What is the ruling if the husband withdraws before completing the act, and then proceeds to insertion later, when both parties were unaware of the prohibition?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of the Oath of Abstention (Ila')
Primary text
If he withdraws and then inserts later, and both parties were ignorant of the prohibition, no *had* is imposed upon them, and the *mahr* is due to her, and lineage (*nasab*) is established.
Supporting text
If both were aware of the prohibition, the *had* is incumbent upon both, as it constitutes intercourse with a non-mahram without ambiguity, resembling the case of divorcing thrice and then having intercourse. No *mahr* is due because she consented to adultery. Lineage is not established due to adultery without ambiguity. Another view suggests no *had* because this issue is obscure to many people. The correct view, however, pertains to those who possess knowledge, as the prohibition of triple divorce is generally known.