first sworn that he would not stay, then sworn concerning something broader, namely residing. If he resides there, the first is subsumed under the second. Thus, according to the stronger of the two views, no more than one divorce takes effect, if divorce is deemed to take effect in his case.

As for his saying:

“You are forbidden to me,”

if he swore not to do something and then did it, he must offer expiation for an oath. If, however, he did not swear an oath but simply declared her forbidden to him, he must offer the expiation prescribed for zihār. In neither case does divorce take effect.

This is the view of the majority of scholars among the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and the leading scholars of the Muslims. They hold that declaring one’s wife forbidden does not effect divorce unless one intends it. This is reported from Abū Bakr, ʿUmar and ʿUthmān, and is the position of Abū Hanīfah, al-Shāfiʿī, Ahmad ibn Hanbal and others. Although some later followers of certain imams have claimed that customary usage has made this expression an explicit pronouncement of divorce, that is not the position of those imams whom they follow.

In the early days of Islam, people regarded the formula of zihār—“You are to me like my mother’s back”—as an explicit pronouncement of divorce. This continued until Aws ibn al-Sāmit pronounced zihār against his wife, the woman who pleaded her case, whose ruling was established in Allah’s revelation:

“Allah has indeed heard the words of the woman who disputes with you concerning her husband and complains to Allah.”

The Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) initially ruled that she was divorced, until Allah abrogated that ruling and made zihār entail expiation, even if divorce was intended by it.