Those who practice [zihar] among you is a reproach to the Arabs and a distortion of their custom regarding [zihar], because it was among the oaths of the people of their ignorance specifically, unlike other nations. What are their mothers? It has been recited in the nominative case in both the Hijazi and Tamimi dialects. In the reading of Ibn Mas'ud: 'with their mothers,' and the addition of the preposition in the language of those who use the accusative. The meaning is that whoever says to his wife, 'You are to me like the back of my mother,' he is associating in his words the wife with the mother, making her like her.

This is a false analogy due to the difference in the two states. Indeed, their mothers are only those who gave birth to them. He means that the true mothers are indeed the ones who gave birth, and others are associated with them by being included in their ruling. Wet nurses are mothers because when they breastfeed, they enter into the ruling of mothers through breastfeeding. Likewise, the wives of the Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him, are the mothers of the believers, because Allah has prohibited marriage to them, thus they entered into the ruling of mothers. As for the wives, they are the farthest from motherhood because they are not mothers in reality. They are not included in the ruling of mothers. Therefore, the saying of the one who practices [zihar] is a denial of a statement that reality and legal rulings reject, and it is a falsehood and a lie that deviates from the truth. And indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful for what has passed from him if he repents from it and does not return to it. Then He said: 'And those who practice [zihar] from their wives, then return to what they said,' meaning: those whose custom was to say this saying.

Mawlana said: 'This means those whose custom was to say this saying... etc.' Ahmad said: 'This view necessitates expiation merely for the saying of [zihar] in Islam and nothing else, and the statement of its obligation merely for [zihar] is the saying of Mujahid from the successors and Sufyan from the jurists.'

The denial was cut off by Islam, then they return to something similar. So the expiation for one who returns is to free a slave, then he may engage with the one he has practiced [zihar] from, and it is not permissible for him to engage with her until he has presented the expiation. Another interpretation: 'Then they return to what they said,' meaning: then they rectify what they said.

Mawlana said: 'Another interpretation is that they return to what they said, then they rectify what they said... etc.' Ahmad said: 'This interpretation is based on the condition that the obligation of expiation is contingent upon returning after [zihar], which is the well-known opinion of the jurists of the cities, and this interpretation does not limit the various forms of return mentioned by the scholars.'

Because the one who rectifies the matter is returning to it. From this is the proverb: 'The rain returned to what it ruined,' meaning: it rectified it by reforming it. The meaning is that rectifying this saying and remedying it is by expiating until their state returns to what it was before [zihar]. A third interpretation is that what is meant by what they said is what they have made unlawful.

Mawlana said: 'A third interpretation is that what is meant by what they said... etc.' Ahmad said: 'This interpretation strengthens the opinion that the return is the act of intercourse itself, because its essence is: 'Then they return to intercourse.' The apparent meaning of your saying: 'the return is the act,' and interpreting the return as the act of intercourse is among the opinions of Malik, may Allah have mercy on him. It has been summarized that the words of the differing scholars regarding the return have sources from this verse. As for those who do not see the obligation of expiation except for mere [zihar], they interpret the return as referring to [zihar], and naming it a return in this case is based on the fact that it was in the time of ignorance and was interrupted in Islam, so its occurrence after Islam is a return to it. As for those who condition it on the return and consider the return to be the repetition of the words of [zihar], this is the saying of Dawood, who considered the apparent meaning of the words. As for those who interpret the return as the intention of intercourse, they see that the return to the first saying is a return by way of rectification, not repetition, and rectifying some of it with some of it. And whether its opposite is the intention of intercourse because the first is abstaining from it or the intention of holding back, because the bond necessitates permissibility and non-abstention, is sufficient for a point of disagreement. As for those who interpret it as the act of intercourse itself, they see that what is meant is the saying in which it was said, and they interpret His saying: 'before they touch each other' as meaning a second time. The scholars have also differed regarding whether one may engage in intercourse before the expiation. The well-known opinion among the scholars is that this does not nullify the expiation nor does it necessitate another.

Mujahid went to the obligation of another expiation by it. A group went to the complete removal of the expiation by it altogether. It seems that the origin of their disagreement is their consideration of the saying, 'before they touch each other.' Most scholars understood this as a prohibition of intercourse before expiation, to the extent that it is as if he said: there should be no touching until you expiate. The group that removed the expiation saw that touching is a condition for the obligation. Therefore, if he touches her, he has lost the condition, which is the absence of touching, and thus the obligation is lifted. Mujahid saw the obligation of expiation, and if they touch before the expiation, it becomes multiple. Then there is another consideration: he mentioned the absence of touching in the expiations of freeing a slave and fasting, and he removed it in the expiation of feeding. Abu Hanifa received this distinction between feeding and the other two, to the extent that if he had intercourse while feeding, he would not have to begin a new expiation, unlike the other two, as intercourse during either of them nullifies it and requires starting another. Abu Hanifa equated the three in prohibiting touching before they are completed. This is also reported from Al-Zamakhshari. One might say to Abu Hanifa: if you made the benefit of mentioning the absence of touching in some and removing it from others the distinction between their types, why did you direct the distinction to one ruling, which is the obligation to restart due to intercourse during the expiation in some cases and not in others, while the other ruling, which is the prohibition of touching before starting the expiation, remains the same? What is the specification of one ruling over the other except a form of control? He may also say: we agreed on the equality in it, so it must be directed to the other. This is the limit of the consideration with Abu Hanifa. Those who believe that food is nullified by the interruption of intercourse in its midst, like fasting, see that the benefit of mentioning the absence of touching, then removing it, is to indicate the equality between expiation before and after. Their argument is that mentioning it with the two is like mentioning it with the third, and the release of the third is like the release of the two. It is as if he said in all: 'before they touch each other and after.' The presentation of the verse in this manner nullifies the claim of those who said that the matter differs between what is before touching and what is after, so it is obligatory before and is lifted after, and also the claim of those who said that it is obligatory before expiation and after two expiations. Here is another consideration: why did he mention the absence of touching with two types of it, while mentioning it with one of them would have been sufficient for this benefit according to the aforementioned argument? The answer to this is:

The mention of it alongside emancipation is limited to indicating the prohibition of intercourse before emancipation. It cannot be imagined that intercourse occurs during emancipation, as it cannot be divided or separated. Therefore, it was necessary to mention it alongside fasting that occurs consecutively to indicate the prohibition of intercourse before beginning it and after beginning it until completion. If it had not been mentioned here, it might be assumed that intercourse is only prohibited before starting, not after, as that is the situation indicated by the restriction in emancipation. When it was mentioned alongside fasting that occurs consecutively, there was no need to mention it with food, as it is similar in terms of multiplicity, consecutiveness, and the possibility of intercourse during it. This explanation is based on the fact that emancipation cannot be divided or separated, and this is the accepted view. Al-Ayni reported from Ibn al-Qasim that whoever emancipates a portion of a slave he owns entirely, then emancipates the remainder due to [the cause of] zihar, that this suffices him. This is contrary to his principle in the Mudawwana, and it was criticized by Asbagh, Sahnun, and his son. "Note" If someone says that the prohibition is lifted by expiation, it must be either conditional, which means that the prohibition does not lift with the expiation that precedes the touching, or it is not conditional, which means the prohibition lifts with the expiation that is interrupted by the touching. Both are not accepted by you. The response is that touching contradicts the validity of the expiation and its consideration in lifting the prohibition. If it occurs before starting the expiation, the ruling of invalidating the expiation cannot be applied, as the subject does not exist. This impossibility does not invalidate the ruling as it is considered contradictory. However, if it occurs during the expiation, the subject ruled as invalid is present, thus the contradiction must be applied. This is similar to an event that contradicts the validity of prayer; if it occurs during it, it affects its invalidation. And Allah, the Exalted, is the one who guides to what is correct. They [the people] are referring to themselves with the term of zihar, placing the saying in the same category as what was mentioned in His saying, 'And We will inherit him what he says,' and the meaning is: then they intend to return to the touching. And touching means enjoying her through intercourse, or touching with desire, or looking at her private parts with desire.

That is the ruling by which you are admonished. For the ruling of expiation is evidence of committing the offense. Therefore, you must take heed of this ruling so that you do not return to [zihar] and fear Allah's punishment for it. If you ask: Is [zihar] valid with a different wording? I say: Yes, if instead of 'you are to me like my back' another part is used to express the whole, such as the head, face, neck, or private parts. Or instead of the back, another part that is forbidden to look at from the mother, like the belly or thigh. And instead of the mother, a relative is forbidden from whom one has kinship, breastfeeding, or marriage. For example, saying: 'You are to me like the back of my sister through breastfeeding' or 'my aunt by blood' or 'my son's wife' or 'my father' or 'the mother of my wife' or 'her daughter.' He is then a [zahir]. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa and his companions. And it is also the view of al-Hasan, al-Nakha'i, al-Zuhri, al-Awzai, al-Thawri, and others like them. Al-Shafi'i said: [zihar] can only be with the mother alone, which is the view of Qatadah and al-Sha'bi. Al-Sha'bi said: Allah did not forget to mention daughters, sisters, aunts, and maternal aunts, as He informed that [zihar] is only with the biological mothers and not with wet nurses. Some of them said: It is necessary to mention the back for it to be considered [zihar]. If you ask: If the one who has made [zihar] refrains from expiation, can the woman take him to court? I say: She can do that. And the judge must compel him to expiate, and he can be imprisoned. No expiation requires compulsion and imprisonment except for the expiation of [zihar] alone, because he harms her by neglecting the expiation and refusing to enjoy her, thus he is obliged to fulfill her right. If you ask: What if he touches her before expiating? I say: He must seek forgiveness and not return until he expiates, as it was narrated that Salamah ibn Sakhr al-Bayadi said to the Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him: 'I made [zihar] from my wife, then I saw her anklet on a moonlit night and I had relations with her.' The Prophet, blessings and peace be upon him, said: 'Seek forgiveness from your Lord and do not return until you expiate.' [I have not seen it in this wording, and it is in the four Sunan from the narration of al-Hakam ibn Aban from Ikrimah from Ibn Abbas: 'A man made [zihar] from his wife, then had relations with her before expiating. He came to the Prophet, blessings and peace be upon him, and informed him. The Prophet asked: What led you to what you did? He said: I saw the whiteness of her leg in the moonlight. The Prophet said: Stay away from her until you expiate.' And for al-Tirmidhi: 'He said: I saw her anklet in the moonlight. The Prophet said: Do not approach her until you do what Allah has commanded you.' They reported it from the narration of al-Fadl ibn Musa from Ma'mar, connected, and Abu Dawood and al-Nasa'i from the narration of Abdul Razzaq from Ma'mar, disconnected. Al-Nasa'i said: This is more correct, and for Abu Dawood and al-Tirmidhi from the hadith of Salamah ibn Sakhr al-Bayadi, he said: I was a man who desired many women. He mentioned the story in detail, and it does not contain 'Seek forgiveness from Allah' to the end.] If you ask: Which neck suffices for the expiation of [zihar]? I say: Both the Muslim and the non-Muslim, for it is stated in the verse without restriction. According to al-Shafi'i, only the believing woman suffices. For Allah, the Exalted, said regarding the expiation of killing: 'Then free a believing slave.' And the mother of the child, the one who is freed, and the one who has paid something do not suffice. If he has not paid anything, it is permissible. According to al-Shafi'i, it is not permissible. If you ask: What if he frees part of the neck or fasts part of the fast and then touches? I say: He must start over—during the day if he touched during the day, or at night—whether forgetfully or intentionally—according to Abu Hanifa. According to Abu Yusuf and Muhammad: Freeing part of the neck is like freeing the whole, and it suffices him. And if touching invalidates the fast, he must start over; otherwise, he continues. If you ask: How much should be given to the poor in feeding?

I said: Half a sa' of wheat or a full sa' of something else according to Abu Hanifa, and according to al-Shafi'i, a mudd of the food of his land in which he sustains himself. If you say: Why is there no mention of the requirement for seeking in the expiation by feeding as mentioned in the two other expiations? I say: There is a difference of opinion on this. According to Abu Hanifa: There is no difference between the three expiations in the obligation to present them before the touching, and the mention was omitted in feeding as an indication that if it is found during the feeding, he does not have to restart as he would have to restart the fasting if it occurs during it. And according to others: It was not mentioned to indicate that the expiation before and after is the same. If you say: To what does the pronoun in 'that they touch' refer? I say: It refers to what is indicated by the speech regarding the one who pronounces the zihar and the one who is pronounced upon. That is the clarification and teaching of the rulings and the warning about them so that you may believe in Allah and His Messenger in acting according to His laws which He has legislated regarding zihar and others, and to abandon what you were upon in your ignorance. And those are the limits of Allah which it is not permissible to transgress. And for the disbelievers who do not follow them and do not act upon them is a painful punishment.