferred, like every right tied to a term, no exceeding of the term resulting (al-Ishraf, 3/464-465; al-Mughni, 7/428).
The Hanbalis add: if the wife waives the demand after it has become due, her right lapses, she having accepted the loss of her right to rescission for want of intercourse, like the inna's wife accepting deprivation; but if she delayed then demands, she is entitled, her right standing in laxity, like the right to maintenance (al-Mughni, 7/430-431; al-Mubdi', 8/27; al-Insaf, 9/189; Kashshaf al-Qina', 5/426).
The Malikis hold that the husband who abstains from relations without an oath intending to harm her, or whom she suffers from abstaining even without his aiming at it, is ordered to have relations; if he refuses and persists in refusing while harming her, the ruler separates him from her at once, without setting a term, whether the abstainer is present or absent; otherwise he is given a respite by the ruler's judgment so that he may desist, by "And they have rights similar to their obligations, in kindness" (Surah Al-Baqarah, 228) and "Do not retain them to harm them so that you transgress" (Surah Al-Baqarah, 231).
Malik said: "Whoever abandons his wife's bed without excuse or ila is not left alone: either he returns to her or he divorces," meaning he is censured within the ila's term and more. Malik relates that Omar ibn Abd al-Aziz wrote concerning people absent in Khurasan who had left their families, to their commanders: that they return, bring their wives, or divorce; Malik saw this as a judgment to be applied. Asbagh adds: failing divorce, divorce is pronounced on their behalf, unless the wife consents. Whoever deliberately cuts the act, or takes a medicine to extinguish women's desire, or one treating an ailment while knowing it deadens their desire, or who is in doubt, faces separation if she refuses to remain with him; but the absent traveler is not divorced so long as his absence does not exceed a year in the madhhab's sounder view, and that if her maintenance is secured, otherwise divorce is immediate for want of maintenance; one opinion sets a term of four months, failing relations the ruler separates them (al-Ishraf, 3/471, no. 1287; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 3/129; Hashiyat al-Dasuqi, 3/351; Tahrir al-Mukhtasar, 3/246-247).
Ibn Abd al-Barr: whoever abstains from his wife's bed without an oath intending harm is ordered to have relations; on his refusal and persistence in harm, they are separated without a term; it has also been said that the ila's term is set for him. It has also been said that no ila occurs in abandoning the wife even for years, but he is ordered to fear Allah by not retaining her to harm her; a deliberate long absence commands the return, and on his refusal the ruler separates them, the cause being the want of intercourse, with or without an oath, as divorce is pronounced on the mu'il, the one insolvent for maintenance, and the inna (al-Kafi, p. 282; Tafsir al-Qurtubi, 3/106).
The majority of jurists, Hanafis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis, hold that he is not mu'il by abstaining without an oath, the ila being an oath he never swore; no term is set for him with the Hanafis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis in one version, the ruling's attachment to the ila proving its absence without it (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 3/161; al-Mughni, 7/440; al-Kafi, 3/253-254).
The Hanbalis, in the more widespread of the two versions, which is the sound one, set the ila's term of four months for him: then he is called to have relations; on his refusal, the order to divorce is given him as with the mu'il: he harmed her by abstaining during the ila's term, so the same ruling is imposed as if he had sworn, and what is due when sworn is due when not sworn, like maintenance; the oath does not make obligatory what was not already obligatory, and the wife's harm does not vary with the oath or its absence. Ibn Qudama answers the objection "would no effect remain for the ila?": yes, it indicates the intent to harm, to which the ruling attaches; without the oath another proof of harm suffices, the ila serving by its indication (al-Mughni, 7/440; al-Mubdi', 8/4; al-Insaf, 9/169-170).
Ibn Rushd summarizes: the majority do not bind the ila's ruling to abstention without an oath; Malik binds it where the husband intends harm, the majority resting on the formula, Malik on the meaning, the ruling attaching to the resolve to abandon relations, sworn or not, the harm existing in both cases (Bidayat al-Mujtahid, 2/76).
The fay' is the husband's return to the conjugal life of the wife from whom he abstained, as it was before the ila. It is of two kinds: original, the return by act with capacity, that is intercourse; and substitute, the return by word when the act is impossible.
The people of knowledge agree that the return mentioned in "those who swear abstinence from their wives is a waiting period of four months. If they return, then Allah is Forgiving and Merciful" (Surah Al-Baqarah, 226) is intercourse, absent an excuse; one capable of intercourse returns only by the act, which is its origin, the true return: by it the wrong departs and the right reaches its holder; so long as he does not render her right, the ila's ruling does not fall. Ibn al-Mundhir relates the consensus of every memorized scholar: Ibn Abbas; and from Ali and Ibn Mas'ud; and Masruq, al-Sha'bi, Sa'id ibn Jubayr, Ata', al-Nakha'i, al-Thawri, al-Awza'i, al-Shafi'i, Ishaq, Abu Ubayd and the adherents of opinion: the return is intercourse, absent an excuse (al-Ishraf, 5/278; al-Ijma', p. 83, no. 424; Ibn Battal's Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, 7/445; Tafsir al-Qurtubi, 3/109; al-Mughni, 7/432). Al-Jassas confirms: the people of knowledge agree that once he can reach her, his return is only intercourse (Ahkam al-Qur'an, 2/47).
The least of the act that counts as return is the glans disappearing into the vagina, the rulings of consummation attaching to it. The return occurs only through intercourse: neither contact short of the vagina, nor the rear passage, nor a kiss out of desire, nor a touch out of desire, nor looking at her private parts out of desire counts as return; none is the object of the oath nor removes the harm, the wife's right being intercourse in the vagina, and withholding it is the wrong that only it removes (Tuhfat al-Fuqaha, 2/206; Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 3/173; al-Mughni, 7/432).
The jurists of the four schools agree: the husband who abstains from his wife while ill, traveling, imprisoned, detained, or under a lawful excuse preventing relations such as the state of consecration, if the term passes under that excuse, his return is by word: "As soon as I am able I will have relations with her", or "I have returned to you", or "I return to you", or the like. The word under excuse stands in place of the able man's act: the aim of the return is removing the harm aimed at, and he removed it by that excuse; once capacity returns, the act is owed him, failing which the order to divorce is given him, as if he had not returned by his tongue, the return by tongue being but a promise, her original right remaining without obstacle (Tuhfat al-Fuqaha, 2/206; Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 3/173; al-Mughni, 7/434-437; Hashiyat al-Dasuqi, 3/357-360).
Ibn Qudama specifies: once the term ends, absent an excuse, she may demand the return. If he asks a respite with no excuse, none is granted: it is a right pressing on him without excuse, like a due debt, Allah having fixed four months with no exceeding permitted without excuse; only the time to prepare is granted, a meal, the obligatory prayer, breaking the fast, or returning home, the aim being that he return to a state fit for intercourse as within the rulings. If the excuse preventing relations lies with the wife, she cannot demand the return, the act being impossible from her side, nor demand divorce, which is justified only by his refusal of the obligatory return; the demand is deferred to the excuse's lifting, unless it cuts the term, like menstruation, or arises after the term's end (al-Mughni, 7/430-431).