The Book of Ẓihār

His statement, “ẓihār”: this is the verbal noun of ẓāhara—just as qātala gives qitāl (fighting), and jāhada gives jihād (striving). It is derived from ẓahr (back), because the back is the place upon which one rides, and a woman is ridden; hence this particular manner of dealing with one’s wife is called ẓihār.

Ẓihār is for a man to liken his wife to his mother, saying, “You are to me like my mother’s back.” This expression is, by consensus, ẓihār. Even if he intends divorce by it, it remains ẓihār. In the pre-Islamic period, they regarded ẓihār as an irrevocable divorce. Therefore, if someone says, “I intend divorce by ẓihār,” we say to him: “We do not accept this intention,” for if we accepted his intention, we would be reverting the Islamic ruling to that of the pre-Islamic era. Moreover, his wording is explicit in denoting ẓihār, and an intention contrary to an explicit expression is not accepted.

As we have previously mentioned regarding an explicit declaration of divorce: if he says, “You are divorced,” then says, “I did not intend divorce,” his claim is not accepted. If he says, “You are divorced by one pronouncement,” and says, “I intended three,” this is not accepted, because it is explicit wording. And if he says, “You are divorced three times,” and says, “I intended one,” this is not accepted. Likewise, if he says, “You are to me like my mother’s back,” and says, “I intended divorce,” his claim is not accepted, for two reasons:

First: it contradicts the explicit wording, and whatever contradicts an explicit expression is not accepted.

Second: if we accepted this, we would be reverting the ruling of ẓihār from Islam to the pre-Islamic era. This is not permissible, because Islam abolished it.