Islamic Fiqh > Marriage and family > Zihar (comparison to the back) > The expiation of zihar (kaffara)
Contents
Updated on 25 September 2026 at 3:23 PM
The expiation of zihar is the penalty fixed by Surah al-Mujadalah for the man who addressed his wife with the formula of zihar and then went back on his word. The leaves that follow explain the meaning of the "return" (al-'awd), the deferred character of the expiation, its conditions (intention and ability) and its three ordered forms: freeing a slave, fasting two consecutive months, then feeding sixty poor people. Each question is treated school by school, with the positions of the Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis and their classical references.
In the opening example, "Whoever enters the house and prays in it will have a dinar", the dinar is earned only by the entry and the prayer together, for both are conditions of earning it. Likewise, the expiation of zihar is an expiation of the oath type: it is not violated by anything other than its own violation, like other oaths. Hence, if either spouse dies or he separates from her before the "return", no expiation is due upon him ("Bada'i al-Sana'i", 3/235; "Tabyin al-Haqa'iq", 3/4).
The jurists differed over the meaning of the "return": is it the firm resolve to have intercourse with the wife, the resolve joined to the intention of keeping her, the intercourse itself, or keeping her after the zihar for a period in which he is able to divorce her? Four views were advanced.
"Those who make zihar of their wives, then go back on what they said, must free a slave before they touch one another. That is what you are admonished with, and Allah is fully aware of what you do."
Surah al-Mujadalah, 3
The Hanafis: the "return" is the affirmed resolve to have intercourse; even one who resolves and then judges it better to refrain incurs no expiation, for lack of an effective resolve. "Then they go back on what they said" means they go back on what they forbade themselves by making intercourse lawful through resolve. What the one who makes zihar says is the prohibition of intercourse, and the return is the breaking of it, that is, the return to its lawfulness ("Bada'i al-Sana'i", 3/235).
The expiation is therefore due as soon as he intends to have intercourse with her after the zihar, just as the command in "When you rise for prayer, wash yourselves" (Surah al-Ma'idah, 6) and "When you confer privately with the Messenger, offer a charity beforehand" (Surah al-Mujadalah, 12) is tied to intention. If she remains forbidden to him without resolve, the expiation is not due, but he is compelled to it in order to ward off harm from her. If he resolves and then resolves not to touch her, it falls away; likewise if either of them dies after the resolve and before intercourse. If he expiated while she was irrevocably divorced or married to another, it counts for him. In essence, the Hanafi view amounts to this: the expiation is not binding upon him except through actual intercourse with his wife ("al-Ikhtiyar", 3/199).
The Malikis differed: is the "return" the resolve to have intercourse and the firm decision to do it, or the resolve joined to the intention of keeping her, that is, not divorcing her at once but retaining her for a period from which immediate separation is not understood, even if it is less than a year? Two views of Malik, each of them famous, were transmitted ("al-Taj wa-l-Iklil", 3/147; "Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil", 4/110).
The bearing of the difference appears if he resolves on intercourse and keeping her, then divorces her or she dies: according to Ibn Rushd the expiation falls, according to Qadi Iyad it remains. Likewise if he expiates after she has been divorced from him: according to Ibn Rushd it does not suffice him, according to Qadi Iyad it does. The expiation consequent upon the return falls if he resolved upon it but did not have intercourse until she was irrevocably divorced, or she died, or he died; a revocable divorce does not cause it to fall, for the command remains in force during the waiting period. The "fall" of the expiation does not mean it can no longer be demanded if she returns to him: he is only charged with it after her return, and once she has returned he may not approach her until he expiates ("Bidayat al-Mujtahid", 2/79-80; "Mawahi al-Jalil", 5/).
The Shafi'is: the "return" is to keep her after the zihar as a wife for a period in which he is able to divorce her and does not do so. When a period passes over the one who made zihar without the divorce by which she would be forbidden, the expiation becomes due; for keeping what he forbade himself is going back on his word and contradicting it, and thus making lawful what he made unlawful. If he is able to divorce her and does not, the expiation is due; likewise if he dies or she dies within that period ("al-Umm", 5/279; "al-Hawi al-Kabir", 10/443, 450; "Rawdat at-Talibin", 5/588-589).
If death overtakes him before the time of the return, that is, he dies right after the zihar before the period for divorce elapses, or the wife dies, or a separation occurs through annulment of the marriage because of him or because of her, or through a defect such as one entitling annulment before consummation, or through an irrevocable or revocable divorce without return, or the husband becomes insane after the zihar: in all these cases there is neither return nor expiation. For he did not keep her after the zihar and could not divorce her because of death ("al-Muhadhdhab", 2/113; "Nihayat al-Muhtaj", 7/99-100).
The Hanbalis: the return is intercourse; once he has had it, the expiation is due, and it is not due before that, but it is a condition for the lawfulness of intercourse: whoever wants it is commanded to expiate in order to make her lawful, as whoever wants to make a woman lawful is commanded to conclude the marriage contract. Ahmad said of the "return" in the verse that it is the "covering approach": when he intends to have her, he expiates. For the return in speech is doing the opposite of what was said, as the return in a gift is taking back what was given; the one who made zihar forbade himself intercourse and forbade it to her, and the return is its performance ("al-Mughni", 8/13; "Kashshaf al-Qina'", 5/435).
Al-Qadi (Abu Ya'la) and his companions: the return is the resolve to have intercourse; but they did not make the expiation obligatory upon the resolute one if either of the two died or he divorced before intercourse, except Abu al-Khattab, who held it due upon death or divorce after the resolve, a position Ahmad rejected. On both views, intercourse is not lawful before the expiation, because of "before they touch one another". If he has intercourse before it, he sins, a single expiation suffices him, and she remains forbidden until he expiates. It is related that the Prophet said to Salamah, who had had intercourse: "What made you do what you did?" He replied: "I saw the whiteness of her leg in the moonlight." He said: "Keep away from her until you expiate."
Before intercourse, no expiation is due: the command was given only as a condition for lawfulness, like the scrutiny of chastity required for a purchased slave girl. And if either of the two dies, or the one who made zihar separates from her before intercourse, no expiation is due even if he had resolved upon it, for he did not go back on what he said. Only Abu al-Khattab holds it due if the separation followed the resolve, and Ahmad rejected this explicitly, as did al-Qadi, according to whom no expiation is due ("al-Mughni", 8/13-14).
If the one who made zihar irrevocably divorced his wife and then married her again, she does not become lawful to him until he expiates, whether the divorce was a triple one or not, and whether she returned to him after another husband or not, according to the verse, like her whom he did not divorce. For zihar is an oath carrying an expiation, whose ruling is not annulled by divorce, unlike the oath of abstention (ila) ("al-Mughni", 8/13-14; "Zad al-Ma'ad", 5/334-335).
The majority of jurists, the Hanafis on the sound view and the Malikis and Shafi'is on the sound view, stated explicitly that the expiation of zihar is due with delay: there is no sin in deferring it from the first moment it becomes possible, and he may postpone it, on condition of discharging it before returning to her.
The Hanafis: the expiation is due with delay on the sound view, because the command is absolute; deferring is no sin, and the man remains one who spreads out the obligation, not one who makes it up. The meaning of its being due with delay is that it is due within some part of his lifetime, without specification: it only becomes fixed by actual performance, or at the end of his life if he deferred it to a time when he most likely expects to die before discharging it. If he discharges it, he has fulfilled the obligation; if he dies without discharging it, he sins, the obligation having tightened upon him at the end of his life.
Is it taken from his estate? If he left no will, it is not taken and lapses with respect to the rulings of this world, like zakat and the vow; if his heirs volunteer to discharge it on his behalf, they may do so in food and clothing, feeding sixty poor people.
An expiation performed in advance does not suffice for a future zihar: it would advance the expiation over its specific cause, just as advancing the expiation of an oath before the oath, or the expiation of killing before the wound, does not suffice. If he says to his wife, "If you enter the house, you are to me like my mother's back", expiating before her entry does not count; Ibn Abd al-Salam stated that the jurists do not differ over this. If he frees a slave for his zihar and then she enters, the slave is freed, he becomes one who made zihar, and the freeing does not suffice him: the zihar is suspended upon a condition and does not exist before its condition exists ("Bada'i al-Sana'i", 3/235; "al-Umm", 5/283; "al-Muhalla", 8/65).
The jurists of the four schools agreed that the intention is required for the validity of the expiation, because of the Prophet's words: "Deeds are only by intentions" (Narrated by al-Bukhari, no. 1). This is also because freeing may be a supererogatory act, or performed for another expiation or a vow: it is only referred back to this expiation by intention. And since a bare act may be an expiation or something else, a specification is required, and that is the intention; this is why the fast of the expiation is not discharged by an unspecified intention, any more than the makeup fast of Ramadan or an absolute vow.
The description of the intention: to intend the freeing, the fasting or the feeding as the expiation; intending more is only emphasis, and intending less invalidates it. Its time is with the discharge or a little before it, according to the Hanbalis and the explicit texts of the Shafi'is; some Shafi'is require that the intention accompany the act throughout. If the expiation is fasting, the intention to fast as expiation is required every night according to the majority, Hanafis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis, because of the Prophet's words: "There is no fast for one who does not resolve upon the fast during the night" (An authentic hadith).
The Malikis: a single intention suffices for the fast of the two months, and the same applies to every continuous fast. The intention of continuity is not required, on the soundest view of the Shafi'is and Hanbalis: the actual continuity suffices, for continuity is a condition of the act of worship as covering the body is a condition of prayer. One intends the act of worship without intending its conditions, just as one must intend the prayer without intending the covering of the body.
The Shafi'is, contrary to their soundest view, require the intention of continuity every night: continuity is obligatory like the fast itself, so the intention of the fast every night entails the intention of continuity. According to a third Shafi'i view, the intention of continuity is required only on the first night, the distinction being then achieved by it, the aim being to distinguish this fast from others by continuity. This is also the Maliki school: al-Khurashi stated that whoever expiates by fasting two months must intend their continuity and the fact that this fast is the expiation of his zihar, and the first night suffices for that; the same applies to every obligatory expiation. Ibn Qudamah added: if several expiations of one kind accumulate upon him, specifying their cause is not required, and this is the view of al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr and the people of opinion, with no known dissent ("al-Bayan", 10/390-391; "al-Mughni", 8/36; "Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil", 4/166).
The jurists stipulated the ability to perform the expiation as a condition of its becoming obligatory: one cannot be obligated to an act without the ability to do it. The one upon whom the expiation is due, who finds nothing with which to free a slave, an old man unable to fast with nothing to feed anyone, has his obligation deferred until he is able to free or to feed: obligating the incapable is impossible. The details follow with the forms of the expiation ("Bada'i al-Sana'i", 3/237; 5/112).
The forms of the expiation of zihar are three, by the consensus of the people of knowledge, and they are obligatory in order, not left to choice: first, freeing a slave; second, fasting for one who finds no slave or cannot buy one; third, feeding, namely feeding sixty poor people, for one who can do neither. Its basis is the Book, the Sunnah and the consensus.
"Those who make zihar of their wives, then go back on what they said, must free a slave before they touch one another. That is what you are admonished with, and Allah is fully aware of what you do. Whoever finds no means must fast two consecutive months before they touch one another; and whoever is unable must feed sixty poor people. That, so that you may believe in Allah and His Messenger. These are the limits of Allah, and for the disbelievers is a painful punishment."
Surah al-Mujadalah, 3-4
As for the Sunnah, it is the hadith of Khuwaylah bint Malik ibn Tha'labah, whose husband Aws ibn al-Samit had made zihar of her:
Khuwaylah bint Malik ibn Tha'labah said: my husband Aws ibn al-Samit made zihar of me. I came to complain to the Messenger of Allah, and he was arguing with me about him, saying: "Fear Allah, for he is your cousin." I did not cease until the Quran came down: "Allah has heard the words of the woman who argues with you concerning her husband" up to the obligation. He said: "He shall free a slave." She said: he finds none. He said: "Then let him fast two consecutive months." She said: Messenger of Allah, he is an old man who cannot fast. He said: "Then let him feed sixty poor people." She said: he has nothing to give in charity. Just then a basket ('araq) of dates was brought. She said: Messenger of Allah, I will help him with another basket. He said: "You have done well; go and feed sixty poor people with it on his behalf, then return to your cousin."Narrated by Abu Dawud (no. 2214)
The community agreed upon the obligation of freeing for one who is able; if he is incapable and finds no slave, fasting is imposed upon him; if he cannot fast, he feeds sixty poor people. The people of knowledge also agreed that the expiation of the one who made zihar who is able to free is the freeing of a slave, and that nothing else suffices him. Ibn Qudamah wrote: "The expiation of the one who made zihar who is able to free is the freeing of a slave, and nothing else suffices him, with no disagreement that we know of among the people of knowledge" ("al-Mughni", 8/17).
First question: the four schools stated explicitly that if he owns a slave valid for the expiation, surplus to his permanent subsistence, without needing her service, he must free her and does not move on to fasting; the Hanafis and Shafi'is added: whether or not he is in debt, for he truly possesses her.
Second question: if he owns a slave but needs her service, because he is too weak to serve himself, or is one of those people of standing who do not customarily serve themselves, and he finds nothing with which to buy a servant beyond his subsistence, the freeing is not imposed upon him: fasting is imposed upon him according to the Hanafis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis. The support is the account of the man who came to the Prophet:
A man came to the Prophet and said: Messenger of Allah, I made zihar of my wife and then had intercourse with her. The Prophet said: "Free a slave." He pointed to his neck and said: I find no slave other than this one. He said: "Then fast two consecutive months." He said: I cannot. He said: "Then feed sixty poor people." He said: I find none. The Prophet ordered that dates be brought to him, and the man said: am I poorer than I and my family? The Prophet said: "Eat them, you and your family."Narrated by Abu Dawud (no. 2213), at-Tirmidhi (no. 3299), Ahmad in the Musnad (no. 16468), Ibn Khuzaymah in his Sahih (no. 2378) and al-Hakim in al-Mustadrak (no. 2815)
The bearing of the evidence is that the Prophet made the dates his property and ordered him to give them as the charity of his expiation; then the man told him he needed them, and he permitted him to eat them without obliging him to give them out despite their presence. Thus whatever his need absorbs need not be given out, for he is considered to possess nothing beyond it: he is like one who finds nothing, and he may move on to the substitute, like one who finds water while thirsting for it.
Third question: the Malikis, contrary to the foregoing, require the freeing if he owns a slave whose service he needs or which is his only property; fasting does not suffice him, for the verse commands the freeing first and reserves the fast for the one who "finds not", whereas this man does find. And if he owns no slave but has surplus wealth beyond his subsistence, a valid slave is due from him by the agreement of the jurists: he "finds" in the legal sense, for the ability to pay the price stands in place of ability over the thing itself.
Fourth question: the Hanafis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis hold that he is not obliged to buy a slave if the wealth he has is needed by him; fasting is permitted him, the condition being that his wealth exceeds his primary need. The Malikis, however, oblige the purchase if he holds its price, even if that wealth is needed for an illness, an office, or a dwelling without surplus: he must free, and fasting does not suffice him, for ability over the price stands in place of ability over the thing, like one who can buy water at its price.
Fifth question: if he has no surplus that would enable him to reach a slave and owns none, the freeing is not due from him by agreement, for the amount of the expiation is reserved for his vital need like ordinary expenditure: it is legally assimilated to nonexistence. It is like the water one thirsts for while traveling until tayammum is permitted him, because of "If you find no water, then resort to clean earth" (Surah an-Nisa, 43): the water truly exists, but being reserved for necessity, the Law treats it as nonexistent.
The people of knowledge agreed that freeing a believing slave in the expiation of zihar suffices, as Ibn al-Mundir related ("al-Ijma'", 82). They differed, however, over the unbelieving slave: does she suffice, or is belief a condition?
The majority of jurists, the Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis within the school, require belief for the expiation of zihar as for all expiations. For Allah mentioned the slave in the expiation of killing while restricting her to belief, "the freeing of a believing slave" (Surah an-Nisa, 92), then mentioned her in zihar and the oath in absolute terms: the absolute is applied to the restricted of the same kind. It is like the witnesses: "Take two just witnesses from among you" (Surah at-Talaq, 2) and "Call two witnesses from among your men" (Surah al-Baqarah, 282), justice being imposed by the first text ("al-Mughni", 8/17-18; "Kashshaf al-Qina'", 5/441).
Sharid ibn Suwayd ath-Thaqafi said: I said: Messenger of Allah, my mother bequeathed that a slave be freed on her behalf, and I have a black slave girl. He said: bring her to me. She came, and he said: Who is your Lord? She said: Allah. He said: Who am I? She said: the Messenger of Allah. He said: "Free her, for she is a believer."Narrated by Ibn Hibban in his Sahih (no. 189)
The hadith implies that for every slave owed, only a believing one suffices: the Prophet did not distinguish, and he grounded the validity of her freeing upon her belief. This is because the expiation is made by freeing: only a believer counts, as in the expiation of killing. Every defect that prevented freeing in the expiation of killing prevents it here, foremost the severing of a limb; the slave is diminished by disbelief like the apostate or the woman of war; and since it is agreed that only a slave sound of the defects harmful to work is accepted, soundness of belief is required all the more. The aim is nearness to Allah, which disbelief negates, and the expiation is Allah's right that may not be directed to His enemy.
The Hanafis, and Ahmad in one narration, hold that any slave suffices, believing or unbelieving, for Allah left the slave unrestricted in this expiation: "the freeing of a slave". Al-Kasani stated that in the expiation of killing only the believing slave is accepted by consensus, and cited al-Shafi'i: only the believing slave is accepted in all expiations. The basis of the debate: the texts of the oath and the zihar are absolute, that of killing restricted; al-Shafi'i applied the absolute to the restricted, while the Hanafis leave each text to its own sense.
The Hanafi argument against the application: the absolute is meant as the unspecified and the restricted as the specified, and one does not apply the one to the other when each can be acted upon. Taking the path of the masters of Samarkand would amount to pitting the texts against one another by making them a single text when each can be applied; the path of the masters of Iraq would amount to abrogating the absolute, and abrogation cannot touch the Book by analogy or by a solitary report. To say "the absolute is in the meaning of the unspecified" is impossible, for the absolute is acted upon according to its letter without needing clarification; application occurs only out of necessity, when cause and ruling are one. Thus the condition of belief in the expiation of killing rests upon a sound text, limited to its case.
It may further be said: the freeing of a believing slave in killing was not imposed by way of expiation but of gratitude for a special favor, namely the sparing of life in this world together with the lifting of punishment in the hereafter, because of "Our Lord, do not take us to task if we forget or fall into error" (Surah al-Baqarah, 286) and the Prophet's words: "Error, forgetfulness and what they are forced to do have been lifted from my nation" (An authentic hadith). In the oath, the favor is limited to the lifting of punishment, with no worldly cause; the favor in killing surpasses it, and gratitude is measured by the favor, whose measure only Allah knows. No analogy is therefore possible, neither from killing to the oath nor the reverse ("Bada'i al-Sana'i", 5/110; "al-Ikhtiyar", 3/200; "al-Mughni", 8/17).
The people of knowledge agreed that the one who made zihar, if he finds no slave, must fast two consecutive months. Ibn Qudamah wrote: "The people of knowledge agreed that the one who made zihar, if he finds no slave, must fast two consecutive months" ("al-Mughni", 8/20). Its basis is the Book, the Sunnah and the consensus.
"Whoever finds no means must fast two consecutive months before they touch one another; and whoever is unable must feed sixty poor people."
Surah al-Mujadalah, 4
Allah therefore made the absence of a slave a condition of the fast: the fast is not due upon one who can free. As for the Sunnah, it is the hadiths of Khuwaylah and Salamah cited earlier: "He shall free a slave" and then, upon his inability, "Then let him fast two consecutive months"; and "Free a slave" and then "Then fast two consecutive months".
The jurists laid down conditions for the fast of the expiation. The first: the fast must be intended from the night, by consensus; al-Kasani wrote that it is forbidden to begin it during the day, for it is an unspecified fast, which requires the intention by night ("Bada'i al-Sana'i", 5/111).
The second condition is continuity: the people of knowledge agreed to impose it upon the fast of the expiation of zihar, of killing, and of one who has intercourse with his wife on a day of Ramadan. If the faster breaks without excuse, he must begin the fast again. Ibn al-Mundir said: "All those whose words we preserve among the people of knowledge agreed that whoever fasted part of the two months then broke it without excuse must begin the fast again" ("al-Ijma'", 84; "al-Ishraf", 5/305).
Al-Kasani: continuity, outside cases of necessity, is required without disagreement in these three expiations, the text having stated it. The Maliki Qadi Abd al-Wahhab grounded it upon the verse "two consecutive months" and upon the hadiths of Aws and Salamah, with no difference of opinion; al-Zarkashi spoke of a consensus supported by the testimony of the Book and the Sunnah; and Ibn Qudamah recalled that the renewal of the two months falls upon whoever broke them without excuse, the wording of the Book and the Sunnah having fixed it. Continuity consists in linking the days of the two months: not breaking the fast on those days and not fasting anything other than the expiation ("Sharh al-Zarkashi", 2/509; "al-Ma'una", 1/608).
Added to this: the woman who was fasting consecutively and is overtaken by menstruation before completing must make up when pure and resume; menstruation cannot be avoided within two months except by postponing the fast to old age, which would deceive the fast, since she may die before it. Post-childbirth bleeding is like menstruation: on one of the two views it does not break continuity, its time being for her like the time of night; on the second view it does break it, for it is an avoidable breaking of the fast that does not recur every year, so it breaks like breaking without excuse, and it cannot be likened to menstruation, which is more frequent and unavoidable ("al-Mughni", 8/21-22; "al-Bayan", 10/387-388).
The jurists differed over one who must fast two consecutive months and breaks for an excuse, such as a feared illness: is continuity broken so that he must begin again, or does he resume? The Malikis, al-Shafi'i in the old position, the Hanbalis and Ibn al-Mundir held that breaking for a feared illness does not break continuity: he broke for a cause not of his own making, like the menstruating woman, whose resumption they accept, and every excused person is alike in what befell him. Otherwise the breaking would go on endlessly, since illness may return after recovery ("at-Taj wa-l-Iklil", 3/153; "Rawdat at-Talibin", 5/624; "Kashshaf al-Qina'", 5/446-447).
The Hanafis and Shafi'is in the later position held that whether he breaks with or without excuse, continuity is broken: he broke by choice, as if he had broken without illness. He therefore begins the fast again, whether he broke without excuse, for illness or for travel, the condition of continuity having been lost. The same applies if he breaks on the day of the festival of breaking, the day of sacrifice or the days of tashriq: he begins the fast again, whether he broke on those days or not. For the fast of those days cannot discharge what is owed by him: what is complete cannot be replaced by what is deficient, the fast on those days being adjacent to sin ("Bada'i al-Sana'i", 5/111; "al-Jawhara an-Nayyira", 4/544; "al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya", 1/512).
The jurists differed over one who, fasting two months in expiation, travels and breaks his fast: is continuity broken? The majority, the Hanafis, Malikis and Shafi'is within the school, with Ibn al-Mundir, held that it is broken and that he must begin the fast again: he himself created the cause of the breaking, for travel is something he chose and brought upon himself. The Malikis added: the same applies if he breaks because of an illness his travel provoked, since he is its cause; if the travel did not provoke illness, continuity remains on the well-known view ("Bada'i al-Sana'i", 5/111; "Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil", 4/117; "al-Bayan", 10/388).
The Hanbalis and the Shafi'is according to one view held that continuity is not broken: there is no call to be stricter than in Ramadan, and he broke only for a lawful excuse, like the menstruating woman. He is to be distinguished from the one who breaks without excuse, which is not permitted ("al-Mughni", 8/22; "Kashshaf al-Qina'", 5/446-447; "Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat", 5/556).
The people of knowledge agreed that if the one who made zihar has intercourse with his wife, whether the one of the zihar or another, on a day of the fast, deliberately and without excuse, his fast is void and continuity is broken: he begins the fast from the start. Ibn al-Mundir: "All those whose words we preserve agreed that whoever fasted a month for his zihar then had intercourse deliberately by day must begin the fast again" ("al-Ishraf", 5/309). Ibn Qudamah: "If he has intercourse with her, or with another, on a day of the two months, deliberately, he breaks the fast and continuity is broken by consensus, if he is not excused" ("al-Mughni", 8/23). Al-Kasani: if he has intercourse with her by day deliberately, he begins again, by agreement ("Bada'i al-Sana'i", 5/111).
First case: intercourse during the nights of the fast. The majority, Abu Hanifah, Muhammad, the Malikis and the Hanbalis within the school, require abstention throughout the two months: Allah commanded two consecutive months "before they touch one another", free of intercourse, and whoever departed from that has not carried out what he was commanded; it does not suffice him any more than intercourse by day. What is forbidden here is intercourse itself, without specification of the day: night and day are alike, as in i'tikaf ("Bada'i al-Sana'i", 5/111; "al-Mabsut", 3/84; "al-Ikhtiyar", 3/202).
The Shafi'is, Abu Yusuf among the Hanafis, Ahmad in one narration, Abu Thawr and Ibn al-Mundir held that night intercourse, deliberate or forgetful, does not break continuity and that he continues: it is intercourse that does not invalidate the fast, so it does not require beginning again, like intercourse with another woman. Continuity consists in each day's fast following the one before it without interruption, which is achieved even with night intercourse. Committing the forbidden act before completion, if it does not impair the required continuity, does not prevent its validity, as with intercourse before the two months or during the first night while he fasts; and the fast cannot be performed before its due time in his case, whether he continues or begins again ("Bada'i al-Sana'i", 5/111; "al-Ishraf", 5/309; "Nihayat al-Muhtaj", 7/117).
On the other hand, if he has intercourse with another woman by night, continuity is not broken according to Ibn Qudamah, for that is not forbidden to him and does not impair the following of the fast, like eating by night; no known disagreement on this ("al-Mughni", 8/23-24). Likewise, daytime intercourse by forgetfulness, like night intercourse in any case, does not require beginning again, by consensus ("al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya", 1/512).
The jurists differed over one who, having fasted two consecutive months after his zihar, has intercourse with his wife forgetfully: does he begin the fast again, continuity having been broken, or are neither the fast nor the continuity broken?
Abu Hanifah, Muhammad, the Malikis and the Hanbalis within the school held that intercourse by night or day, deliberate or forgetful, breaks continuity and requires beginning the fast again: forgetfulness does not excuse intercourse. And any time in which deliberate intercourse would break continuity breaks it likewise by forgetfulness ("Bada'i al-Sana'i", 5/111; "al-Ikhtiyar", 3/202; "al-Ma'una", 1/609).
The third form falls upon one who cannot free a slave and is unable to fast. Its basis is the Book, the Sunnah and the consensus: as for the Book, the verse of the expiation; as for the Sunnah, the hadith of Aws ibn al-Samit cited earlier ("Then let him feed sixty poor people") and that of Salamah ibn Sakhr:
Salamah ibn Sakhr said: I was a man more tried by women than anyone else. When the month of Ramadan entered, I feared being tried by my wife with something that would follow me until morning, and I made zihar of her until the end of the month of Ramadan. One night, while she was serving me, something of her was uncovered to me, and I did not delay before having intercourse with her. In the morning I went out to my people, told them the news and said: walk with me to the Messenger of Allah. They said: no, by Allah. So I went alone to the Prophet and informed him. He said: "Are you still at that, Salamah?" I said: yes, Messenger of Allah, twice over, and I bear with patience the command of Allah, so judge for me whatever Allah shows you. He said: "Free a slave." I said: by Him who sent you with the truth, I own no slave but this one, and I struck the back of my neck. He said: "Then fast two consecutive months." I said: and would I have incurred anything other than what I incurred by fasting? He said: "Then feed a wasq of dates among sixty poor people." I said: by Him who sent you with the truth, we spent the night hungry and have no food. He said: "Go to the keeper of the charity of Banu Zurayq; let him hand it over to you, feed sixty poor people with a wasq of dates, and eat the remainder, you and your family." I returned to my people and said: I found among you tightness and bad counsel, and with the Prophet breadth and good counsel; he ordered me to take, or ordered that there be given to me, your charity.Narrated by Abu Dawud (no. 2213), at-Tirmidhi (no. 3299), Ahmad in the Musnad (no. 16468), Ibn Khuzaymah in his Sahih (no. 2378) and al-Hakim in al-Mustadrak (no. 2815)
As for the consensus, the community agreed upon the obligation of feeding, for one who can neither free nor fast, sixty poor people, in accordance with what Allah commanded in His Book and what the Sunnah of His Prophet prescribed.
Ibn Qudamah wrote: "The people of knowledge agreed that the one who made zihar who finds no slave and cannot fast must feed sixty poor people, in accordance with what Allah commanded in His Book and what the Sunnah of His Prophet prescribed, whether the inability arises from old age, from an illness feared to slow or worsen the fast, or from desire that prevents abstaining from intercourse" ("al-Mughni", 8/24). Aws was excused from fasting when his wife told the Prophet he was an old man unable to fast, and Salamah was transferred to feeding when he declared that desire prevented him from fasting.
The Hanafis: if the inability comes from age or from an illness whose cure is not hoped for, he feeds, himself or through his agent, sixty poor people; if he recovers, the fast becomes due again. The dying old man who fed and then regained ability must fast: his fidyah is void, for the dying old man is the one whose ability to fast is not hoped for, and the fidyah is not an absolute substitute but one of necessity, which falls away with the necessity ("Bada'i al-Sana'i", 5/98; "al-Bahr ar-Ra'iq", 4/116).
The Malikis: if he is certain or believes he is able to fast, he does not move to feeding, unanimously; if he is certain or believes he is unable, with illness now and to come, he moves to feeding, unanimously. Every long illness whose cure is unknown requires feeding, which suffices him if he recovers. The "Mudawwanah" states: if the illness drags on, he waits for recovery to fast, unless that illness is of the kind that leaves the sufferer permanently unable to fast; others said: as soon as he is ill he belongs to the incapable, and feeding falls upon him. In case of doubt about his ability, two views: moving to feeding is permitted him, or not ("al-Mudawwana al-Kubra", 6/67; "Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil", 4/121).
The Shafi'is: the majority of the school's companions required an illness whose cure is not hoped for; al-Juwayni and al-Ghazali, endorsed by an-Nawawi, required that the illness last two months by habit or medical opinion, whereupon he moves to feeding without waiting for recovery. Al-Mawardi: old age and its like are a permanent inability, feeding is permitted him and it is better to advance it; if recovery is hoped for, he chooses between advancing the feeding and waiting for recovery to fast; likewise if he cannot fast or suffers overwhelming hardship despite his ability, as with breaking the fast in Ramadan. If he can fast only one month, or two months without continuity, feeding is permitted him. Intolerable hardship in the fast or its continuity, defined as what permits tayammum, authorizes feeding; overwhelming hunger is not an excuse at the outset: he must begin the fast, and if he cannot he breaks it and moves to feeding.
And whoever suffers intense desire (shabq), that is, a strong craving for intercourse, may move to feeding, unlike the fast of Ramadan: it is not abandoned on account of desire, lacking any substitute and because night intercourse is possible, whereas here the prohibition lasts until the discharge. And whoever fears the fast will worsen his illness discharges it by feeding sixty poor people, according to the verse and the hadiths of Aws and Salamah ("al-Bayan", 391; "Rawdat at-Talibin", 5/630-632; "Nihayat al-Muhtaj", 7/117-118).
The Hanbalis: whoever is unable to fast through old age, through an illness feared to slow or worsen even if recovery is hoped for, or through desire preventing abstention, must feed sixty poor people. It is also permitted him to move to feeding for an illness whose cure is hoped for: it falls within "whoever is unable", like desire, for no end to it is known ("al-Mughni", 8/24; "al-Insaf", 9/208; "Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat", 5/557).
The jurists differed over the one who made zihar who owes sixty poor people: may he have intercourse with his wife during the feeding period? The majority, the Hanafis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis, with Abd al-Malik ibn al-Majishun among the Malikis, held that abstention is not a condition there: if he has intercourse, no beginning again is required, and he completes the feeding he started. Allah did not impose such a condition in this expiation, and feeding is not referred back to fasting: they are two different rulings even though the act is the same. Nor is it referred back to intercourse with another woman or to intercourse in the expiation of the oath, hence the difference from the fast.
If intercourse was forbidden to him before the feeding, it is because he might gain the ability to free or to fast, and the expiation would then transfer to them: intercourse was therefore unlawful beforehand. The Shafi'is specify: he sins by it but no beginning again is required of him, intercourse not invalidating the feeding already done, like intercourse with another woman ("al-Bayan", 10/395; "Rawdat at-Talibin", 5/629). The Malikis on the well-known view, and Ahmad in one narration, held that intercourse during the feeding voids it even if only one poor person remained, and that he begins the feeding again: it is intercourse during the expiation of zihar, as during his fast ("al-Ishraf", 3/502, no. 1322; "al-Ma'una", 1/609; "al-Insaf", 9/228).
The jurists agreed that feeding sixty poor people suffices the one who made zihar who discharges it so. They differed over a single poor person fed for sixty days. The Hanafis validate it, on condition of two filling meals a day: the aim is to fill the need of the needy, and that need renews each day, giving to him on the second day being like giving to another; likewise giving him each day half a sa' of wheat, or a sa' of dates or barley. But if he gives him in a single day the food of sixty poor people, it counts only for that day: distribution is required by the text, "feed sixty poor people", like the pilgrim who would throw the seven pebbles all at once. And if he feeds one hundred and twenty poor people at once, or gives lunch to sixty and dinner to sixty others, he must feed one of the two groups again with a filling meal ("al-Hidayah", 2/22; "al-Ikhtiyar", 3/204; "al-Jawhara an-Nayyira", 4/552-553).
The majority, the Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis, held that it does not suffice him: it is a bare contravention of the command of the Messenger of Allah, and the name of sixty poor people does not apply to a single man. Answering the objection that "the aim is to fill sixty needs, which is achieved", they say: the aim is the need of sixty people, greater in reward, and the expectation that among them may be an ally whose supplication is answered.
The Malikis require for each a hashami mudd, that is, a mudd and two-thirds of the Prophet's mudd of wheat, and they do not accept sixty mudds given to one hundred and twenty poor people at half a mudd each. The Shafi'is accept redistribution: sixty mudds divided equally among one hundred and twenty count for him as thirty mudds; he gives thirty more to sixty of them and takes back the surplus from the rest if he told them it was the expiation. Likewise sixty divided among thirty with each receiving at least a mudd; and giving a single poor person two mudds for two expiations is valid. Giving a mudd to a man and buying it back from him to give it to another, and so on up to sixty, is valid but disliked ("at-Taj wa-l-Iklil", 3/155-156; "al-Bayan", 10/394-395; "Rawdat at-Talibin", 5/628-629).
The Hanbalis: the obligation is to feed sixty poor people, and less does not suffice, for Allah commanded the number of the poor and not the number of days. The hadith fed only one man: the command was therefore not carried out, any more than if it had all been given in a single day. And if giving it over several days were valid, it would be valid in one day, like zakat and the charity of breaking ("al-Mughni", 8/24).
The jurists differed over the amount that suffices for each poor person each day: half a sa' or a sa' according to the Hanafis, a hashami mudd according to the Malikis, a mudd on the Prophet's mudd according to the Shafi'is and Hanbalis, or an amount not fixed and referred to custom according to Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim. The Hanafis: half a sa' of wheat or a sa' of dates or barley for each poor person, according to this report:
Umar said to Yasir ibn Numayr: I swear I will give these people nothing, then if it seems good to me I will do it; if you see me do that, feed ten poor people on my behalf, half a sa' of wheat or a sa' of dates or barley for each.Narrated by Ibn Abi Shaybah in al-Musannaf (no. 12194), Abd ar-Razzaq in his Musannaf (no. 16075), at-Tahawi in Sharh Ma'ani al-Athar (3/121) and al-Bayhaqi in as-Sunan al-Kubra (no. 19763)
The same is related from Ali. The Hanafis added that outside the textual amounts one may discharge it by value; but within the textual amounts, payment by value is forbidden if less than the measure fixed by the Law, whether more or equal: half a sa' of good dates worth half a sa' of wheat does not suffice, nor less than half a sa' of wheat worth a sa' of dates or barley. Each grain named in the text cannot be substituted for another, even if worth more; a mann of wheat with a mann and a half of dates or barley suffices, the kind being one ("al-Mabsut", 7/16; "al-Jawhara an-Nayyira", 4/551-553).
Ordering another to feed on his behalf suffices, for the poor first receives for him: ownership then transfer are realized. Feeding them at lunch and dinner suffices, whatever the quantity; but a weaned child among them does not count, for he cannot eat fully, and barley bread requires broth to eat to satiety, not wheat bread. What counts: two filling meals for each poor person, lunch and dinner, or two lunches, or two dinners. And feeding sixty at lunch and sixty others at dinner is not accepted: he must feed one of the groups with a filling meal ("al-Ikhtiyar", 3/203; "al-Inayah", 6/37, 42).
The Malikis: the hashami mudd, that is, a mudd and two-thirds of the Prophet's mudd of wheat; for the absolute sense of "feeding" requires satiety, and it is a fidyah in which one passes from fasting to a food made obligatory in the zihar, hence more than a single mudd. Variants were related: two mudds, one mudd, the mudd and a third, the mudd and a half. If the poor live on dates or other grains of the zakat of breaking, he gives its wheat-equivalent to satiety and not to measure. Malik disliked lunch and dinner in the zihar, for lunch and dinner do not reach the hashami mudd; that suffices for other expiations, with broth if bread is given, bread alone sufficing if it equals the amount of grain. And giving sixty hashami mudds to one hundred and twenty poor people at half a mudd each does not suffice ("al-Ishraf", 3/499; "at-Taj wa-l-Iklil", 3/155-156; "Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil", 4/120).
Al-Qurtubi related in "al-Jami li-ahkam al-Quran" (17/285, 287): whoever cannot fast owes sixty poor people, two mudds each on the Prophet's mudd; the hashami mudd or the mudd and a half suffice. Ibn Abd al-Barr held that the best is two prophetic mudds, for Allah did not say in the expiation of zihar "of the middle of what you feed your families": satiety is intended. Two transmissions are related from Malik: in that of Ibn al-Qasim and Ibn Abd al-Hakam, the hashami mudd, which is here satiety; in that of Ashhab, two prophetic mudds, and "two mudds on the Prophet's mudd are dearer to me". Ibn Wahb and Mutarrif related from him two mudds per poor person, which is the school of Abu Hanifah and his companions, while al-Shafi'i held that a single mudd suffices, grounding the expiation on that of breaking and the oath. Ashhab asked Malik whether satiety differs between them: "Our satiety is a mudd on the Prophet's mudd; yours is greater, for the Prophet prayed for blessing for us, not for you." Abu al-Hasan al-Qabisi explained that Medina took the mudd of Hisham in the expiation of zihar as a severity toward those of whom Allah bore witness that they say the repugnant falsely. Ibn al-Arabi long wished that the memory of Hisham be effaced from the books: Medina, where the zihar was revealed and where the Companions understood the intended satiety, saw the Prophet pray for his mudd the blessing granted to Abraham in Mecca, and the devil would have had Hisham alone yield to it by fixing his mudd at two ratls.
The Shafi'is: the discharge that frees consists in giving each poor person a mudd of a grain of the zakat of breaking, taken from the dominant food of the country of the one discharging, saying: "Take it, eat it, or I permit it to you." Giving sixty mudds to sixty poor people saying "take them, eat them, or I permit them to you" does not suffice, for each one must be reached. Saying "I make you co-owners of it in equal shares" with collective taking is disputed: on one view it does not suffice, the division being burdensome; on the other, which is the sounder, it suffices, ownership being transferred and each able to sell his undivided share. Gathering sixty poor people to feed them at lunch and dinner does not suffice, for grain is what must be handed over, and one cannot be sure each ate his due, doubt favoring the persistence of the debt ("al-Bayan", 10/394-395; "an-Najm al-Wahhaj", 8/78-79; "Tuhfat al-Muhtaj", 9/698-699).
The Hanbalis: the obligation is a mudd of wheat for each poor person, or half a sa' of dates or barley, according to the report of al-Athram from Abu Hurayrah concerning the one who had intercourse in Ramadan: a basket of fifteen sa' was brought to the Prophet, and he said: "Take it and give it in charity." The analogy of the fornicator extends to the one who made zihar, and obligatory feeding does not vary with the types given out, unlike the zakat of breaking or the fidyah of injury. Ahmad related that to a woman of Banu Bayadah who came with half a wasq of barley, he said to the one who made zihar: "Feed them with it, for two mudds of barley stand in place of a mudd of wheat" ("as-Sunan al-Kubra" of al-Bayhaqi, 7/392). Ibn Qudamah: the mudd of wheat is the view of Zayd, Ibn Abbas, Ibn Umar and Abu Hurayrah, with no known dissent among the Companions. Half a sa' of dates and barley rests upon Ata ibn Yasar: the Prophet told Khuwaylah to go to an Ansari for half a wasq of dates to give to sixty poor people, and the basket equals fifteen sa' according to Abu Salamah ibn Abd ar-Rahman, two baskets making thirty sa', half a sa' each; the expiation of zihar combining fasting and feeding, each poor person receives half a sa' as in the fidyah of injury ("al-Mughni", 8/24-25; "Manar as-Sabil", 3/142).
Al-Bahuti specified that the valid disbursement is what suffices in the zakat of breaking: wheat, barley, their flours, sawiq, dates, raisins and aqit; if the food of the country is of another kind, such as maize, millet or rice, the disbursement is not valid according to the text, but Abu al-Khattab and al-Muwaffaq validated it through "of the middle of what you feed your families" (Surah al-Ma'idah, 89), grain remaining best. Flour is valid with an increase in measure, or by weight one Iraqi ratl and a third; bread is not valid on one view, for it leaves measure and storage like harisah, while al-Qadi and his companions, a choice adopted by the Khiraqiyyah, preferred to admit it: the Book says "of the middle of what you feed your families", and the expiation is measured by what feeds the poor person for his day. Invalid are: less than a mudd of wheat, less than two mudds of dates, barley, raisins or aqit, less than two Iraqi ratls of wheat bread and less than four ratls of barley bread, unless the equivalent is known; it is recommended to add a broth ("Kashshaf al-Qina'", 5/450-451).
Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim held that the amount goes back to custom and is not fixed by the Law. Ibn Taymiyyah cited the verse of the expiation of the oath:
"Its expiation is then to feed ten poor people of the middle of what you feed your families, or to clothe them, or to free a slave. Whoever finds no means must fast three days."
Surah al-Ma'idah, 89
On the amount, two views. Some fix it by the Law, in several variants: a sa' of dates or barley or half a sa' of wheat according to Abu Hanifah and a group, half a sa' of dates and barley or a quarter sa' of wheat (a mudd) according to Ahmad and a group, a mudd of every kind according to al-Shafi'i and a group. Others, and this is the sense of Malik's view, refer it to custom: Isma'il ibn Ishaq related that Malik held the mudd sufficient in Medina, but that countries have another way of living and must discharge from the middle of their way of living; this is the school of Dawud and his companions without restriction, and the view transmitted from most of the Companions and the Successors, among whom the middle was bread and milk, bread and clarified butter, bread and dates, and the best bread and meat. Ahmad himself does not fix the food of wife and children, the wage of the hired worker, obligatory or contracted hospitality, the jizyah or the kharaj: all the more the food of the expiation. "The categories are three: what has a definition in the Law or the language goes back to them, and what has none goes back to custom" ("Majmu al-Fatawa", 35/349-351).
Ibn al-Qayyim added that the Quran and the Sunnah establish that the obligation in the expiations is feeding, not transfer of ownership: "feed ten poor people" in the oath (Surah al-Ma'idah, 89), "feed sixty poor people" in the zihar (Surah al-Mujadalah, 4), "a fidyah: fasting, charity or sacrifice" (Surah al-Baqarah, 196), no passage fixing its measure in mudd or ratl. The Prophet said "feed sixty poor people" to the fornicator as to the one who made zihar, without measure; and the known food was bread and meat at Zaynab's wedding feast, hayz at Safiyya's: "of the middle of what you feed your families" plainly means bread, meat, broth and milk. No Companion ever fixed a wife's food; Allah made household food the basis of the expiation's food, which is therefore not fixed, recourse being to custom, and feeding suffices without transfer of ownership ("Zad al-Ma'ad", 5/493-499).
The jurists differed over one who is incapable of the expiation of zihar or another: does it fall away or remain upon him? The majority, the Malikis, the Shafi'is on the soundest view and the Hanbalis, held that it does not fall away and remains a debt until he can discharge part of it: it is Allah's right arising from a specific cause, which does not lapse through inability, unlike the expiation of hunting. The Prophet helped Aws with a basket of dates and his wife helped him likewise until he expiated; he ordered Salamah to take the charity of his people to discharge it. Had the expiation fallen through inability, he would not have ordered them to give it out: it remains a debt, and intercourse with his wife remains forbidden until the discharge ("al-Qawanin al-Fiqhiyyah", p. 84; "Zad al-Ma'ad", 5/336; "ar-Rawd al-Murbi'", 1/436).
The Malikis: whoever is incapable of the expiation by every means may not have intercourse with her, however long his incapacity lasts. The Shafi'is: the expiation remains upon him, and he does not approach her until he expiates. An expiation artificially combined from two forms is invalid, such as freeing half a slave and fasting a month, or fasting a month and feeding thirty. If he finds part of a slave, he fasts, being destitute of her; if he finds part of the food, he gives it out even if less than a mudd, the easy not falling away with the difficult, and the remainder remains upon him. And if two expiations weigh upon him and he can afford only one slave, he frees for one and fasts for the other if he can, otherwise he feeds ("al-Muhadhdhab", 1/185; "Rawdat at-Talibin", 5/362; "Tuhfat al-Muhtaj", 9/699).
The Hanbalis: inability does not lift the expiation, except the expiation of intercourse with a menstruating woman and that of intercourse on a day of Ramadan, which fall away through inability. The Bedouin to whom the Prophet gave the dates to feed the poor told him of his need, and he said: "Feed your family with it" (Narrated by al-Bukhari, no. 1933, and Muslim, no. 1111), without another expiation or mention of the debt remaining, unlike the expiations of pilgrimage, zihar and oath. All the expiations fall away if another discharges it for him with his consent ("al-Kafi", 4/145; "Kashshaf al-Qina'", 5/453).
The Shafi'is contrary to their soundest view held that the expiation falls through inability, based on the words to the Bedouin: "Take it, ask Allah's forgiveness and feed your family", and because it is a financial right owed to Allah not by way of substitute, which does not oblige alongside inability, like the zakat of breaking. Ibn al-Qayyim, however, held that it does not fall away, and this is also the view of al-Shafi'i and one of the two narrations from Ahmad. Others made it fall through inability as obligations fall when one is incapable; still others distinguished: the expiation of Ramadan falls, the others do not, a distinction corrected by Abu al-Barakat Ibn Taymiyyah. The argument of those who hold it falls: had the expiation bound despite incapacity, it would have been directed to him, for a man does not direct his own expiation any more than his zakat. The first group reply: if he is incapable and another discharges it for him, he may direct it to him, as the Prophet directed the expiation of intercourse in Ramadan to the man and his family, and as he permitted Salamah and his household to eat from his expiation taken from the charity of his people. This is Ahmad's school by one narration for intercourse in Ramadan, by two for the other expiations, and the Sunnah shows the permissibility of providing for it ("Zad al-Ma'ad", 5/336).