Islamic Fiqh > Marriage and family > Zihar (comparison to the back) > Repetition of the zihar
Contents
Updated on 25 September 2026 at 3:23 PM
This part belongs to the full section: All sections of this part.
The jurists agree: whoever made zihar of his wife, then expiated, then makes zihar of her again owes a second expiation, for the second zihar is like the first: he has forbidden the wife he had made lawful, and the expiation becomes due as with the first. They differ over the one who repeats the zihar several times without paying: does a single expiation suffice, whether he intended emphasis or renewal, or does each zihar require an expiation?
The Malikis, al-Shafi'i in the old school, and the Hanbalis according to the apparent meaning of the madhhab, hold that whoever makes zihar of his wife repeatedly without expiating owes only one expiation, whether he is in a single sitting or successive sittings, whether he intended emphasis, renewal, or specified nothing. His word has not produced a new prohibition of the wife, who was already forbidden by the first word; there is therefore no additional expiation, like the oath by Allah: the formula carries one expiation, and its repetition is discharged with a single one, like the oath. Except that the Malikis say: if he repeats "you are to me like the back of my mother" three times intending three zihars, only one expiation is due on him, even if he intended three zihars; unless he intended three expiations, in which case three become due on him, like the one who swears by Allah three times intending three expiations: it becomes due on him if he violates his oath (al-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 3/145; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 4/108; al-Sharh al-Kabir with Hashiyat al-Dasuqi, 3/372-373; Tahrir al-Mukhtasar, 3/273; al-Hawi al-Kabir, 10/439 and 10/441; al-Bayan, 10/355-356; al-Mughni, 8/35-36; al-Mubdi', 8/45; al-Insaf, 9/206-207; Kashshaf al-Qina', 5/436; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 5/545).
The Hanafis, and Ahmad in one narration, hold that if he repeated the zihar in a single sitting intending repetition, one expiation is due; without intention, each zihar requires one, in a single sitting or in different sittings. And if he repeats the zihar towards one woman twice or more, in a sitting or in sittings, the expiation repeats with his repetition, unless he intended in the later repetitions emphasis, in which case he is believed in judgment between the two. Without intention, each zihar requires an expiation, for repeating the zihar towards one woman equals repeating the oath: as an expiation is due for each oath, so it is for each zihar (al-Mabsut, 6/226; Sharh Fath al-Qadir, 4/257; 'Umdat al-Qari, 20/282; Hashiyat Ibn 'Abidin, 3/471; al-Mughni, 8/35-36; al-Mubdi', 8/45; al-Insaf, 9/206-207).
The Shafi'is, in the later school, hold that the zihar is not limited in number, unlike divorce which is limited to three. If he makes zihar of his wife and then repeats it, this divides into two kinds. Consecutive repetition, in which his state is never free of three cases: if he intended emphasis by the repetition, it is a single zihar with a single expiation, like divorce repeated for emphasis which counts as one repudiation; if he intended renewal, each utterance is a zihar: five repetitions make five zihars, whereas divorce repeated five times counts only three, and five expiations become due on him, for what became established after the first as the first requires what the first required; and if he let his repetition go without intending emphasis or renewal, it is a single zihar with a single expiation, by carrying it to emphasis. The second kind is separated repetition, as when he makes zihar one day, repeats it the next day, then the day after: likewise three cases. Emphasis is like the consecutive and requires only one expiation; renewal holds for divorce and zihar: if the later zihar occurs after expiating the first, a second expiation is due, and likewise for what follows if he expiates for what preceded; if it occurs before his expiation, there are two views: the old one, a single expiation for all of it; the later one, an expiation for each zihar. And if he intended neither emphasis nor renewal: after the expiation, it is carried to renewal; before, two orientations: carrying it to renewal like divorce, with the two views on the expiation; or carrying it to emphasis, unlike divorce (al-Hawi al-Kabir, 10/439 and 10/441; al-Bayan, 10/355-356; Nihayat al-Matlab, 14/497).
The jurists of the four schools agree: if a man has four wives and makes zihar of each of them by a word, and intercourse has occurred, four expiations become due on him. They differ over the one who makes zihar of them all in a single word: an expiation for each, or does a single one suffice?
The majority of jurists, the Malikis, the Shafi'is in the old school and the Hanbalis, hold that if he makes zihar of his four wives in one word, such as "you are all to me like the back of my mother", only one expiation is due on him: it is a single oath, hence no more than one expiation, like the oath by Allah. Except that the Malikis add: if he intended an expiation for each one, each becomes due on him (al-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 3/145; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 4/108; al-Sharh al-Kabir with Hashiyat al-Dasuqi, 3/372-373; Tahrir al-Mukhtasar, 3/273; al-Hawi al-Kabir, 10/439 and 10/441; al-Bayan, 10/355-356; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 5/545; Kashshaf al-Qina', 5/436).
The Hanafis and the Shafi'is in the later school hold that if he makes zihar of his four wives in one word, four expiations become due on him: each is forbidden to him before the expiation, and a single expiation does not lift the prohibition, as if he had named each of them by a word. The zihar imposes a temporary prohibition lifted by the expiation, and when he attaches it to different loci, a prohibition becomes established in each, lifted only by the expiation. It is like the three repudiations, which impose a temporary prohibition tied to one husband: if it is imposed upon four wives in a single word, a prohibition becomes established for each one, lifted only by the husband's expiation. Unlike the oath: the expiation there is due for violating the sanctity of the name of Allah by breaking the oath, and that is not multiplied by the number of women (al-Mabsut, 6/226; Sharh Fath al-Qadir, 4/256-257; al-Bayan, 10/354-355).
The fourth pillar is the comparator: the mother, to whom is attached every woman permanently forbidden by lineage, nursing or affinity (Ashhal al-Madarik, 2/169; al-Qawanin al-Fiqhiyya, p. 160; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 4/103). The scholars detail its conditions.
First condition: that the comparator be of the category of women. The Hanafis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis in one narration, which is the view of Ibn Habib among the Malikis, required that the comparator be a woman, like the mother and the sister: if he says "you are to me like the back of my father or my son", the zihar is not valid. Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) said: it is the view of most scholars, for it is a comparison to what is not a locus of enjoyment, as if he said "you are to me like the lion of Zayd" (al-Mughni, 8/5). The zihar is a custom made a cause of expiation by the Shari'a, which brought it only for that whose comparator is a woman, like the mother and the mahrams whose back he cannot look at lawfully in any state, whereas he may look at his father's back: the father and the foreign man are equal in this. "You are to me like the back of a foreign man" produces nothing, and so does the back of the father, though looking at it is forbidden to him. The difference rests on two points: the back of the mother is a locus of enjoyment, and was therefore specified with the prohibition of zihar, whereas the father's back is not; and the mother is a locus of divorce, and was therefore specified with the zihar, whereas the father is not. But if he says "you are to me like the private part of my father or my son", he is a muzahir according to the Hanafis (Ahkam al-Qur'an of al-Jassas, 5/311; Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 3/233; al-Jawhara al-Nayyira, 4/536; al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya, 1/507; Tahrir al-Mukhtasar, 3/266; al-Umm, 5/278; al-Hawi al-Kabir, 10/433; al-Muhadhdhab, 2/112; al-Mughni, 8/5-6; al-Kafi, 3/256; al-Mubdi', 8/33; al-Insaf, 9/195-196).
The Malikis in the famous view and the Hanbalis in the madhhab hold that comparing the wife to men is valid: whoever says to his wife "you are to me like the back of my father", or of any other man, relative or foreigner, has pronounced a zihar, for he has compared her to the back of someone forbidden to him, more strongly than the back of the mother. But if he says "like my father, or my boy" without naming the back, it is not a zihar (al-Kafi, 1/283; al-Bayan wa-l-Tahsil, 5/198; Hashiyat al-'Adawi, 2/135; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 4/105; Hashiyat al-Sawi, 5/478; Tahrir al-Mukhtasar, 3/266; al-Mughni, 8/5-6; al-Kafi, 3/256; al-Mubdi', 8/33; al-Insaf, 9/195-196; Kashshaf al-Qina', 5/430-431; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 5/540).
Second condition. The jurists differ over the man who compares his wife to a member of his mother that may be looked at, such as the hand, the head or the face: "you are to me like the hand of my mother, her head or her face": is he a muzahir?
The Hanafis require that the comparison be to a member that may not be looked at: the back, the belly, the thigh or the private part; if he compares her to his mother's head, face, hand or leg, he is not a muzahir, for these members may be looked at (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 3/3 and 3/233; al-Muhit al-Burhani, 4/28). The majority of jurists, the Malikis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis of the madhhab, hold that the husband who compares his wife to any member of his mother, whether it may be looked at or not, is a muzahir. The Malikis say: if he compares his wife to a member of his mother, such as "you are to me like her head, her hair or her hand", it is a zihar, for it is a member of his mother to whom he compared his wife, whose origin is the back (al-Ishraf 'ala Nakt al-Masa'il al-Khilaf, 3/478-479, number 1298; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 3/141; Hashiyat al-Sawi, 8/478).
The Shafi'is say: if he compares his wife to a member of his mother other than her back ("you are to me like my mother's head, her hand or her leg"), or compares a member of his wife to his mother's back ("your hand, your leg or your private part is to me like the back of my mother"), it is a zihar if he intended that she be like the back of his mother in prohibition, for he has compared his wife to a member of his mother as if he had compared her to her thigh or her private part. If he intended honor, it is not, for these expressions serve honor and esteem; 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 (al-Hawi al-Kabir, 10/248; al-Bayan, 10/337-338; Rawdat al-Talibin, 5/580; al-Najm al-Wahhaj, 8/50; Kanz al-Raghibin, 4/35-36; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 5/33 and 5/37; Tuhfat al-Muhtaj, 9/656-657; Nihayat al-Muhtaj, 7/96; al-Dibaj, 3/504). The Hanbalis of the madhhab say: if he compares a member of his wife to the back of his mother, or to one of her members, he is a muzahir: "your private part, your back, your head or your skin is to me like the back of my mother, her body, her head or her hand": he is a muzahir, as if he had compared her to her back, and he is separated from her.
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). Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) said: if he says "you are to me like the back of my mother", it is a zihar by consensus, and Imam Ibn al-Mundhir reported this consensus. In the hadith of Khawla, wife of Aws ibn al-Samit, he said to her "you are to me like the back of my mother"; she mentioned it to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and he ordered her the expiation (al-Mughni, 8/4-5).
The majority of jurists, the Hanafis, the Malikis, the Shafi'is in the later school which is the madhhab, and the Hanbalis, which is the view of most of the people of knowledge, hold that the husband who compares his wife to a woman permanently forbidden to him, such as his daughter, his sister, his paternal aunt, his maternal aunt, his sister's daughters, his brother's daughters or his grandmother, has pronounced a zihar. Whoever says "you are to me like the back of my sister, my daughter, my paternal aunt, my maternal aunt, my sister's daughter or my niece" becomes a muzahir: they are forbidden by kinship and equal the mother, and the attachment of the ruling to the mother does not prevent its establishment for those like her. Allah said "Those of you who make zihar of their wives" up to "they say a word that is detestable and false" (Surat Al-Mujadala, 2): the zihar is a detestable and false word because he compares his wife to someone who is not like her, and this meaning exists in the comparison to the mahrams (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 3/233; al-Jawhara al-Nayyira, 4/535-536; al-Ikhtiyar, 3/198; al-Lubab, 2/123; al-Ishraf 'ala Nakt al-Masa'il al-Khilaf, 3/477-478; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 3/141; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 4/105; al-Sharh al-Kabir with Hashiyat al-Dasuqi, 3/368; Hashiyat al-Sawi, 5/478; Tahrir al-Mukhtasar, 3/267; al-Bayan, 10/336; Rawdat al-Talibin, 5/581; al-Najm al-Wahhaj, 8/51; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 5/35; Kanz al-Raghibin, 4/36; Tuhfat al-Muhtaj, 9/657-658; Nihayat al-Muhtaj, 7/96; al-Dibaj, 3/505; al-Mughni, 8/5; Kashshaf al-Qina', 5/429; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 5/537; Manar al-Sabil, 3/133).
The Shafi'is in the old school hold that it is not a zihar to compare one's wife to one of the mahrams other than the mother and the grandmother, such as saying "you are to me like the back of my daughter, my sister, my paternal aunt, my maternal aunt or my niece". The zihar of the Qur'an is the comparison to the back of the mother, and the mother has a prohibition that no one else has: proof is that if he owns his mother, she is freed for him, a meaning that exists for no one else; he is therefore not a muzahir by comparing his wife to them (al-Bayan, 10/336; Rawdat al-Talibin, 5/581; al-Najm al-Wahhaj, 8/51; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 5/35; Kanz al-Raghibin, 4/36; Tuhfat al-Muhtaj, 9/657-658; Nihayat al-Muhtaj, 7/96; al-Dibaj, 3/505).
The jurists discussed the one who compares his wife to the back of someone permanently forbidden to him besides close relatives: his mother by nursing, his sisters by nursing, his sons' wives and his father's wives, the mothers of his wives such as his wife's mother, or his wife's daughter whom he has consummated: is he a muzahir?
The majority of jurists, the Hanafis, the Malikis, the Shafi'is in one view and the Hanbalis, hold that it is a zihar: their marriage is permanently forbidden to him. The same applies to his wife's mother, whether he consummated the marriage or not, for the contract alone over the daughter forbids the mother. As for his wife's daughter, if he consummated, the same applies, for by consummating he has made her daughter permanently forbidden to himself; if he has not consummated, he is not a muzahir, for lack of permanent prohibition (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 3/233; al-Jawhara al-Nayyira, 4/535-536; al-Ikhtiyar, 3/198; al-Lubab, 2/123; al-Ishraf 'ala Nakt al-Masa'il al-Khilaf, 3/477-478; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 3/141; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 4/105; al-Sharh al-Kabir with Hashiyat al-Dasuqi, 3/368; Hashiyat al-Sawi, 5/478; Tahrir al-Mukhtasar, 3/267; al-Bayan, 10/336; Rawdat al-Talibin, 5/581; al-Najm al-Wahhaj, 8/51; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 5/35; Kanz al-Raghibin, 4/36; Tuhfat al-Muhtaj, 9/657-658; Nihayat al-Muhtaj, 7/96; al-Dibaj, 3/505; al-Mughni, 8/5; Kashshaf al-Qina', 5/429; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 5/537; Manar al-Sabil, 3/133).
The Shafi'is of the madhhab said: if he compares her to someone forbidden by nursing or affinity, a distinction is made. If he compares her to someone who was lawful to him and then forbidden, such as his wife's mother, a woman his father married after his birth, or his nursing sister born after him, it is not a zihar: he has not compared her to the mother, nor to someone resembling her in prohibition, as if he had compared her to a beast. If he compares her to someone permanently forbidden to him who was never lawful, such as a woman his father married before his birth, or a nursing sister nursed before his birth, she is like the sister and the aunt according to the two previous views: the later school makes it a zihar, the old one does not (al-Bayan, 10/336-337; Rawdat al-Talibin, 5/581; al-Najm al-Wahhaj, 8/51; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 5/35; Kanz al-Raghibin, 4/36; Tuhfat al-Muhtaj, 9/657-658; Nihayat al-Muhtaj, 7/96; al-Dibaj, 3/505).
The jurists then discussed the one who compares his wife to a woman forbidden to him for the time being but lawful in another state, that is forbidden temporarily, such as his wife's sister, her paternal or maternal aunt, or any foreign married woman, by saying "you are to me like the back of your sister, your aunt, or like the back of so-and-so, foreign to him"; or to a woman from whom he was separated by li'an: is such a zihar valid? The Hanafis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis in one view hold that it is not a zihar: they are not permanently forbidden, like the menstruating woman or his forbidden wife (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 3/233; al-Jawhara al-Nayyira, 4/535-536; al-Ikhtiyar, 3/198; al-Lubab, 2/123; al-Bayan, 10/337; Rawdat al-Talibin, 5/581; al-Najm al-Wahhaj, 8/51; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 5/35; Kanz al-Raghibin, 4/36; Tuhfat al-Muhtaj, 9/657-658; Nihayat al-Muhtaj, 7/96; al-Dibaj, 3/505; al-Mughni, 8/5). The Malikis and the Hanbalis of the madhhab hold that it is a zihar: he has compared her to a forbidden woman, as if he had compared her to the mother; the mere words "you are forbidden to me" are a zihar if he intended zihar by them, and the comparison to a forbidden woman is a prohibition. He has therefore compared a consummation lawful to him to a forbidden consummation, producing prohibition like the mahrams (al-Ishraf 'ala Nakt al-Masa'il al-Khilaf, 3/478 and 3/481; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 3/141; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 4/105; al-Sharh al-Kabir with Hashiyat al-Dasuqi, 3/368; Hashiyat al-Sawi, 5/478; Tahrir al-Mukhtasar, 3/267; al-Bayan, 10/337; Rawdat al-Talibin, 5/581; al-Najm al-Wahhaj, 8/51; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 5/35; Kanz al-Raghibin, 4/36; Tuhfat al-Muhtaj, 9/657-658; Nihayat al-Muhtaj, 7/96; al-Dibaj, 3/505; al-Mughni, 8/5; Kashshaf al-Qina', 5/429; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 5/537; Manar al-Sabil, 3/134).
The jurists agree that the zihar emanates from the man: when the husband says to his wife "you are to me like the back of my mother", he becomes a muzahir. The jurists of the four schools also agree, except for one narration from Ahmad, that if the woman says to her husband "you are to me like the back of my father", or "if I marry so-and-so, he is to me like the back of my father", it is not a zihar. Allah said "Those who make zihar of their wives" (Surat Al-Mujadala, 3), an address to the males to the exclusion of the females; it is a word that imposes a prohibition upon the wife which only the husband can lift, like divorce; making lawful within the woman is a right of the man that she cannot withdraw; it is an oath that forbids intercourse by mere words, not valid from the woman like the ila'; a word from someone other than the husband who owns intercourse, like a foreign man; and whoever cannot divorce cannot make zihar, like the foreign woman (Ahkam al-Qur'an of al-Jassas, 5/310-311; Mokhtasar Ekhtilaf al-Ulama, 2/491-492; Sharh Fath al-Qadir, 4/252; al-Istidhkar, 6/55-56; al-Ishraf 'ala Nakt al-Masa'il al-Khilaf, 3/482-483, number 1304; al-Umm, 5/278; al-Muhadhdhab, 2/113; al-Bayan, 10/346; al-Mughni, 8/34; Sharh al-Zarkashi, 2/515; al-Mubdi', 8/37; al-Insaf, 9/200-201; Kashshaf al-Qina', 5/432-433; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 5/450 and 5/541; Manar al-Sabil, 3/136-137).
Imam al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) said: if a man's wife says to him "you are to me like the back of my father, or my mother", it is not a zihar and no expiation is due on her: she cannot impose a prohibition upon a man; only the man can impose it upon her (al-Umm, 5/278). Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) said: there is no zihar for women; Allah said "Those of you who make zihar of their wives" and did not say "those of you who make zihar of their husbands": the zihar falls only upon men. Al-Qurtubi said: Ibn al-Arabi reports this from Ibn al-Qasim, Salim, Yahya ibn Sa'id, Rabi'a and Abu al-Zinad; it is correct in meaning, for the making lawful, the contract, the dissolution and the prohibition in marriage are in the hands of men, none of it being in the hands of the woman; it is a consensus. Abu Amr said: there is no zihar for women according to the majority of scholars (tafsir al-Qurtubi, 17/276; al-Istidhkar, 6/55). Ibn Qudama said: if she says to her husband "you are to me like the back of my father" or "if I marry so-and-so, he is to me like the back of my father", it is not a zihar; the Qadi said: she is not a muzahira according to one narration, which is the view of most of the people of knowledge, among them Malik, al-Shafi'i, Ishaq, Abu Thawr and the partisans of opinion (al-Mughni, 8/34). Al-Zarkashi (may Allah have mercy on him) reports from Ibn Shihab and Abu Ya'la ibn Abi Hazm another narration: she may be a muzahira; they said Abu Bakr chose it, and Ibn Abi Hazm added the Qadi and al-Sharif. For the Companions judged in this matter the expiation of zihar, whose cause is the zihar, so she may be a muzahira, by analogy of one spouse to the other, and the expiation of zihar becomes due without any doubt (Sharh al-Zarkashi, 2/515).
They then differ: an expiation of oath? An expiation of zihar? Or nothing is due on her? The majority of jurists, the Hanafis in their sound view, the Malikis, the Shafi'is and Ahmad in one narration, hold that nothing becomes due on her: it is a detestable and false word; it is not a zihar, hence no expiation, like insult and slander; or it is a prohibition emanating from someone who cannot make zihar, resembling the zihar towards his slave-girl or the mother of his child (umm walad) (Ahkam al-Qur'an of al-Jassas, 5/310-311; Mokhtasar Ekhtilaf al-Ulama, 2/491-492; al-Ishraf 'ala Nakt al-Masa'il al-Khilaf, 3/482-483, number 1304; al-Umm, 5/278; al-Mughni, 8/35; al-Insaf, 9/200-201).
The Hanbalis of the madhhab hold that the expiation of zihar becomes due on her. Al-Athram reported through his chain from Ibrahim: Aisha bint Talha said: "if I marry al-Mus'ab ibn al-Zubayr, he is to me like the back of my father"; she asked the people of Medina and they judged the expiation upon her (authentic: reported by Abd al-Razzaq in al-Musannaf, 6/444, number 11596; and al-Daraqutni, 4/495). Ali ibn Mushir reported from al-Shaybani: I was sitting in the mosque with Abdallah ibn al-Mughaffal al-Muzani when a man came and sat near us; I asked him who he was; he said: the freedman of Aisha bint Talha, whom she freed for her zihar; al-Mus'ab ibn al-Zubayr proposed to her and she said: "he is to me like the back of my father if I marry him"; then she desired him and consulted the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, who were many at that time; they ordered her to free a slave and marry him; she freed me and married him. It is also because she is a spouse who has uttered the detestable and false word: the expiation of zihar becomes due on her like on the other; and because what is due is the expiation of oath, the two spouses being equal, like the oath by Allah.
On this basis, the expiation does not become due on her until he touches her while she is compliant. If he divorces her, or one of the two dies before intercourse, or before he compels her to it, no expiation is due on her: it is an oath whose expiation is not due before its violation, like other oaths. It is not presented before consummation, like the expiations of other oaths, though presenting it earlier is allowed; and she must allow her husband to touch her before the expiation: it is his right, which she does not forfeit by her oath. It is not a zihar but a prohibition of the lawful that establishes no prohibition, as if he forbade his food. Ibn Qudama said: it is reported that the apparent meaning of Abu Bakr's words is that she does not allow him before the expiation, by attaching it to the man; but this is not sound: the zihar of the man is valid, that of the woman is not; making lawful is the man's right, which he may remove, and the man's making lawful is her right, which she cannot withdraw (al-Mughni, 3/35; al-Kafi, 3/259; al-Insaf, 9/200-201; Kashshaf al-Qina', 5/432-433; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 5/450 and 5/541; Matalib Uli al-Nuha, 5/511; Manar al-Sabil, 3/136-137).
Abu Yusuf and Ahmad, in one narration, hold that an expiation of oath is due on her, like the one who forbids himself some food or the like. Ibn Qudama said: this is more analogous to Ahmad's madhhab and closer to its principles: it is not a zihar, and the detestable and false word alone does not require the expiation of zihar, as shown by every lie, the zihar before returning to intercourse, and the zihar towards his slave-girl and his umm walad. It is a prohibition that does not establish prohibition in the locus, like the prohibition of other lawful things; and it is a zihar towards one who is not his wife, resembling the zihar towards his slave-girl. As for what is reported from Aisha bint Talha about freeing the slave: the manumission may be the expiation of her oath, for manumission is one of the four elements of the expiation of oath, and it must be attached to that, what exists not being a zihar. Ahmad's words in the narration of al-Athram do not require the expiation of zihar: he said only "the safest is that she expiates", and Ibn al-Mundhir reported it likewise. There is no doubt that the safest is expiation by the gravest of expiations, to leave the dispute; but it is not an obligation, being neither textual nor of the meaning of the text: it is a prohibition of the lawful outside the zihar, as if he forbade his slave-girl or his food; this is the view of 'Ata'. Allah knows best (al-Mughni, 8/35; see Ahkam al-Qur'an of al-Jassas, 5/310-311; Mokhtasar Ekhtilaf al-Ulama, 2/491-492; al-Insaf, 9/200-201).
When the zihar is valid and its conditions are fulfilled, it entails the following effects.
The Muslim jurists agree that the muzahir may not have intercourse with his wife before paying the expiation, when it is a manumission or a fast. Allah said:
"Those who make zihar of their wives, then go back on what they said, must free a slave before they touch each other. This is what you are exhorted to, and Allah is informed of what you do. And whoever finds not the means must fast two consecutive months before they touch each other."
Surat Al-Mujadala, 3-4
The text establishes the prohibition of intercourse before manumission and fasting. Imam al-Mawardi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the prohibition of consummation before the expiation by manumission and fasting is among what the text answered and upon which the jurists agreed (al-Hawi al-Kabir, 10/521). Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the muzahir may not touch his wife before paying the expiation, with no difference of opinion, when the expiation is a manumission or a fast (al-Mughni, 8/9).
They differ: may he touch her before paying the expiation by feeding? The Hanafis, the Malikis, the Shafi'is, the Hanbalis of the madhhab and most of the people of knowledge hold that the expiation by feeding is like them: intercourse is forbidden to him before the expiation, for feeding is within their meaning.
Ikrima reported from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) that a man came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and said: O Messenger of Allah, I have made zihar of my wife and I had intercourse with her before paying the expiation. He said: What carried you to that, may Allah have mercy on you? He said: I saw her anklet in the moonlight. He said: Then do not approach her until you have done what Allah has ordered you.Fair hadith, reported by at-Tirmidhi (1199) and an-Nasa'i (3457, 3458)
He is a muzahir who has not expiated: his intercourse is forbidden as if his expiation were manumission or fasting, and the absence of a text does not prevent the analogy with the one whose meaning is textual. Al-Kasani (may Allah have mercy on him) said: all types of expiation are equal in these rulings, from manumission to fasting and food; just as intercourse and enjoyment are not permitted to him before manumission and fasting, they are not permitted before feeding; this is the view of most scholars. If intercourse were permitted to him before feeding, he could touch her while it is possible that he could manumit or fast during the period of feeding, and his expiation would transfer to that, showing that his intercourse was forbidden: he must therefore be protected from the forbidden by imposing the priority of feeding, as a precaution (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 3/234; see al-Mabsut, 6/225; Tuhfat al-Fuqaha, 2/212; al-Hidaya, 2/18; al-Ikhtiyar, 3/198; al-Ma'una, 1/607-608; al-Ishraf 'ala Nakt al-Masa'il al-Khilaf, 3/494-497; al-Bayan, 10/356-357; al-Mughni, 8/10; al-Sharh al-Kabir, 8/575; al-Mubdi', 8/41; Kashshaf al-Qina', 5/434; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 5/543; Matalib Uli al-Nuha, 5/513-514). Ahmad, in one narration, and Abu Thawr held that intercourse is lawful before the expiation by feeding: Allah did not forbid consummation before it as with manumission and fasting; there is no condition of precedence in the expiation by food, and no analogy in this chapter (al-Mughni, 8/10; al-Sharh al-Kabir, 8/575).
The jurists differ over the preliminaries of intercourse, such as kissing, touching with desire and other forms of enjoyment below penetration: are they forbidden to the muzahir like intercourse, or lawful before the expiation is paid?
The Hanafis, the Malikis in the famous view, the Shafi'is in the most apparent view and the Hanbalis of the madhhab hold that enjoyment is forbidden: the approach, the kiss, touching with desire, and looking at her private part with desire, before the expiation; Allah said "before they touch each other" (Surat Al-Mujadala, 4). The lightest thing bearing the name of touching is the touch of the hand: it is its reality for both of them, intercourse as well as the touch of the hand, the meaning of touching being present in both. Enjoyment leads to intercourse: if intercourse is forbidden, what leads to it is forbidden too, otherwise there would be contradiction; this is why it is forbidden in istibra' and in the state of ihram, unlike menses and lochia, where enjoyment does not lead to intercourse, the obstacle being the practice of pain. And this prohibition came about only through the comparison of the wife to the mother: before its extinction by the expiation, she equals the mother's prohibition which prevents enjoyment. The zihar was the divorce of the people of the Jahiliyya: the Shari'a transferred it from the prohibition of the locus to the prohibition of the act; the prohibition of the act for the muzahir with the marriage persisting equals the prohibition of the act for the thrice-divorced woman after the end of the marriage, a prohibition covering the whole body, and so does this one. Any formula by which her whole becomes forbidden does not stop at the private part, like divorce; it is a formula that imposed a prohibition upon the wife: it must cover intercourse and the rest; it is a kind of pleasure of enjoyment forbidden by the zihar like intercourse, for intercourse is forbidden only by the comparison of the lawful woman to the forbidden, a comparison that does not specify intercourse alone (al-Mabsut, 6/225; Tuhfat al-Fuqaha, 2/212; Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 3/233 and 3/235; al-Hidaya, 2/18; al-Ikhtiyar, 3/198; al-Ma'una, 1/606; al-Ishraf 'ala Nakt al-Masa'il al-Khilaf, 3/494-495; Bidayat al-Mujtahid, 2/82; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 3/145; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 4/108; al-Sharh al-Kabir with Hashiyat al-Dasuqi, 3/373; Tahrir al-Mukhtasar, 3/273; al-Bayan, 10/356-357; Rawdat al-Talibin, 5/587; al-Najm al-Wahhaj, 8/57; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 5/39-40; Nihayat al-Muhtaj, 7/101-102; al-Mughni, 8/10; al-Sharh al-Kabir, 8/575; al-Mubdi', 8/41; Kashshaf al-Qina', 5/434; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 5/543; Matalib Uli al-Nuha, 5/513-514).
The Shafi'is (al-Nawawi said: it is the most apparent view), the Hanbalis in one narration, Sahnun, Asbagh and Abd al-Malik among the Malikis hold that enjoyment below penetration is not forbidden before the expiation. Allah said "before they touch each other" (Surat Al-Mujadala, 4), and touching in the usage of the Shari'a means intercourse, as Allah said "And if you divorce them before you have touched them" (Surat Al-Baqara, 237). The prohibition of intercourse during menses and fasting does not entail the prohibition of enjoyment other than it: the same applies to the zihar, the benefit of the marriage remaining and the preliminaries such as perfume being lawful. And because it is a prohibition of intercourse to which no wealth attaches, it must therefore not forbid the preliminaries of intercourse, like the menses.
If he had intercourse before paying the expiation, he asks Allah's forgiveness and does not repeat until he expiates, for he committed the forbidden: Allah ordered the muzahir to free a slave before consummation, and if intercourse were not forbidden before it, the order to prioritize the freeing would be meaningless. No other expiation becomes due on him for what he did: Ikrima reported from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) the hadith quoted above, in which the Prophet (peace be upon him) said "then do not approach her until you have done what Allah has ordered you"; in another version: "Ask Allah's forgiveness and do not repeat until you expiate" (fair hadith: at-Tirmidhi, 1199; an-Nasa'i, 3457 and 3458; the second version is not found in the books of the Sunan). He ordered him istighfar, which occurs only for a sin: intercourse is therefore forbidden; he forbade the muzahir to return to intercourse, and the absolute prohibition implies forbiddance: intercourse before the expiation is therefore forbidden. From Ibn Abbas: "when he says 'you are to me like the back of my mother', she does not become lawful to him again until he expiates."
This applies to the unspecified zihar; for the timed zihar, intercourse is forbidden until he expiates or the duration elapses: she then becomes lawful again, the zihar having been lifted. Paying the expiation after intercourse is a making-up (qada'), and before it a performance within its time, like prayer in its time and after it (al-Mabsut, 6/225; Tuhfat al-Fuqaha, 2/212; Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 3/233 and 3/235; al-Hidaya, 2/18; al-Ikhtiyar, 3/198; al-Ma'una, 1/607-608; al-Ishraf 'ala Nakt al-Masa'il al-Khilaf, 3/494-497; al-Bayan, 10/356-357; Rawdat al-Talibin, 5/587; al-Najm al-Wahhaj, 8/57; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 5/39-40; Nihayat al-Muhtaj, 7/101-102; al-Mughni, 8/10; al-Sharh al-Kabir, 8/575; al-Mubdi', 8/41; Kashshaf al-Qina', 5/434; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 5/543; Matalib Uli al-Nuha, 5/513-514).
The Hanafis and the Malikis state textually that it is forbidden for the woman who is the object of zihar to let her husband approach her by intercourse and enjoyment before he pays the expiation: it is forbidden to him, and it is aiding sin; making the forbidden possible is forbidden. She must push him away from herself; if she fears for herself, she brings her matter to the judge, who prevents him from touching her. The Malikis added: he is disciplined if he consents, and her service remains due to him before the expiation, on condition of being veiled; he may be with her in one house, enter upon her without permission if he is beyond suspicion towards her, and he may look at her face, her head and her extremities, without pleasure (al-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 3/145; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 4/108; al-Sharh al-Kabir with Hashiyat al-Dasuqi, 3/373; Tahrir al-Mukhtasar, 3/274; Tuhfat al-Fuqaha, 2/212; Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 3/234).
The Hanafis state textually that the woman may demand intercourse from her husband; when she demands it, the judge must compel him to expiate and then touch her. By forbidding her through the zihar, he has harmed her by denying her the right of intercourse while the ownership of marriage persists; the claim is therefore allowed to her to recover her right and repel harm, and he is able to restore it by lifting the prohibition through the expiation: it is therefore due on him, and he is compelled if he refuses. Hisham reported from Muhammad (may Allah have mercy on them both): the muzahir is compelled to expiate in order to approach her; if he does not, I imprison him; if he still does not, I flog him; in debt I imprison him and do not flog him (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 3/234; al-Muhit al-Burhani, 4/31).
The Malikis say: when the muzahir is able to pay the expiation and refuses, the ila' then becomes binding on him, and the wife may seek divorce; but the judge does not divorce her until four months have elapsed. Once the term has passed, the judge orders him divorce or expiation; if he refuses and refuses to expiate, the judge divorces her on his behalf. They differ over when the four-month term begins, according to three views of Malik: from the day of the zihar; from the day of the petition and the judgment; or from the day the harm becomes apparent, that is the day of refusing to expiate; the apparent meaning of their words favors the first.
If the muzahir is unable to pay the expiation, the term of the ila' does not run, his excuse being established: no term is set for him. The wife is either contented to reside with him without intercourse, or divorced immediately; if he later acquires the means, he expiates and takes her back, otherwise not. This applies when hardship and the inability to fast occur after the contract of zihar; if he contracted it knowing his inability to fulfill it, there are two views: immediate divorce, harm being the aim of the zihar, or after the elapse of the ila' term, in the hope that Allah grants him wealth to expiate, or that she accepts to reside with him without intercourse (al-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 3/132; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 4/95; al-Sharh al-Kabir with Hashiyat al-Dasuqi, 3/354; Tahrir al-Mukhtasar, 3/250-251).