zihār is the prerogative of the man. The authoritative school maintains that she must offer the expiation for zihār; yet it is not actually zihār, so her husband may have marital relations with her. The sound view, however, is that she must offer the expiation for an oath.

His statement, “He must offer the expiation for an oath if he does it,” means that if he does not do it, then nothing is required of him.

If a man says, “I will be a Jew, a Christian, a Magian, renounced from Islam, or a Communist if I do such-and-such,” does this carry the ruling of an oath, or is it merely an utterance?

Some scholars say that it carries the ruling of an oath, because he finds these matters abhorrent. Thus, he has equated doing this act—and his aversion to it—with his aversion to being a Jew, Christian, Communist, or the like. On this basis, it takes the ruling of declaring something lawful to be forbidden; therefore, he must offer the expiation for an oath. This is the well-known position of the school, and it is reported from Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) and others among the early generations.

Some scholars say that no expiation is due from him, because this is not an oath and does not fall under the meaning of the oaths mentioned in the texts. The sound view, however, is that it carries the ruling of an oath.