be redirected to divorce; in the same way, neither the explicit wording of divorce nor its recognized euphemisms can be treated as ẓihār. By contrast, an allusive expression that is specific to ẓihār may, in light of the husband’s intention, be taken either as an irrevocable divorce or as ẓihār itself.

Declaring ẓihār with reference to women who are permanently unlawful to marry—such as one’s mother—counts as true ẓihār. Mālik holds the same ruling if a man says, “like the back of my father,” “like the back of my slave-boy,” “like the back of Zayd,” or “like the back of an unrelated woman whom it is not lawful for him to approach at the time of his oath.” Concerning that last case (the unrelated woman), Mālik and his associates differ: some maintain that ẓihār applies only when the comparison is made to a maḥram woman and does not apply otherwise; some consider such wording legally ineffectual; others deem it a divorce when the comparison is to an unrelated woman. The first view is Mālik’s own, and there is a direct report from him stating that ẓihār directed to anyone other than a maḥram woman amounts to nothing.

The point of consensus in ẓihār is the husband’s statement to his wife, “You are to me like my mother’s back.” This is the “outrageous and false statement” of which Allah said, “Indeed, they utter an outrageous statement and a falsehood” (Q. 58:2). Whoever pronounces these words becomes forbidden to have marital relations with his wife. Should he then return to what he said, the expiation for ẓihār becomes obligatory, as Allah says: “Those who declare ẓihār concerning their wives and then go back on what they have said—freeing a slave is required…” (Q. 58:3).

This shows that the expiation for ẓihār is not incurred by the utterance alone; it becomes binding only when coupled with a “return.” According to Mālik, the return is the husband’s firm resolve to retain his wife after having pronounced ẓihār against her. Another report from him defines it as the intention to have intercourse, while others say the return is the act of intercourse itself. Yet another opinion is that if, after saying “You are to me like my mother’s back,” he follows it up with a divorce, the expiation still applies. The first definition is the established position of the Mālikī school.

In Mālik’s view, ẓihār pronounced over a female slave carries the same ruling as ẓihār directed at a free wife, and the same applies to an umm walad (a slave-concubine who has borne her master a child).