The second is that it consists of intending intercourse and firmly resolving upon it while maintaining the marriage bond. If either occurs without the other, expiation does not become obligatory. If he firmly resolves upon intercourse but then severs the marriage bond through divorce rather than maintaining it, or if it ends through death, the obligation of expiation lapses. If he has already performed part of the expiation, he is relieved of the remainder. Likewise, if he maintains the marriage bond without intending intercourse or firmly resolving upon it, expiation does not become obligatory upon him. Indeed, performing it is not valid if he neither intends intercourse nor firmly resolves upon it. This is Mālik’s position in al-Mudawwanah, and it is followed by the main body of his companions. It is the soundest of the opinions, the most consistent with analogical reasoning, and the closest to the apparent meaning of the Quran. For when he intends intercourse, he must first perform the expiation, because Allah, Mighty and Majestic, says:
“Before they touch one another.” [Al-Mujādilah: 3]
This obligation remains unless the marriage bond is severed or he abandons his intention to have intercourse—except where he has actually had intercourse with her. If he does have intercourse, expiation becomes binding upon him and remains a liability he must discharge, just as expiation for an oath sworn by Allah Most High becomes binding when the oath is broken. However, someone who swears by Allah may choose either to perform the expiation before breaking the oath or to break the oath before performing the expiation. In the case of zihār, he may not have intercourse with her before performing the expiation, because Allah, Mighty and Majestic, says:
“Before they touch one another.” [Al-Mujādilah: 3]
The third is that the return consists of intercourse itself. This opinion has also been related from Mālik; Abd al-Wahhāb reports all three opinions from him. According to this opinion, expiation performed before intercourse is not valid, even if he intends intercourse, firmly resolves upon it, and maintains the marriage bond. He may have intercourse once before performing the expiation. Once he has done so, expiation becomes obligatory if he intends intercourse a second time and maintains the marriage bond. If he abandons his intention to have intercourse and the marriage bond is severed through death or separation, the obligation of expiation lapses, provided he has not had intercourse with her a second time. Asbagh reports this opinion in al-Utbiyyah from the scholars of the East and from those scholars of Medina whose views are deemed reliable.
The fourth is the opinion of al-Shāfi‘ī and those who agree with him: that the return consists of maintaining the marriage bond and refraining from separation. Thus, whenever a man pronounces zihār against his wife without immediately following it with divorce, expiation becomes obligatory upon him. This opinion is unsound; both the Quran and the language demonstrate its unsoundness, although his followers claim that he was well versed in the language. For Allah, Exalted is He, says:
“Then go back.” [Al-Mujādilah: 3]
According to all authorities on the language, “then” necessarily indicates an interval. They unanimously agree that when someone says, “I met Zayd, then Amr,” his words mean that he met Amr some time after meeting Zayd. Yet zihār did not sever the marriage bond. How, then, can one say, “Then such-and-such comes to be,” of something that has continued to exist all along? This is impossible. His position is also mistaken