What is the ruling regarding acceptance of the Muuli's claim of prior intercourse if the wife disputes it when she is a previously married woman (Thayyib)?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of the Oath of Abstention (Ila')
Primary text
If the wife was previously married (Thayyib) and disputes the claim of prior intercourse while the husband claims it, the husband's statement is accepted if he takes an oath. This is the position of Al-Shafi'i because the default is the continuation of the marriage, and the wife claims something that necessitates its removal, whereas he claims something that confirms the default. This is accepted because the matter is private and known only through him, similar to a woman's claim regarding her menstruation. An oath is required of him because the wife's claim is plausible.
Supporting text
A narration from Ahmad, reported by Al-Athram, states that no oath is required of him because judgment is not passed based on his refusal to swear (Nukul). Al-Kharqi's apparent view is that no oath is required here, based on his statement in the chapter on impotence that if female witnesses testify to her prior marriage, the matter is postponed for a year without mentioning an oath, as the evidence supports her claim.