Islamic Fiqh > Marriage and family > Ila (the abstinence oath) > The expiation after the term
Contents
Updated on 25 September 2026 at 3:23 PM
This part belongs to the full chapter: See all parts.
The majority of the people of knowledge, Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi'is in the sound view and Hanbalis, hold that the husband abstinent four months or more by an oath by Allah, then having relations during the waiting term or after, has committed perjury and owes the expiation, by "Allah will hold you accountable for your sworn oaths; its expiation is feeding ten poor persons... Such is the expiation of your oaths when you swear" (Surah Al-Ma'idah, 89), "Allah has ordained for you the dissolution of your oaths" (Surah At-Tahrim, 2), and the Prophet's word, general, covering the mu'il and others:
Whoever swears an oath then sees better than it, let him do what is better and expiate his oath.Reported by Muslim (1650)
He commits perjury like one who swears to neglect an obligation then performs it; forgiveness does not negate the expiation, Allah having forgiven His Prophet what preceded and what followed of his sin, while he would say: "By Allah, I never swear an oath without seeing better than it, without doing what is better and expiating it" (reported by consensus).
If the ila suspended a manumission or a divorce, that takes effect through the same act, the condition having come to pass. If it bore on a vow, a manumission, a fast, a prayer, a charity, a pilgrimage or another act of obedience or a permissible thing, he chooses between fulfilling it and the oath's expiation, a vow of obstinacy and anger: stated by the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis (al-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 3/133; al-Mughni, 7/432; Majmu' al-Fatawa, 33/53).
The early Shafi'is, on al-Hasan's view, denied the expiation for relations after the ila's term: the verse mentions the waiting and the return without mentioning the expiation, and Allah describes Himself as Forgiving and Merciful at the return, implying that on returning no expiation burdens him. Ibn al-Mundhir relates the view of the many: the mu'il who approaches her expiates, related from Ibn Abbas and Zayd ibn Thabit, the view of al-Nakha'i, Ibn Sirin, al-Thawri, Malik, the people of Medina, al-Shafi'i, the adherents of opinion, Abu Ubayd and the majority; the dissent going back to al-Hasan al-Basri, al-Nakha'i noting that they used to say so. With the Hanafis the question of expiation after the term does not arise, the wife being divorced at the term's end, the return occurring only within the term (al-Ishraf, 5/279; al-Bayan, 10/312-314; Rawdat al-Talibin, 5/573; al-Ikhtiyar, 3/188-189).
The jurists differ over the divorce that follows the term's passing without return, and over any difference between the divorce pronounced by the husband or by the ruler.
The Hanafis, with Imam Ahmad in one version for the separation pronounced by the ruler, judge it irrevocable: the husband must court her anew in marriage so long as the count of three is not complete, the separation being meant to repel the harm, like that of the inna; a revocable divorce would leave the harm standing. It is related from Uthman, Abdallah ibn Mas'ud, Abdallah ibn Abbas and Zayd ibn Thabit: "When four months pass, it is an irrevocable divorce" (al-Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shayba, 4/127-128). And a revocable divorce leads to absurdity: the husband refusing return and divorce is brought before the ruler who divorces her from him, then takes her back, the ruler's act becoming void (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 3/177; al-Insaf, 9/189-190).
The Malikis, the Shafi'is, and the Hanbalis in the madhhab apart from the ruler's divorce, judge it revocable so long as three is not complete, whether he divorces himself or the ruler divorces on his behalf: a divorce on a wife he has consummated, without compensation or completion of the count, therefore revocable like ordinary divorce. It differs from the inna's separation, a rescission for a defect; here the return does not leave the harm standing without remedy: on taking her back a new term is set for him, and his return proves his desire and his turning from harm, unlike the inna, of whom despair may be had (al-Ishraf, 3/468, no. 1281; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 3/137; al-Mughni, 7/435-436).
The Malikis specify: the husband separated by the ruler from a wife he has consummated may take her back during the idda, on condition that the oath dissolved during the idda: through intercourse, through the expiation if the oath was by Allah, through an accelerated perjury such as a manumission or an irrevocable divorce, or through the wife's consent, the view of Ibn al-Qasim, Mutarrif and Abd al-Malik, against Sahnun who holds her return void with consent. If the oath has not dissolved by the completion of the idda through the third menstruations, his return is void, without effect, she becomes lawful for husbands, and he may court her anew by a new contract with its conditions. Al-Mawaq relates the Mudawwana: separated by the ruler though he had consummated, return by word during the idda is open to him; if he has not approached her until the first blood of the third menstruation, she is free and it is no return, save with an excuse of illness, prison or travel; if he can then have relations and does not, they are separated, the first idda having sufficed, unless he abstained while confessing it: then neither idda nor return. Ibn Rushd: the idda is owed in the ruling's outward sense, out of fear of suspicion, not between them and Allah (al-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 3/137; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 4/100; Hashiyat al-Dasuqi, 3/361; Bidayat al-Mujtahid, 2/67).
Ibn Rushd again: Malik and al-Shafi'i hold the ila's divorce revocable, every divorce of the Law being presumed revocable absent proof otherwise; Abu Hanifa and Abu Thawr judge it irrevocable, else the harm does not depart, the husband compelling her return. The disagreement opposes the interest sought by the ila to the known default of divorce: whoever favors the default says revocable; whoever favors the interest says irrevocable (Bidayat al-Mujtahid, 2/78).
Ibn Rushd lastly: does the mu'il's return require intercourse during the idda? The majority make it no condition: the return may revive the ila or not; if it revives, the term is counted from the return; if not, nothing is counted, save with those who admit an ila without an oath. Malik requires intercourse during the idda, absent an excuse of illness or the like, otherwise no return, she remains on her idda, and he has no access after: every return from divorce aims at removing a harm, its validity being judged by that harm's removal, like the return of the man insolvent for maintenance (Bidayat al-Mujtahid, 2/78).
The jurists require that the one deprived of relations by oath be his wife: the ila is valid toward every wife, Muslim or dhimmi, free or slave, by the generality of "those who swear abstinence from their wives is a waiting period of four months" (Surah Al-Baqarah, 226), each of them being a wife. The scholars then differ over certain questions.
First question: the ila toward the wife in revocable idda. The Shafi'is in one view and the Hanbalis in one version hold it invalid: divorce cuts the ila's term when it occurs, so better to bar its validity from the start (al-Bayan, 10/245; Rawdat al-Talibin, 5/541; al-Mughni, 7/424). The majority, Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi'is in the madhhab and Hanbalis in the madhhab, hold it valid: the wife in revocable idda remains a wife subject to his divorce, his zhihar, his ila and his li'an, and the spouses inherit from one another by consensus. Ibn Qudama, al-Kasani and Ibn al-Qayyim establish it; Ibn Abd al-Barr adds the right to lodging, maintenance and inheritance until the idda's end, the bar on a fifth wife, on her sister and his aunts during the idda; Ibn Muflih also relates the view of invalidity (al-Mughni, 7/400; Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 3/180; al-Kafi, 1/292; Zad al-Ma'ad, 5/453; al-Mubdi', 7/393).
On the term's starting point: the Hanafis and the Hanbalis in the madhhab count it from the oath, even within the idda, the wife in idda being lawful to him as if he had not divorced her, unlike the irrevocable, a stranger toward whom no ila is valid; if the idda ends before the four months without his taking her back, the ila lapses for want of locus (Mukhtasar Ikhtilaf al-Ulama', 2/479; Hidayah, 2/13; al-Mughni, 7/424). The Shafi'is and the Hanbalis in one view: the term runs only from the return, the wife in idda resembling the irrevocable, the divorce having cut the term, the waiting being instituted only for a time in which intercourse is lawful; likewise, if he abstains then divorces her in revocable idda, the term is cut and resumes from the return, harm arising only from continuous abstention in an intact marriage, the oath not dissolving by a revocable divorce (Rawdat al-Talibin, 5/541; al-Mughni, 7/424).
The jurists of the four schools agree: the man who says to a woman unrelated to him, "By Allah, I will not approach you", or "If I marry you, then by Allah I will not approach you, or never have relations with you", then has relations with her before or after the marriage, commits perjury and owes the expiation, without dispute: the oath is formed for perjury, which depends on conceiving the sworn act, not on its being lawful or unlawful; whoever swears "by Allah, I will drink wine today" and the day passes without drinking commits perjury, though the act is purely unlawful.
The foundation: "those who swear abstinence from their wives" (Surah Al-Baqarah, 226): she was not among his wives at the oath's time. The schools then differ over two situations (al-Mabsut, 7/30; Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 3/171; Rawdat al-Talibin, 5/541; al-Mughni, 7/423-424).
The majority, Hanafis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis, hold that he is not mu'il and that no ila term is set for him after the marriage: he was not mu'il then, so he is not later; the verse says "of their wives", and she was not; the ila is a ruling of marriage that does not precede it, like divorce and division; the term is set only for the intent to harm by oath, absent before the marriage, so he resembles the abstainer without an oath. Only the oath's expiation is due if he approaches her, before or after the marriage (al-Mabsut, 7/30; Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 3/171; al-Mughni, 7/423-424; al-Insaf, 9/181).
The Malikis, with a view among the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis, count him mu'il if more than four months remain of his oath: he is barred from his wife's bed by his oath for the ila's duration, thus mu'il, as if he had sworn on the married state. Malik said: "Whoever cannot have intercourse except by paying an expiation is mu'il" (al-Mudawwana al-Kubra, 4/184 and 6/93; al-Ishraf, 3/473, no. 1290; al-Mughni, 7/423-424). The verse not distinguishing oath before or after the union, and he being barred from her beyond four months by an oath bearing a legal ruling.
"If I marry you, then by Allah I will not approach you, or never have you", then he marries her: the Hanafis and Malikis, with a view among the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis, count him mu'il if more than four months of the oath remain, for the same reasons: barred from his wife's bed by oath beyond four months, as if he had sworn on the married state; Malik's word: "Whoever cannot have intercourse except by paying an expiation is mu'il" (al-Mudawwana al-Kubra, 4/184; al-Ishraf, 3/473, no. 1290; al-Mughni, 7/423-424; al-Insaf, 9/181).
Al-Kasani argues: "If I marry you, then by Allah I will not approach you", then he marries her: he is mu'il in our view, ownership existing at the marriage; the oath of divorce is valid on ownership or annexed to it, and here the annexation is found, so he becomes mu'il (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 3/171; al-Mabsut, 6/128). The Shafi'is and the Hanbalis in their schools deny it, no mu'il nor term after the marriage, for the same reasons as the first case: she was not his at the oath, the marriage ruling not preceded, no intent to harm before the marriage; only the oath's expiation being due if he approaches her (Rawdat al-Talibin, 5/541; al-Mughni, 7/423-424; al-Mubdi', 8/18).
Ibn Qudama: the ila is valid before consummation and after, the view of al-Nakha'i, Malik, al-Awza'i and al-Shafi'i. Ata', al-Zuhri and al-Thawri restrict it to after consummation. Our proof: the verse's generality, "those who swear abstinence from their wives is a waiting period of four months" (Surah Al-Baqarah, 226): he bars himself from relations with his wife by oath, as after consummation.
The ila is valid toward the insane woman and the young girl, but neither may demand the return, not being among those competent to demand. Toward the woman whose vagina is imperforate (ratq) or obstructed (qarna'), however, the ila is not valid: intercourse is permanently impossible there, so no oath attaches, like one swearing not to ascend to the sky (al-Mughni, 7/424; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 3/127; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 4/92).
Al-Qadi Abd al-Wahhab: the ila toward a girl too young for intercourse, for a term expiring before her puberty, carries no ruling. Abu Hanifa: the term is set at the oath's time; if he returns by word within the term, the ila's ruling falls; otherwise she is separated from him at its end. Our proof: the mu'il is the one barred from his wife's bed by oath with intent to harm; the girl not having reached the age of intercourse, the bar is impossible there, so the ila's ruling does not attach (al-Ishraf, 3/470-471, no. 1286).
The jurists differ over swearing by other than Allah: "If I touch you, my wealth is charity", "my slave is freed", "If I touch you, you are divorced, or my other wife is divorced": does he become mu'il?
The early Shafi'is and the Hanbalis in the madhhab hold the ila valid only by Allah or by one of His attributes, not by a divorce, manumissions, charity, fasting or pilgrimage: the unrestricted ila is the oath by Allah. Ubayy and Ibn Abbas read "yuqsimuna" in place of "yu'lonu"; Ibn Abbas explained it as "they swear by Allah", thus related by Ahmad; suspension on a condition is not an oath by Allah but called a covenantal oath, sharing its sense of urging an act, barring it or affirming a report. Allah grants forgiveness for the oath by Him alone, and the waiving of the expiation at the return occurs only in the oath by Allah. The Prophet said: "Whoever swears by other than Allah has associated partners," and "Allah forbids you to swear by your fathers" (reported by consensus): the unrestricted oath bearing only on Allah, by "whoever must swear, let him swear by Allah or keep silent" (an authentic hadith).
Ibn Qudama: no disagreement, the oath by other than Allah or His attributes is not an ila: it obliges no expiation nor anything preventing relations, like a bare statement. Al-Amrani: he remains a mere swearer without the ila's rulings, like "If you enter the house, you are divorced, or my slave is freed" (al-Mughni, 7/414-415; Kashshaf al-Qina', 5/409; al-Bayan, 10/275; Rawdat al-Talibin, 5/543-544).
The majority of jurists, Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi'is in the madhhab and Hanbalis in one version, hold it valid by any oath imposing a ruling or entailing harm, by the understood sense of "those who swear abstinence from their wives" (Surah Al-Baqarah, 226): the ila is an oath, the phrase covering the oath by Allah and by other than Him; and it is an oath whose perjury gives rise to a right, hence a valid ila like the oath by Allah. Suspending a divorce or manumission on intercourse is an oath: whoever says "whenever I swear your divorce, you are divorced," then "if I touch you, you are divorced," she is divorced at once (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 3/161-162; al-Ishraf, 3/467, no. 1279; al-Mughni, 7/414-415).
The Hanafis detail: the ila forms by every phrase that forms an oath: "By Allah", "by Allah the Most High", "by Allah's majesty and grandeur", as in "By Allah, I will not approach you, or not for four months". Whoever swears by a phrase that forms no oath is not mu'il: "by Allah's knowledge", "Allah's anger and displeasure upon me if I approach you". The oath by condition and compensation is valid, the oath's meaning, strength, being fully realized; by other than Allah without condition or compensation, no mu'il: neither divorce at the term's end nor expiation, for want of an oath.
The oath by condition and compensation: "if I approach you, my other wife is divorced", "this one is divorced", "my slave is freed", "you are upon me like my mother's back", "a manumission, a pilgrimage, an umra, the walk to Allah's House, an offering, a charity, a fast, a retreat are upon me": the ila being an oath, that is strength, the swearer strengthens himself by these to abstain from his wife's bed during the term, each of these weighing on nature and being customary. "If I approach you, a month's fast is upon me": mu'il if the month does not end before the four months, not otherwise. "Two rak'as" or "going on an expedition": Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf do not make him mu'il, prayer being neither burdensome nor customary; Muhammad makes him mu'il, prayer admitting a vow like fasting and pilgrimage. "An expiation is upon me" or "an oath is upon me": mu'il, the stipulation being explicit. "You are unlawful to me": intending divorce, mu'il; intending the oath, mu'il at once by Abu Hanifa, not before approaching by Abu Yusuf and Muhammad. The perjury of the oath by Allah calls for the expiation; by condition and compensation, its compensation: divorce, manumission, zhihar (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 3/166-168; Tuhfat al-Fuqaha, 2/204-209; al-Ikhtiyar, 3/187; al-Jawharah al-Nayyirah, 4/496-498).
The Malikis include the oath by Allah or by one of His attributes, as "By Allah, never will I touch you, or not for five months"; the undertaking of a manumission, a charity, a fast, a prayer, a divorce or the walk to Mecca: "If I touch you, my slave so-and-so is freed, a dinar of charity is due, the walk to Mecca is due, a month's fast, a hundred rak'as, or you are divorced"; and the vow even vague: "Allah has a vow upon me if I touch you, or never will I touch you, or approach you" (Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 4/89; Hashiyat al-Dasuqi, 3/344; al-Ishraf, 3/467, no. 1279).
The Shafi'is of the later school: the ila is not restricted to the oath by Allah; suspending a divorce or manumission on intercourse makes him mu'il: "if I touch you, a prayer, a fast, a pilgrimage or a manumission is due to Allah for me", provided the oath cannot dissolve before four months; otherwise, for instance a month's fast ending before, he is not mu'il, being able to endure the month then approach without harm. If he touches her during the month, he owes what the oath imposes, completing the remaining fast and making up the day of intercourse. "The fast of this year is due from me": mu'il if more than four months remain of the year (al-Bayan, 10/275; Rawdat al-Talibin, 5/543-544; Nihayat al-Muhtaj, 7/80; Kashshaf al-Qina', 5/409).
The jurists state in text that the ila's formulas divide into explicit, which requires no intention, and allusive, which requires it.
The Hanafis: the explicit is any phrase leading at once to the idea of intercourse: "I will not approach you", "I will not have relations with you", "I will not mount you", "I will not lie beside you", "I will not wash from you after major impurity", contact annexed to her meaning intercourse by usage, and washing occurring only from intercourse; and "I will not deflower you" for the virgin, defloration occurring only through intercourse. "I will not have you anally or beyond the vagina": no mu'il. "I will not have you except bad intercourse": his intent is asked; meaning anally, mu'il; meaning weak intercourse not exceeding the mere meeting of the two genitals, no; no intent, no; meaning otherwise, yes. The allusion is any phrase not leading at once to the idea of intercourse and tolerating others: "I will not touch her", "I will not lie with her", "I will not enter upon her", "I will not spend the night with her", "no pillow will join her head and mine", "I will not share her bed", "I will not sadden her", "I will not anger her". These phrases stated, if he affirms he did not intend intercourse he is believed both judicially and religiously; if he admits intending it, he is mu'il. "If I sleep with you, you are thrice divorced" without intent: it is an ila bearing on intercourse by custom (Sharh Fath al-Qadir, 4/189; al-Ikhtiyar, 3/187; al-Durr al-Mukhtar, 3/425-426; al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya, 1/477).
The Malikis: any oath preventing intercourse makes him mu'il: "I will not have you", "I will not wash from you", "I will not draw near you", and anything entailing abandoning intercourse. A phrase tolerating other senses, like "I will not mount you", followed by "I meant walking or the like": he is told, "if you are truthful, prove your truth by intercourse"; on his abstaining he is deemed to mean intercourse and is mu'il. "I will not have you during menstruation, lochia or your nursing of your child": no mu'il (Aqd al-Jawahir al-Thamina, 2/547; al-Qawanin al-Fiqhiyya, p. 161).
The Shafi'is: the explicit is the oath to abandon intercourse, the insertion of a member into a vagina or the deflowering of virginity: "By Allah, never will I have you in the vagina", "never will I insert my member into your vagina", "never will I deflower you" for a virgin: mu'il outwardly and inwardly, the explicit bearing on intercourse in the vagina. "By Allah, never will I have you, never will I mount you": mu'il in the ruling, usage bearing on intercourse in the vagina; if he specifies "by mounting, stepping", or "by intercourse, the meeting of bodies", he is bound before Allah without the ruling, the phrase tolerating his claim. "I will not deflower you" without "by my member": two views, the sounder: explicit in the ruling, bound before Allah, the phrase tolerating defloration by other means. The allusion, like the oath to abandon touching, direct contact or caressing: "By Allah, never will I touch you, never will I be near you": it requires the intent, the phrase bearing other realities; in the early school he is mu'il. "I will not enter upon you, no house will gather me and you": allusion; intending intercourse in the vagina, mu'il; no intent, no, like divorce's allusions. Al-Shafi'i: "The ila does not bind him until he utters one of the explicit names of intercourse; otherwise he is bound before Allah without the ruling." The phrases of touching, kissing, grazing: intending intercourse, mu'il; otherwise the ruling follows his word, and the wife may then require him to swear before her. "I will not have you except bad intercourse": meaning anally, mu'il, true intercourse being in the vagina; meaning intercourse without the glans disappearing, mu'il too, the ruling's intercourse requiring the glans' disappearance; meaning little, weak or interrupted intercourse, no mu'il (Al-Umm, 5/266; al-Hawi al-Kabir, 10/344-345; Rawdat al-Talibin, 5/563-567; Nihayat al-Muhtaj, 7/82-83).
The Hanbalis distinguish three categories of phrases. The first: explicit in the ruling and inward, admitting no interpretation: "By Allah, never will I have you", "never will I insert my member into your vagina", "never will I hide my glans there", and for the virgin only "never will I deflower you": no other intent is accepted, the phrase tolerating nothing else. The second: explicit in the ruling alone: bound before Allah, but his word is not accepted judicially; fifteen phrases per the text: "never will I possess you, never will I unite with you, never will I lie beside you, never will I penetrate, never will I have direct contact, never will I cover you, never will I go toward you, never will I touch you, never will I seek your bed, never will I deflower you (for one who does not know its meaning), never will I approach you, never will I attain you, never will I come to you, never will I graze you, never will I mount you, never will I wash from you": the Book and the Sunna use some of them: "Do not approach them until they are pure. When they have purified themselves, then come to them" (Surah Al-Baqarah, 222), "have no contact with them while you are in retreat in the mosques" (Surah Al-Baqarah, 187), "before you have touched them" (Surah Al-Baqarah, 237); "possessing" and "uniting" being the most used phrases, the rest by analogy; the deflected senses (stepping, the meeting of bodies, striking with the hand, pleasure short of the vagina) are not accepted judicially, against custom and the apparent sense, and inwardly, if truthful, he is no mu'il. The third: requires the intent, all phrases tolerating intercourse: "no pillow will join my head and yours", "I will not share your bed", "I will not enter upon you", "you will not enter upon me", "I will not approach your bed", "I will not spend the night with you", "I will sadden you", "I will anger you", "my absence will grow long", "no skin will touch your skin", "I will not lodge with you": intending intercourse, mu'il; otherwise no, the phrase being neither explicit nor apparent for intercourse, like divorce's allusions (al-Mughni, 7/414-415; Kashshaf al-Qina', 5/409; Nihayat al-Muhtaj, 7/82-83).
Certain of these last phrases finally require the intention of both intercourse and duration together, according to the sheet's text, which ends at that point in the source.
The majority of jurists, Hanafis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis, hold the ila valid in satisfaction as in anger, whether he intends harm or not: the verse "those who swear abstinence from their wives" (Surah Al-Baqarah, 226) distinguishing no state, and the ila being an oath whose ruling does not vary more than other oaths. Al-Kasani: alike in both states by most scholars and most of the Companions, the sound view. Al-Amrani: valid in both states. Ibn Abbas is related to have said it is "valid only in anger" (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 3/172; al-Bayan, 10/280; Rawdat al-Talibin, 5/558).
Ibn Qudama: neither anger nor intent to harm is required, related from Ibn Mas'ud, the view of al-Thawri, al-Shafi'i, the people of Iraq and Ibn al-Mundhir. From Ali: "There is no ila in reconciliation"; from Ibn Abbas: "The ila occurs only in anger"; and the like from al-Hasan, al-Nakha'i and Qatada. Malik, al-Awza'i and Abu Ubayd: whoever swears not to touch his wife until she weans her child is no mu'il if he intends his child's good. Our proof: the verse's generality; he bars himself from relations by oath, as in anger; the ila's ruling attaches to the wife's right, like paying her debts and making good her property; divorce, the zhihar and other oaths being alike in both states. Whoever swears not to touch her "until weaning" intending the time of weaning is mu'il if it exceeds four months; intending the act of weaning, no, it being possible before four months without losing any of her right, like "until she enters the house" (al-Mughni, 7/425-426).
The Malikis in the madhhab hold the ila valid in anger where the oath can dissolve within the term, as al-Sharh and others state: he becomes mu'il through intercourse or entering the house, the oath remaining a permanent bar on relations; it has also been said that he is mu'il from the start, unable to have relations without becoming mu'il, the harm thus attaching to intercourse.
The Hanbalis discuss the case of one who says "If I touch you, then by Allah I will not touch you" and inserts the glans before adding the oath: perjury by the addition on one view, not on the other, like one who formulates an exception after the fact (al-Mubdi', 8/12).
The Hanafi and Maliki jurists state in text: the husband who says to his wife "If I approach you, you are upon me like my mother's back" is mu'il: he cannot approach her during the term except by incurring the zhihar. Four months without relations: she is separated by the ila; if he approaches during the four months, the zhihar is imposed on him; separated by the ila then remarried to him, if he approaches her he is a muzahir.
"You are unlawful to me": intending divorce, mu'il by all, the divorce becoming the bar on relations as in "If I approach you, you are divorced". Intending the oath: mu'il at once by Abu Hanifa, barring himself from his wife by what cannot serve as a bar, namely prohibition itself, the mu'il's definition; by Abu Yusuf and Muhammad, he is not mu'il until after approaching: his word intending the oath, or without intent, makes an ila by consensus, like "By Allah, I will not approach you", the ila then hanging on intercourse, like "If I approach you, then by Allah I will not approach you", which is no ila until he approaches her (al-Mabsut, 7/33; Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 3/167; al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya, 1/509).
The Malikis: whoever says "If I touch you, you are upon me like my mother's back" is barred from touching her forever, his touching leading to that of the muzahir. If his wife suffers, she brings the matter before the judge, who fixes the ila's term from the day of the oath; once it completes, she does not demand the return but the divorce, or remains with him without relations. The benefit of the term, though he is barred from it: to allow that she consent to remain with him without relations. If he dares to touch her, the ila dissolves, the zhihar's expiation is imposed on him, and he may not approach her until he has expiated; should he abstain from it and she suffers from his abstaining, divorce is imposed on him at once for the harm (al-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 3/128; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 4/93; Hashiyat al-Dasuqi, 3/349-350).
The Mudawwana al-Kubra discusses: when does he become a muzahir, as soon as he utters these words or upon touching? Malik: he is mu'il as soon as he has uttered them; if he touches her, the ila falls, the zhihar is due from him through the touching, and no approach before the expiation; should he leave her without expiating, he follows the course of the harmful muzahir described. To the question: why did Malik make mu'il one who says "you are upon me like my mother's back" without a condition, when it is not an oath, since he did not say "if I approach you"? Malik's answer: he is not mu'il until it is established that he intends harm; then he is carried on the mu'il's footing, every oath preventing intercourse being an ila, and this zhihar without an oath becoming harm upon abstaining, his capacity to expiate being proven (al-Mudawwana al-Kubra, 6/61).
Al-Amrani the Shafi'i: "If I attain you, you are unlawful to me": intending divorce, the zhihar or the prohibition of this particular wife, he is mu'il by the later view; if it is taken as an allusion, no. "You are unlawful to me," then he claims he meant the conditional: most of our companions reject his word judicially and hold him bound before Allah, his phrase's apparent sense imposing the expiation at once, like "you are divorced" followed by "I meant your entering the house". Ibn al-Sabbagh accepts his word: the expiation not being claimed by the ruler, there is no point imposing it judicially; he has confessed the ila, his confession binds, and the wife claims her right after the waiting term (al-Bayan, 10/279).
Ibn Qudama: "If I touch you, you are upon me like my mother's back": Ahmad said he may not approach her until he has expiated, an explicit text on her being forbidden before the expiation, and an indication of forbidding intercourse in the previous question, the thrice-divorced being more gravely forbidden than the muzahira. Upon touching, he becomes a muzahir and the ila's ruling departs. Ahmad may be understood to mean: if he touches her once, let him not touch her again until he expiates, having become a muzahir through the touching, the expiation not preceding the zhihar that is its cause, the ruling not preceding its cause.