Is there a difference in ruling regarding *Khulwah* (seclusion with a woman) when there is an impediment to intercourse versus when there is none?

Primary text

There is no distinction concerning the ruling based on whether the seclusion occurs with an impediment to consummation or without one. The impediment can be real (such as castration, impotence, rupture, or closure) or legal (such as fasting, entering the state of Ihram, menstruation, postpartum bleeding, or *Zihar*). This is because the ruling in this context is tied to the seclusion itself, which is considered a strong presumption (*madhannah*) of physical contact, rather than the actual occurrence of the contact. Evidence for this principle is that if a man secludes with a woman and she gives birth within the duration of a pregnancy, paternity is established for him even if no actual intercourse occurred.