in another respect, for he makes expiation obligatory merely because the husband refrains from divorce. Thus, according to his view, the words of Allah Most High, “Then go back” [Al-Mujādilah: 3], would mean, “Then do not divorce.” Yet His words, “Then go back” [Al-Mujādilah: 3], are an affirmation, whereas “do not divorce” is a negation. If this were valid, affirmation would be negation and negation affirmation, which is impossible.
His position is also mistaken in a third respect: the words of Allah Most High, “Then go back on what they have said” [Al-Mujādilah: 3], require that something new occur on their part. Yet the man pronouncing zihār has not divorced his wife either at the time of the pronouncement or beforehand. If he pronounces zihār and then does not divorce her afterward, he remains as he was before: nothing new has occurred on his part, whether in deed or in word. The words “Then go back” [Al-Mujādilah: 3] would therefore have no possible meaning, since one returns only to something one has left. The man pronouncing zihār has not parted from his wife through zihār; rather, he has ceased having intercourse with her. That, then, is what is meant by returning. Allah knows best.
Some of al-Shāfi‘ī’s followers have argued in support of his view that returning means keeping her as his wife, citing the words of Allah Most High:
“They will wish to come out of the Fire, but they will never come out of it.” [Al-Mā’idah: 37]
And His words:
“Whenever they wish to escape from it out of anguish, they will be returned to it.” [Al-Hajj: 22]
They argue that Allah Most High thus calls their remaining in the Fire and being kept there a return. But this provides no proof, for they may have struggled to escape, writhing like someone being flogged, only for the clubs to strike them and drive them back to their former state. Even if their evidence did establish that remaining could be called returning, it would still provide no proof here. For Allah, Exalted is He, made expiation obligatory only upon returning to what zihār had prohibited, namely intercourse. As for the marriage bond, zihār neither prohibited it nor severed it.
It is related from Ibn Nāfi‘ that expiation is valid while the marriage bond continues, even if the husband neither intends nor desires intercourse. This is an anomalous view, outside the opinions held by the scholars. Its only possible justification is consideration for the view of those who make expiation obligatory merely through maintaining the marriage bond, and this is a weak justification. How can his expiation be valid and the prohibition of zihār be lifted through it when he did not intend thereby to lift that prohibition, having performed it without intending intercourse?
The fifth opinion is that returning means pronouncing zihār once again. This is the position of Dāwūd and the literalists, and a similar opinion has been related from Bukayr ibn al-Ashajj. It is plainly unsound, being far removed from sound reasoning and contrary to the transmitted reports. The hadith concerning the man who pronounced zihār during the time of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, has been narrated by Bukayr ibn