reprehensible speech; only a factual statement can be so described.

The second is that He calls it “falsehood,” and falsehood means lying. Since Allah declares their words false, this indicates that zihār is a factual statement, not a performative utterance.

The third is that zihār is forbidden, and the only ground for its prohibition is that it is a lie.

There are five indications that it is forbidden. First, He describes it as reprehensible. Second, He describes it as falsehood. Third, He prescribes expiation for it; were it permissible, no expiation would be required. Fourth, Allah says, “This is what you are admonished with,” and admonition concerns only things that are not permissible. Fifth, He says, “And indeed, Allah is Pardoning, Forgiving,” and pardon and forgiveness apply only to sin.

If, on the other hand, you say that it is a factual statement, this too is untenable on several grounds.

First, zihār constituted divorce in the pre-Islamic era, but in Islam Allah made it a prohibition that expiation removes. This is agreed upon among the scholars. Were it a factual statement, it would not bring about prohibition. If it were true, this is obvious; if it were false, it would be even less conceivable that prohibition should result from it.

Second, the pronouncement of zihār itself brings about its legal consequence, namely prohibition. This is precisely what a performative utterance does, unlike a factual statement, which does not itself bring about its legal consequence. Thus, to deny that it is a performative utterance while affirming that it has the defining character of one is to affirm two contradictory propositions.

Third, the words, “You are to me like my mother’s back,” bring about prohibition just as “You are free,” “You are divorced,” “I sell this to you,” “I pledge this to you,” “I marry you,” and similar expressions bring about their respective legal consequences. How, then, can they say that these are performative utterances but zihār is not? What is the difference?

The answer is: The jurists hold that zihār is a performative utterance. Some later scholars disputed this, saying that the correct view is that it is a factual statement.