Section
Abstaining from acts short of intercourse is obligatory according to Mutarrif, recommended according to Asbagh and Sahnūn, and permissible according to al-Hasan and those who share his view. As for intercourse, there is no disagreement that abstaining from it is obligatory, except according to those who understand “going back” to mean intercourse: they permit him to have intercourse once. This has already been discussed.
Section
The basic form of zihār involves comparison to women whom one is forbidden to marry. If a man pronounces zihār by reference to any such woman, he has pronounced zihār, whether he mentions [one who has pronounced zihār; whether he mentions] the back or not, and whether he intends zihār or has no particular intention. If, however, he intends divorce rather than zihār, Ibn al-Qāsim’s position, as reported from him by ‘Īsā in the Book of Oaths Involving Divorce, is that it constitutes a final divorce, and his claim to have intended only one or two divorces is not accepted. Sahnūn said that his stated intention regarding the divorce is accepted. This is the more evident position, because he has used wording that is not an expression of divorce; its effect must therefore depend upon what he intended. Ibn al-Qāsim’s explicit statement is that if a man pronounces zihār by reference to a woman whom he is forbidden to marry, intending divorce, it constitutes divorce, whether he mentions the back or not.
His treating the explicit mention of zihār and its omission alike in this case is consistent with his position only insofar as the matter is between the man and Allah Most High, when he comes seeking a religious ruling. If, however, testimony is brought against him and enforcement of the ruling on zihār is sought, then, if he explicitly mentioned the back, zihār is ruled to have taken effect, because the testimony establishes his explicit pronouncement. His claim to be exempt from expiation is not accepted, and divorce is also ruled to have taken effect because he acknowledges having intended it. If he subsequently remarries her after she has married another man, she is entitled to refuse him intimacy until he makes the expiation for zihār. If he did not mention the back, however, zihār is not ruled to have taken effect, and his statement that he did not intend zihār is accepted, since he did not explicitly pronounce it. This reflects one of their foundational principles: a person’s claim to have intended something contrary to the apparent meaning of his words is not accepted.
Ibn al-Mājishūn’s position is that it constitutes zihār, not divorce, even if he intended and meant divorce. His argument is that the man who pronounced zihār during the lifetime of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and concerning whom Allah revealed