Islamic Fiqh > Marriage and family > Zihar (comparison to the back) > The zihar of the dhimmi, the non-Muslim under protection
Contents
Updated on 25 September 2026 at 3:23 PM
This part belongs to the full section: All sections of this part.
Zihar is the formula of prohibition inherited from the pre-Islamic era: a man would declare his wife to be like the back of his mother, which made her forbidden to him until he paid an expiation. The twenty sheets of the fiqh encyclopedia cover successively the zihar of the non-Muslim, of the child, of the coerced person, of the drunkard and of the foreign woman, then the formula, its timing, the words "you are forbidden to me", repetition, zihar over several wives, the conditions of the comparator, the position of the woman, and the effects of zihar. The positions of the four schools are given faithfully, with their Quranic and prophetic proofs and their classical references.
The jurists discussed whether the zihar pronounced by a dhimmi, that is a non-Muslim living under Muslim protection, who then embraces Islam, becomes binding on him or not.
The Hanafis and the Malikis hold that the zihar of the dhimmi is not valid, just as none of his pledges of divorce, manumission, charity, vow or otherwise binds him after his conversion. Allah said:
"Those of you who make zihar of their wives... they say a word that is detestable and false. Allah is indeed Pardoning and Forgiving."
Surat Al-Mujadala, 2
The address is directed to the believers, which shows that zihar is specific to them: the disbeliever is not one of us and therefore falls outside the scope of zihar. Allah made the muzahir a speaker of a detestable and false word, while the disbeliever speaks shirk and denies prophethood, which is far graver; and an address such as "Allah is Pardoning and Forgiving" is not directed at the disbeliever. He then ordered the muzahir to pay the expiation, which is the freeing of a slave, and this is not valid from a disbeliever: the slave to be freed must be a believer, and the disbeliever owns no Muslim slave.
"And whoever finds not the means must fast two consecutive months."
Surat Al-Mujadala, 4
Since fasting is not valid from a disbeliever, these two verses show that he is excluded from zihar. Moreover, since the expiation is not valid from him, the zihar is not valid either: the expiation is an act of worship requiring intention, and is therefore not valid from a disbeliever, like zakat. It is a covering of the sin and an annulment of the sin, which cannot occur on the part of a disbeliever; and whoever is not fit to expiate is not fit to pronounce the zihar, like the insane person. Since the purpose of the expiation is expiation and purification, the disbeliever is not qualified for it, and his shirk is graver than the zihar (Mokhtasar Ekhtilaf al-Ulama, 2/489; al-Mabsut, 6/231-232; Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 3/230; Sharh Fath al-Qadir, 4/245 and 4/257; Majma' al-Anhar, 2/114; al-Durr al-Mukhtar, 3/466; al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya, 1/508; al-Ishraf 'ala Nakt al-Masa'il al-Khilaf, 3/476, number 1294; tafsir al-Qurtubi, 17/276; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 3/138; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 4/102; al-Sharh al-Kabir with Hashiyat al-Dasuqi, 3/364).
The Shafi'is and the Hanbalis, in the madhhab, hold that the zihar is valid from a disbeliever as from a Muslim, by Allah's saying:
"Those who make zihar of their wives, then go back on what they said, must free a slave before they touch each other."
Surat Al-Mujadala, 3
Two proofs are drawn from it. The first: the generality of the formulation, which applies to the Muslim as to the disbeliever. The second: Allah's saying "that you may believe in Allah and His Messenger" (Surat Al-Mujadala, 4), an address directed at the disbeliever at the beginning of faith, more specific than its direction to the Muslim for perseverance in faith, so that it would be most grievous for both to be placed on the same footing.
It is also because the zihar is a divorce transferred to something else, hence valid from the Muslim and the disbeliever alike, like the ila'; because whoever's divorce is valid, his zihar is valid too, like the Muslim; and because whatever is valid from the Muslim concerning his wife is valid from the disbeliever, like divorce. The rulings specific to marriage are five: divorce, zihar, ila', the waiting period and lineage. Since the two men are equal in the others, they had to be made equal in the zihar.
The opposite reply: we do not concede that the expiation is invalid from the disbeliever; manumission and feeding are valid from him, only fasting is not, and so the validity of the zihar is not prevented by the invalidity of some types of expiation, as with the slave. Intention is only considered in order to specify the act of expiation, and that is not prevented in the disbeliever, like intention in the allusive formulas of divorce. According to the Hanbali madhhab, he therefore expiates by feeding alone; it is also said: by manumission (al-Hawi al-Kabir, 10/413-414; al-Bayan, 10/334; Rawdat al-Talibin, 5/577; Kanz al-Raghibin, 4/35; al-Najm al-Wahhaj, 8/48; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 5/33; al-Mughni, 8/3-4; al-Kafi, 3/255; al-Insaf, 9/198; Kashshaf al-Qina', 5/432; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 5/541; Manar al-Sabil, 3/138).
The jurists agree that the zihar of the child who has not reached discrimination (tamyiz) is not valid.
They differ, however, over the discerning, rational child. The majority of jurists, the Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis, in the view chosen by Imam Ibn Qudama and others, hold that the zihar of the child is not valid even if he is rational. In the Hanafi school, the zihar belongs to purely harmful dispositions, which the child has no right to perform, just as he has no right to divorce or to manumit (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 3/230; al-Mudawwana al-Kubra, 6/52; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 3/138; al-Sharh al-Kabir with Hashiyat al-Dasuqi, 3/364; Rawdat al-Talibin, 5/577; Kanz al-Raghibin, 4/35; al-Najm al-Wahhaj, 8/48; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 5/33).
It is reported in al-Mudawwana al-Kubra, concerning the zihar of the coerced person: (I said) consider the zihar of the coerced person: is it binding upon him according to Malik? (He replied): Malik said: divorce does not bind the coerced person; likewise, in my view, the zihar does not bind him (al-Mudawwana al-Kubra, 6/52; see Mawahib al-Jalil, 5/343; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 4/102; Hashiyat al-'Adawi, 2/134; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 5/33; al-Mughni, 8/4; Kashshaf al-Qina', 5/432).
The Hanafis hold that the zihar of the coerced person is valid like his divorce. Imam al-Kasani (may Allah have mercy on him) said: his being willing or deliberate is not a condition with us; the zihar of the coerced person and of the one who errs is valid like their divorce (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 3/231; Majma' al-Anhar, 4/47).
The jurists discussed the zihar of the drunkard: is it valid from him? It is the same dispute as over divorce: whoever's divorce takes effect, his zihar takes effect too; otherwise not.
The majority of jurists, the Hanafis, the Malikis, the Shafi'is in the madhhab and the Hanbalis, hold that the zihar of the drunkard is valid like his divorce. It is reported in al-Mudawwana al-Kubra, concerning the zihar of the drunkard: (I said) consider the zihar of the drunkard towards his wife: is it binding upon him according to Malik? (He replied): Malik said: divorce binds the drunkard; likewise the zihar is binding, in my view; for the zihar leads only to divorce (al-Mudawwana al-Kubra, 6/52; Mawahib al-Jalil, 5/343; al-Hawi al-Kabir, 10/236; al-Najm al-Wahhaj, 8/48; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 5/33; al-Mughni, 8/4; al-Insaf, 9/199; Kashshaf al-Qina', 5/432).
Al-Shafi'i, in the old school (al-qadim), held that the zihar of the drunkard is not valid (al-Hawi al-Kabir, 10/236; al-Najm al-Wahhaj, 8/48; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 5/33; Tuhfat al-Muhtaj, 9/655; al-Mughni, 8/4; al-Insaf, 9/199). The question was treated in detail in the chapter on divorce.
The second pillar: the woman towards whom the zihar is pronounced: she is a wife whose divorce is valid. The jurists of the four schools agree that the zihar is valid towards any wife whose divorce is valid, minor or adult, Muslim or dhimmiyya, whether consummation is possible or not, healthy or sick, and even if she is revocable; for she is a wife whose divorce is valid, and so the zihar is valid towards her as towards the others (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 3/232; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 3/140; al-Sharh al-Kabir with Hashiyat al-Dasuqi, 3/367; Tahrir al-Mukhtasar, 3/263; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 5/33; al-Mughni, 8/4; Kashshaf al-Qina', 5/432).
They differ, however, over the zihar pronounced towards a foreign woman (ajnabiyya), for example the one who says to a woman who is not yet his wife: "if I marry you, you are to me like the back of my mother". Is this statement a zihar such that, if he marries her, the expiation of zihar becomes due on him, or is it not valid and no expiation is due on him if he marries her?
The majority of jurists, the Hanafis, Malikis and Hanbalis in the madhhab, hold that if a man says to a foreign woman "if I marry you, you are to me like the back of my mother", his zihar is valid; if he marries her, the expiation of zihar is due on him. The Hanafis explain: the zihar admits of being conditional, like divorce; it is therefore valid when attached to the cause of ownership, which is marriage, and what is conditional takes effect upon the occurrence of the condition as if it were immediate. But if he says to a foreign woman "if you enter the house, you are to me like the back of my mother", no zihar occurs; even if he marries her and she enters the house, he does not become a muzahir, by consensus, for lack of ownership and of attachment to the cause of ownership (al-Mabsut, 6/230; Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 3/138 and 3/323; Mokhtasar Ekhtilaf al-Ulama, 2/488; Sharh Fath al-Qadir, 4/205 and 4/257; al-Bahr al-Ra'iq, 4/107; al-Durr al-Mukhtar, 3/467).
Al-Mudawwana al-Kubra reports, concerning the one who says "if I marry you, you are to me like the back of my mother and you are divorced", or "you are to me like the back of my mother and you are divorced if I marry you", that Malik said, regarding the man who says to a woman "if I marry her she is divorced and she is to me like the back of my mother", that if he marries her, both the zihar and the divorce take effect together. If he then marries her, he may not approach her until he has expiated, for the zihar and the divorce have taken effect together in both formulations; as for the one who puts the zihar first, he is clearer to me (al-Mudawwana al-Kubra, 6/59-60; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 3/146; al-Sharh al-Kabir with Hashiyat al-Dasuqi, 3/374-375; Tahrir al-Mukhtasar, 3/276; Hashiyat al-Sawi, 5/471).
The Hanbalis of the madhhab say: the zihar of a foreign woman is valid, and he may not consummate the marriage with her if he marries her before having expiated. If he says to a foreign woman "you are to me like the back of my mother", or "if I marry you, you are to me like the back of my mother", he may not consummate with her if he marries her before paying the expiation of zihar; by marrying her, the meaning of the zihar has been realized regarding her. Proof: the statement of Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) concerning a man who said "if I marry so-and-so, she is to me like the back of my mother", and then married her: "the expiation of zihar is due on him" (weak: reported by Malik in al-Muwatta, 2/559, number 20). It is also an oath carrying an expiation, whose contract is valid before marriage like an oath by Allah; and the verse came down on the most frequent case (al-Insaf, 9/202; Kashshaf al-Qina', 5/433; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 5/542; Matalib Uli al-Nuha, 5/512; Manar al-Sabil, 3).
The Shafi'is, and the Hanbalis in one narration, hold that the zihar is not valid towards a foreign woman: it must be pronounced over a wife, and the foreign woman is not a wife. If a man says to a foreign woman "if I marry you, you are to me like the back of my mother" and then marries her, no zihar occurs and no expiation is due on him; for the zihar follows divorce in affirmation and negation (al-Hawi al-Kabir, 10/29; al-Bayan, 10/344; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 5/33; al-Insaf, 9/202).
The zihar occurs only through a formula; the formula is either explicit (sarih) or allusive (kinaya), and it is either immediate, conditional or attached. The people of knowledge agree: if a man says to his wife "you are to me like the back of my mother", he is a muzahir, for this expression is explicit in zihar. Imam Ibn al-Mundhir (may Allah have mercy on him) said: they agreed that explicit zihar is for the man to say to his wife "you are to me like the back of my mother" (al-Ijma', p. 84). The jurists of the four schools mention explicit formulas that require no intention, and allusive formulas that do require it: if he intends the zihar by them, he becomes a muzahir; otherwise he does not, as with the other allusions.
In the Hanafi school, the formula, which is the pillar of zihar, is for the man to say to his wife: "you are to me like the back of my mother, or her belly, or her thigh, or her private part": he is a muzahir. Likewise if he compares her to a member of his mother that may not be looked at; and likewise if he compares her to someone whose permanent marriage is not lawful to him among his mahrams, such as his sister, his paternal aunt, his mother by nursing, or his sister by nursing, for they are forbidden forever.
If he says to her "you are to me like the back of your mother", he is a muzahir, whether he consummated the marriage or not; if he says "you are to me like the back of your daughter", he is a muzahir if he consummated, otherwise not. Likewise if he compares her to his father's wife or his son's wife, for both are permanently forbidden to him. And if he says "your head is to me like the back of my mother, or your private part, your face, your body, your neck, your half, your third or your tenth", he is a muzahir, for these expressions designate the whole body.
If he compares her to a woman forbidden to him for the time being but lawful in another state, such as his wife's sister, a married woman or a Zoroastrian woman, he is not a muzahir; likewise if he compares her to a woman from whom he was separated by li'an (mutual imprecation). If he says "you are to me like my mother, or as my mother", recourse is had to his intention according to Abu Hanifa: if he meant honor, nothing occurs; if he meant divorce or zihar, it will be according to what he intended; if he meant prohibition, it is an ila'. Abu Yusuf said: it is a prohibition, for the apparent meaning of the comparison is prohibition, and the nearest thing to it is the ila'. Muhammad said: it is a zihar.
That is not so if he says "you are to me like the private part of my mother": comparison for honor cannot be made through the private part, so only prohibition remains. If he says "I intended the zihar", it is a zihar: it is a comparison to her whole, which includes the comparison to the back; but it is not explicit, and so the intention is required. If he says "I intended the divorce", it is an irrevocable divorce: it is a comparison to the mother in prohibition, as if he had said "you are forbidden to me" intending divorce.
If he has no intention, nothing occurs: this is the view of Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf, for the formula admits of being carried to honor; Muhammad said it is a zihar, since comparison to a member of the mother is a zihar, comparison to her whole is even more so. If he says "you are forbidden to me as my mother" intending zihar or divorce, it is as he intended; if he intended only prohibition, it is a zihar as well; without intention: according to Abu Yusuf it is an ila', according to Muhammad a zihar. And if he says "you are forbidden to me like the back of my mother", it is a zihar according to Abu Hanifa, whether he intended zihar, ila', divorce or absolute prohibition, or intended nothing, for the expression is explicit in zihar and admits of nothing else. According to the latter two, if he intended divorce, it is a divorce; and if he says "you are my mother", it is a lie (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 3/229; al-Hidaya, 2/18; al-Ikhtiyar, 3/199; al-Jawhara al-Nayyira, 4/534 and 4/538; al-Lubab, 2/123-124; al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya, 1/507).
The Maliki formula is either explicit or allusive; the allusion is either apparent, diverted from zihar only by intention, or hidden, counted only with intention. Explicit zihar is pronounced by the word "back" of a woman whose prohibition is permanent by lineage, nursing or affinity: the explicit requires both, the mention of the back and the permanent prohibition, as in "you are to me like the back of my mother, of my sister by nursing, or of your mother". The explicit does not turn into divorce even if divorce is intended: whoever says "you are to me like the back of my mother" intending divorce is not given the divorce, even if he claims "I meant divorce, not zihar"; the explicit of every chapter does not turn into something else, and divorce is not taken into account alongside the zihar, neither in fatwa nor in judgment, according to the most famous view of the madhhab.
The apparent allusion is that in which one of the two terms drops out: the mention of the back, or the mention of permanent prohibition. The first case, as in "you are like my mother" or "you are my mother" without the particle of comparison, is a zihar, unless honor was meant ("you are to me like her in rank and esteem"), or likewise compassion and tenderness; and if the allusion was to humiliation and reproach, it is not a zihar. The second case, as in "you are like the back of a male, of Zayd or of Amr, or the back of my father or my son", or of a foreign woman whose consummation will become lawful by marriage or ownership, as in "you are to me like the back of so-and-so" who is neither mahram nor lawful for him; or if he expresses a part: "your hand, your head or your hair is like my mother, or like the hand of my mother, her head or her hair". In the apparent allusion, in both its types, his intention is accepted as to the intention of divorce: if he intended zihar or had no intention, it is a zihar; if he intended divorce, the absolute becomes binding on him, on the consummated wife as on the other, unless he intended fewer than three on the non-consummated, in which case what he intended becomes due on him; on the consummated, the absolute is binding on him and the intention of fewer is not accepted.
The binding of the absolute also applies to "you are like the foreign woman so-and-so" (the word "foreign" is not part of his statement), to "you are like my son, my boy, or the boy of Zayd", or to everything forbidden by the Book: "you are like wine, carrion, blood, or the flesh of swine". In all these cases, the absolute becomes binding on him, unless he intended fewer than three on a non-consummated wife; for he mentioned neither "back" nor "permanent prohibition", otherwise it would be a zihar if he did not intend divorce: these formulas are therefore allusions of divorce, not of zihar. This binding is conditional on the absence of intention, or on an intention overturned by evidence. Whoever comes seeking a ruling is believed if he claims to have intended the zihar, and the zihar becomes binding on him; in judgment, the zihar and the three divorces become binding on him on the consummated wife as on the other, unless he intended fewer than three divorces, in which case what he intended becomes due on him together with the zihar; if he marries her after another husband, he may not approach her until he has expiated.
The hidden allusion turns to zihar or divorce only through intent: the zihar becomes binding on him by any words he intends it with, such as "go away, go, eat, drink"; if he intended divorce by them, divorce would become binding on him; without any intention, nothing is due on him (al-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 3/141 and 3/143; Mawahib al-Jalil, 5/347 and 5/353; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 4; al-Sharh al-Kabir with Hashiyat al-Dasuqi, 3/368 and 3/371; Tahrir al-Mukhtasar, 3/266 and 3/271; Hashiyat al-Sawi, 5/477 and 5/480).
According to the Shafi'is, explicit zihar is for the husband to say to his wife: "you are to me, from me, with me, at me, or in my possession, or the like, like the back of my mother"; likewise "you are like the back of my mother"; likewise "your body, your whole, your person, yourself or your entirety is like the body, the whole, the person or the entirety of my mother": it is explicit because the back is included in it. The most apparent view (jadid): his saying "you are to me like her hand, her belly or her chest", and likewise the members not mentioned in contexts of honor and esteem, is a zihar; for it is a member whose enjoyment is forbidden, and it becomes like the back. The second view: it is not a zihar, because it is not the form of zihar known in the Jahiliyya. Likewise "you are to me like her eye or her head", or what admits of honor ("you are like my mother, her soul or her face"): it is a zihar if he intended zihar, that is that she is like the back of his mother in prohibition; if he intended honor, it is not, for these expressions serve honor and regard. If he speaks without specifying, the more correct view is that it is not a zihar, by carrying it to possible honor; the second view: it is carried to the zihar, for the formula is explicit in the comparison to a part of the mother's members. His saying "your head, your back, your hand, your leg, your body, your skin or your hair, or the like, is to me like the back of my mother" is a zihar according to the most apparent view; likewise if he takes as example the common fraction, such as the half or the quarter; the second view: it is not a zihar, because it is not the form known in the Jahiliyya.
The comparison to the grandmother, maternal or paternal, however distant, holds from both directions: "you are to me like the back of my grandmother" is a zihar, for she is called mother, she has given birth, and she shares with the mother in manumission, the falling of retribution and the obligation of maintenance. The madhhab is to apply it to every mahram, by lineage, nursing or affinity, to whom the comparison is made without her prohibition becoming permanent for the muzahir, in that she remains forbidden to him, like his daughter, his sister by lineage, or his mother or his father's mother by nursing; for they equal the mother in permanent prohibition. The second view is to deny the application of zihar, because of the text specific to the mother. The nursing mother of the muzahir and his son's wife are not included, for they were lawful to him at some time, and his intention may be supposed. As for the daughter of his nursing mother, if she was born after he was nursed, she was never lawful to him in any state, unlike the one born before him, and the one born after him but conceived during the nursing. If he compares his wife to a foreign woman, to a thrice-divorced woman, to his wife's sister, to the muzahir's father, or to an adversary in li'an, this comparison is void: the first three equal the mother in permanent prohibition; the father, or any other man like the son and the boy, is not a locus of enjoyment; the hermaphrodite (khuntha) here is like the male, for what has been mentioned; and the li'an-bound woman, though her prohibition is permanent, is not a mahram by kinship; likewise the Zoroastrian or the apostate woman. All this concerns immediate zihar; the conditional one will be treated later.
Among the allusions that admit of zihar as well as of something else: saying to his wife "you are to me like my mother, my sister", or "you are with me like my mother and my sister". When he utters such words, they turn to the meaning he intended: if he intended the zihar, he is a muzahir; if he intended to compare his wife to his mother or sister in honor and esteem, he is not a muzahir and nothing at all is due on him (al-Bayan, 10/335 and 10/338; Rawdat al-Talibin, 5/579 and 5/581; al-Najm al-Wahhaj, 8/49 and 8/53; Kanz al-Raghibin, 4/35-36; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 5/33 and 5/37; Tuhfat al-Muhtaj, 9/655 and 9/659; Nihayat al-Muhtaj, 7/95 and 7/97; al-Dibaj, 3/503 and 3/507).
According to the Hanbalis, the formulas of zihar are: "you are like the back of my mother, you are to me like the back of my mother, you are to me like the belly of my mother, you are to me like the hand of my mother, you are to me like the head of my mother, you are to me like the hand of my sister, or like the face of my mother-in-law", and the like. Or: "your back is like the back of my mother, or her belly"; or "your hand, your head, your skin or your private part is to me like the back of my mother, or like the hand of my sister, my paternal aunt or my maternal aunt", by lineage or by nursing. If he says "you, or your hand, or the like, is to me like my mother's hair, her tooth or her nail", it is not a zihar, for these are not permanent members; and if he compares his wife's nails, hair or teeth, or her soul, vein, saliva, tear or blood, to his mother or her back, it is not a zihar, for what has preceded.
If he says "my face is forbidden to you from your face", it is not a zihar but a vain utterance, for it is often used outside the zihar and does not convey its meaning. If he says "I am a muzahir", or "the zihar is upon me, the forbidden is upon me, or the forbidden is binding on me", it is void, unless with an intention or a context indicating the zihar; for he intended the zihar by a formula that admits of it, and it becomes a zihar. Likewise "I am forbidden to you": with intention or context, it is a zihar, for forbidding one's own access entails mutual prohibition. And if he says "I am to you like the back of a man", it is a zihar with intention or context; without intention or context, it is void.
It is disliked for a man to address his wife by the name of someone forbidden to him, saying "O my sister, O my daughter", and the like.
It is reported that a man said to his wife "O my sister", and the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "Is she your sister?" He disliked it and forbade it.Weak hadith, reported by Abu Dawud (2210)
It is a formula resembling the zihar without establishing its ruling, being neither explicit nor intended; likewise his calling her "O his brother" and the like. If he says to his wife "you are to me like my mother, or as my mother", "you are from me like my mother, or like my mother", or "you are to me like my mother", he is a muzahir: he has compared his wife to his mother, more strongly than if he had compared her to one of her members, whether or not he intended the zihar, such being the apparent meaning of the formula. If he says "I meant to be like my mother in honor", his statement is accepted as a ruling, for he has affirmed by his words what they admit of.
If he says "you are like the back of my mother, divorced", the zihar and the divorce occur together, for he has uttered both explicits, whether the divorce is irrevocable or revocable. And "you are divorced like the back of my mother": she is divorced, for he has uttered the explicit of divorce first and made "like the back of my mother" a qualifier, as if he had intended it for emphasis; unless he intended the zihar by it, in which case the divorce is revocable and he places her within the term, like the preceding one. If he intended the zihar and the divorce was irrevocable, it is like the zihar of a foreign woman, for he pronounced the zihar after the marital bond was severed, like the divorce; and if the divorce was revocable, the zihar is valid, for the revocable one is a wife.
His saying "you are my mother, or like my mother, or like my mother", or "my wife is my mother", is not a zihar: the formula is apparent in honor, and it is necessarily carried to that meaning; nor is it explicit, not being the usual formula, as in "you are old like my mother"; unless he intended the zihar by it or joined to it an indication of the will to zihar, for intention specifies the formula, and context is similar to it. If he says "my mother is my wife, or my mother is like my wife", he is not a muzahir, for the formula does not suit the zihar.
His saying "you are to me like the back of my father", or of any other man, relative or foreigner, or "you are to me like the back of a foreign woman, of my wife's sister, of her paternal aunt or maternal aunt", is a zihar: he has compared her to the back of someone forbidden to him, more strongly than the back of the mother; likewise if he compares her to carrion. But "you are to me like the back of a beast" produces no zihar, for it is not a locus of enjoyment. "You are forbidden if Allah wills" produces no zihar; likewise if he put the exception first: "by Allah I will not do so if Allah wills", which is an oath carrying expiation. "You are forbidden to me" is a zihar, even if he intended only divorce, or divorce together with zihar, or an oath: it is a prohibition he imposed upon the wife, hence a zihar as if he had compared her to the back of his mother. And if he says this for a temporary prohibition, such as menses, lochia or the state of ihram, intending the zihar, it is a zihar, for the formula suits it.
Similarly, since the zihar is a word by which the wife becomes forbidden, its conditioning is valid like divorce: if the conditioned act does not occur, no zihar takes place (al-Muhit al-Burhani, 4/29; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 3/138-139; Mawahib al-Jalil, 5/344-345; al-Sharh al-Kabir with Hashiyat al-Dasuqi, 3/366-367; Tahrir al-Mukhtasar, 3/262-263; al-Umm, 5/278; al-Bayan, 10/343; Rawdat al-Talibin, 5/582; al-Najm al-Wahhaj, 8/52-53; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 5/35-36; Tuhfat al-Muhtaj, 9/658-659; al-Dibaj, 3/505; al-Mughni, 8/11; Kashshaf al-Qina', 5/433; Manar al-Sabil, 3/138).
The jurists differ over timing the zihar by a duration, such as saying to one's wife "you are to me like the back of my mother for a day or a month": is it valid? There are three views.
The majority of jurists, the Hanafis, the Malikis, the Shafi'is in the most apparent view and the Hanbalis, hold that timing the zihar by a duration is valid. Whoever says "you are to me like the back of my mother for a month, or until the month of Ramadan ends": when the fixed time elapses, the zihar ceases and the wife becomes lawful again without expiation, if he has not had intercourse during the period. Allah said: "Those of you who make zihar of their wives" (Surat Al-Mujadala, 2), without distinguishing the immediate from the timed; and Allah pointed out that the zihar is a detestable and false word, a meaning that exists in the timed zihar as well.
Salama ibn Sakhr said: I was a man afflicted by women as no one else was. When the month of Ramadan entered, I feared that I would be afflicted by something from my wife that would be followed upon me until morning; so I made zihar of her until the end of the month of Ramadan. While she was serving me one night, something of her became uncovered to me, and I did not delay in mounting upon her. When morning came, I went out to my people, told them the news, and said: walk with me to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). They said: no, by Allah. So I went to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and told him; he said: "Are you still in that state, O Salama?" I said: yes, O Messenger of Allah, twice over, and I am patient with the decree of Allah; so judge for me what Allah shows you. He said: "Free a slave." I said: by Him Who sent you with the truth, I own no slave but her, and I struck the back of my neck with my hand. He said: "Then fast two consecutive months." I said: and was it not enough that I was afflicted only by fasting! He said: "Then feed a sa' of dates to sixty poor persons." I said: by Him Who sent you with the truth, we spent the night hungry, with no food. He said: "Then go to the keeper of the charity of Banu Zurayq, let him hand it over to you, feed sixty poor persons with a sa' of dates, and eat the rest, you and your family." I returned to my people and said: I found with you hardship and bad counsel, and with the Prophet (peace be upon him) ease and good counsel; he has ordered me, or ordered on my behalf, from your charity.Authentic hadith, reported by Abu Dawud (2213), at-Tirmidhi (3299), Ahmad in al-Musnad (16468), Ibn Khuzayma (2378) and al-Hakim (2815)
The Prophet (peace be upon him) imposed the expiation upon him without objecting to the time restriction nor blaming it, after Salama had told him that he had had intercourse with her during the month. It is also an oath carrying an expiation, whose timing is valid like the oath by Allah: he forbade himself by oath what carries an expiation as consequence, and the oath may be timed like the ila'. This differs from divorce, which removes ownership, whereas this imposes a prohibition lifted by the expiation, being closer to the ila'. When the term ends, the zihar ceases, for the prohibition coincided with that span of time and must end with it; and if he touches her during the period, the expiation becomes obligatory on him, as the Prophet imposed it upon Salama, and it does not repeat except by intercourse during the period (Ahkam al-Qur'an, 5/306; Tahrir al-Mukhtasar, 3/263; al-Bayan, 10/342-343; Rawdat al-Talibin, 5/592; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 5/40; Tuhfat al-Muhtaj, 9/658; al-Mughni, 8/11; al-Mubdi', 8/40; Kashshaf al-Qina', 5/433; Manar al-Sabil, 3/139).
Imam Abu Bakr al-Jassas (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the prohibition of zihar occurs only as timed, lifted by performing the expiation; when the muzahir times it, the timing becomes necessary, for if it belonged to what cannot be timed, that prohibition would not be lifted by the expiation, as with divorce. The zihar resembles the oath lifted by its violation: its timing therefore becomes necessary like that of the oath, and it is not like divorce, which nothing lifts (Ahkam al-Qur'an, 5/306).
The Shafi'is, in one view (with Ibn Abi Layla and al-Layth), hold that timing the zihar by a term is not valid, as if the husband said to his wife "you are to me like the back of my mother for a day, a month, or until such a month"; for the zihar is to compare one's wife permanently to someone permanently forbidden to him. If he makes a timed zihar of her, he is not a muzahir, as if he had compared her to someone not permanently forbidden but only until a term, like his thrice-divorced wife (al-Bayan, 10/342-343; Rawdat al-Talibin, 5/592; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 5/40).
The Malikis, in the famous view, and the Shafi'is, in one view, hold that if he times the zihar to a specific duration, it becomes permanent and the timing is void: the prohibition is not specific to that term but becomes permanently established on him, lifted only by the expiation, and he may not approach her before paying it. If he says "you are to me like the back of my mother during this month, or for a month", it becomes permanently established; when the term has passed, the ruling of zihar remains, indeed becomes even more established, since the cause of expiation is present. In all this it is like divorce: it is a formula to which the Shari'a attaches the prohibition of consummation, and so it must not be timed to a specific term, as when he says "you are divorced today", which is a permanent divorce (al-Ishraf 'ala Nakt al-Masa'il al-Khilaf, 3/483; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 3/139; Mawahib al-Jalil, 5/344-345; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 4/103; Tahrir al-Mukhtasar, 3/263; Rawdat al-Talibin, 5/592; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 5/40).
The jurists discussed the man's words to his wife "you are forbidden to me": is it a divorce? A zihar? An oath carrying an expiation? Nothing at all? Or is it counted according to his intention?
The Hanafis hold that if a man says to his wife "you are forbidden to me, I have forbidden you to myself, I am forbidden to you, I have forbidden myself to you, or you are a forbidden one to me", all of it is equivalent, and he is asked about his intention: he has uttered an ambiguous word admitting several meanings. The speech of the speaker refers to what he wants, and his will is known only from his side: he is therefore asked about his intention. If he says "I intended the divorce", it is an irrevocable repudiation, unless he intended three, in which case three; if he intended one, one; two, one irrevocable; for "forbidden" is an allusion, and recourse is had to his intention. If he says "I intended the zihar", it is a zihar according to Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf: he has described her with prohibition, zihar involves a kind of prohibition, and the unqualified is carried to the qualified if the latter is intended; the woman is at times forbidden by divorce and at times by zihar: whichever he intended, he intended what his speech admits of carrying, and he is believed. Muhammad said it is not a zihar, for lack of comparison to mahrams: the zihar is the comparison of the lawful to the forbidden, and comparison requires the particle of comparison, which is absent.
"O Prophet, why do you forbid what Allah has made lawful to you, seeking the approval of your wives? Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. Allah has indeed prescribed for you the dissolution of your oaths."
Surat At-Tahrim, 1-2
If he says "I intended the prohibition" or "I intended nothing by it", it is an oath by which he becomes bound to break it: the principle in forbidding the lawful is the oath. If he says "I intended nothing", he is not believed in judgment, for the apparent meaning is the oath; once the oath is established, he becomes bound to break it, to the point that if he leaves her for four months, the bond is severed by an irrevocable repudiation. If he says "I intended a lie", nothing occurs and it is as he said, and it is not an ila' because he intended the letter of his words: that remains between him and Allah. In judgment, however, he is not believed and it is an oath, for the apparent meaning is that prohibition in the Shari'a is an oath, according to the verses of At-Tahrim quoted above. It is said that the verse came down concerning his forbidding of his slave-girl Mariya the Copt when he said "she is forbidden to me", and Allah called it an oath, that is: Allah has made it easy for you, or permitted you, to release your oaths by expiation; in another reading: "the expiation of your oaths"; the address is general and encompasses the Messenger of Allah and his community. The expiation of the oath presupposes the oath: this formula is therefore an oath in the Shari'a; if he intended a lie by it, he is not believed in judgment to nullify the oath, having deviated from the apparent.
In al-Lubab, from al-Hidaya: among the earlier masters, some turn the formula of prohibition into divorce without intention, by the judgment of custom; Imam al-Mahbubi said: the fatwa is given on that. Najm al-A'imma said: our later masters said that "the lawful is forbidden to me, you are forbidden to me, the lawful of Allah is forbidden to me, or every lawful thing is forbidden to me" is an irrevocable divorce, requiring no intention, by custom; to the point that they said of Muhammad's words ("if he intended an oath, it is an oath; and his wife is not affected by it except with intention, regarding what is eaten and drunk") that he answered thus only according to the custom of their lands, whereas in the custom of our lands they intend the prohibition of the wife, and it is carried to that. In Mukhtarat al-Nawazil: the later ones said that the divorce occurs without intention, by the predominance of custom, and the fatwa is on that; this is why only men use it as an oath. The author adds: among the expressions used in our cities and countryside: "the divorce binds me", "the forbidden binds me", "upon me is the divorce", "upon me is the forbidden"; likewise in al-Tashih (al-Lubab, 2/111 and 2/113; see al-Mabsut, 6/270-272; Tuhfat al-Fuqaha, 2/197; Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 3/167-169; al-Hidaya, 2/13; al-'Inaya, 5/362-363; al-Jawhara al-Nayyira, 4/510-512; Ekhtilaf al-Ulama, 1/198).
The Malikis hold that if a man says to his wife "you are forbidden to me", she is divorced three times, and he is not asked about his intention. Malik reported in al-Muwatta that it reached him that Ali ibn Abi Talib said, concerning the man who says to his wife "you are forbidden to me": "she is divorced three times"; and Malik said: that is the best thing I have heard on the subject (al-Muwatta, 2/552). If he says it before consummating the marriage: three times, unless he says "I intended one only" according to Malik; Abd al-Aziz ibn Abi Salama said: one only, unless he says "I intended three"; and Abd al-Malik ibn al-Majishun said: whether or not there is intention, it is three in every case, like the consummated wife. Al-Mudawwana reports: (I said) the man who says to his wife "you are forbidden to me": is he asked about his intention? (He replied): according to Malik, he is asked about nothing, and she is divorced three times absolutely if he consummated with her. If the man says "you are forbidden to me" and claims "I did not intend divorce, I intended zihar", like the one who says "you are divorced absolutely" while claiming to have intended only one, that is not accepted from him; Malik said: people are taken by what their tongues uttered in the matter of divorce. Ibn al-Qasim said: the "forbidden" with Malik is a divorce, and he is not questioned about the forbidden just as he is not questioned about divorce. And if he intended one or two repudiations: if he consummated with her, it is the absolute and his intention counts for nothing; otherwise, it is as he intended, for one and two repudiations do not forbid the one not consummated, and the consummated one is forbidden only by three. Before consummation, "you are forbidden to me" is three according to Malik, unless he intended one or two (al-Mudawwana al-Kubra, 5/393-394; see Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, 7/401-402; al-Kafi, p. 265; al-Istidhkar, 6/16 and 6/22; Bidayat al-Mujtahid, 2/58-59).
Ibn Abd al-Barr (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the proof of Malik and of those who follow his view in the "forbidden" is the consensus of scholars that the woman divorced three times becomes forbidden to him; since the triple is a prohibition, it is therefore a prohibition of three; Allah knows best (al-Istidhkar, 6/22).
The Shafi'is hold that if a man says to his wife "you are forbidden to me": if he intended divorce by it, it is a divorce, for the formula admits of prohibition by divorce, and he counts the number he intended, one, two or three; without a number, one revocable. If he intended zihar by it, it is a zihar, for it admits of prohibition by zihar. If he intended the ila', it is not one, for the ila' is an oath that is not contracted by allusion. And if he intended by it to forbid intercourse, she is not forbidden, but an expiation of oath is due on him. Sa'id ibn Jubayr reported from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them): a man came to Ibn Abbas and said: I have made my wife forbidden to me. He said: you have lied, she is not forbidden to you. Then he recited the verses of At-Tahrim quoted above to the end of the verse; an expiation of oath is due on him, for the Prophet (peace be upon him) forbade Mariya the Copt, mother of Ibrahim son of the Messenger of Allah, and Allah sent down the verse, the expiation becoming obligatory for the slave-girl by the verse; the free woman is compared to her, for they are alike in the making lawful of consummation and its prohibition. Without any intention: neither divorce, nor zihar, nor prohibition attaches to it; and whether an expiation of oath is due, there are two views.
Imam al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) said: if a man says to his wife "you are forbidden to me", no divorce occurs until he intends divorce; if he intends it, it is a divorce, of the number he intended; if he intended a divorce without a number, it is one, and he retains the right of return. If he says "I intended her prohibition without divorce", she is not forbidden, and an expiation of oath is due on him; he may touch her if he wishes before expiating. We say that an expiation of oath is due on him when he intended her prohibition without divorcing her, for the Prophet forbade his slave-girl and was ordered an expiation of oath. When the husband does not intend divorce in forbidding his wife, he has imposed prohibition upon a consummation lawful to him without its becoming forbidden: an expiation is due on him, like the one who forbade his slave-girl, and she does not become forbidden to him; the two together are the prohibition of two consummations in which divorce occurs through neither. If he says "everything I own is forbidden to me", meaning his wife, his slave-girls and his wealth: he expiates for the woman and the slave-girls, one expiation each, if he did not intend to divorce the woman. If he says "my wealth is forbidden to me" without meaning his wife or his slave-girls: no expiation is due on him and his wealth is not forbidden to him (al-Umm, 5/262; see al-Hawi al-Kabir, 10/182-183; al-Muhadhdhab, 2/83; Sharh Sahih Muslim, 10/73-74; al-Awsat, 9/188 and 9/195; al-Ishraf, 5/200-202).
The Hanbalis of the madhhab hold that whoever says to his wife "you are forbidden to me", it is a zihar whose expiation becomes due, whether he intended it or not: it is a prohibition of the wife without divorce, and the expiation of zihar becomes due on him, as if he had said "you are forbidden to me like the back of my mother". Allah made the comparison to someone forbidden to him a zihar, and the explicit declaration of prohibition is even more so; in support: Allah did not entrust him with prohibition and making lawful. Whoever says "you are to me like the back of my mother, or you are forbidden to me" has uttered the detestable word of falsehood and lied about Allah, and the graver of the two expiations becomes due on him: the expiation of zihar. Abdallah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal said: I asked my father about a man who said to his wife "you are forbidden to me" intending divorce; he said: it is not a divorce, whether he intended it or not; it is said: the expiation of zihar is in it (Masa'il Abdallah ibn al-Imam Ahmad, 1/343).
According to the other Hanbali narration, it is an oath whose expiation is due on him, according to the verses of At-Tahrim; from Ibn Abbas: "when a man forbids his wife, it is an oath he expiates" (reported by Bukhari, 4965, and Muslim, 1473); and he recited "You have in the Messenger of Allah an excellent model" (Surat Luqman, 21). It is a prohibition of the lawful, closer to the prohibition of the slave-girl; and it is reported from Abu Bakr (weak narration: Sa'id ibn Mansur in his Sunan, 1/228, number 1695; Ibn Abi Shayba in al-Musannaf, 5/74, number 18507; Juwaybir weak in the chain; al-Dahhak did not meet Abu Bakr), from Umar (weak: Ibn Abi Shayba, 5/73, number 18497; Sa'id ibn Mansur, 1/229, number 1701; al-Daraqutni, 5/73; al-Bayhaqi in al-Kubra, 7/350; Ikrima, in the chain, did not meet Umar), from Ibn Mas'ud (weak: Sa'id ibn Mansur, 1/229, number 1698; al-Shafi'i in al-Umm, 7/157; al-Tabarani in al-Kabir, 9/327; al-Bayhaqi, 7/350; Ash'ath ibn Siwar weak in the chain) and from Aisha: it is a prohibition of a woman, hence an oath like the prohibition of the slave-girl.
A third narration from Ahmad: if he intended divorce, it is a divorce, for divorce is a prohibition and the allusion by "forbidden" is valid in it, as in "you are the hardship"; without intending divorce, it is a zihar. If he says "you are forbidden to me" intending both divorce and zihar, it is a zihar and not a divorce: a single formula cannot be both zihar and divorce, and the zihar is closer to this formula, to which it turns. If he says "you are forbidden to me, I mean divorce by it": two narrations; the first, famous: it is a divorce, for it is explicit in the word of divorce; the second: it is a zihar, for the formula does not serve as an allusion to divorce and does not become divorce through "I mean divorce", as in "you are to me like the back of my mother" (Masa'il Abdallah ibn al-Imam Ahmad, 1/343; al-Ifsah, 2/187-188; al-Mughni, 7/317-318 and 8/8, 8/12; al-Kafi, 3/173-174; al-Sharh al-Kabir, 8/300 and 8/304; al-Rawd al-Murbi', 2/377 and 2/423; Manar al-Sabil, 3/134-135).
Imam al-Qurtubi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the scholars differed, in eighteen views, concerning the man who says to his wife "you are forbidden to me" (tafsir al-Qurtubi, 18/180-185); he then listed them. The question was treated more fully in the chapter on divorce, where a long passage of Imam Ibn al-Qayyim was reported.