Section

An expiation (kaffāra) becomes obligatory for the husband who has pronounced ẓihār when he “returns,” meaning that after uttering the ẓihār he keeps his wife for a span in which separation was possible. If separation immediately ensues through death, annulment, an irrevocable divorce, or a revocable divorce that he does not revoke, or if he loses his sanity, no “return” is deemed to have occurred. The same ruling applies—according to the sound view—when he later acquires ownership of her after mutual imprecation (liʿān), provided, again on the preferred view, that the accusation (qadhf) preceded the ẓihār.

Should he revoke a revocable divorce, or should he apostatise in direct succession and then re-embrace Islam, the authoritative position is that the “return” is effected by the act of revocation, not by the re-entry into Islam, although the revocation itself comes only after he has become Muslim again. Once incurred, the expiation is not nullified by any later separation. Before paying the expiation, intercourse is forbidden, and—on the preponderant opinion—so is any lustful touching or comparable act.

I say: the stronger opinion is that such touching is permissible. Allah knows best.

A time-bound ẓihār is deemed valid as a temporary prohibition; another opinion treats it as perpetual, while a third regards it as meaningless. On the first view, the sounder position is that “return” is not realised by mere retention but only by intercourse within the specified period, and withdrawal becomes obligatory once the glans has fully penetrated.

If he says to four wives, “You are all to me like my mother’s back,” he has performed ẓihār with respect to each of them; therefore, if he keeps them, four separate expiations are due—though in the old opinion a single expiation suffices. If he addresses them with four consecutive ẓihār statements, he is considered to have “returned” with regard to the first three.

If he repeats the ẓihār formula concerning one wife in immediate succession, intending mere emphasis, it counts as a single ẓihār; but if he intends a fresh act, the preponderant view is that each repetition counts separately, and that by the second utterance he is deemed to have “returned” in respect of the first.