expiation (kaffarah) for zihar, just as if he said: "You are to me forbidden like the back of my mother." As for if he intended other than zihar, the text from Ahmad, in a narration by a group, is that it is zihar, whether he intended divorce or did not intend it. Al-Khiraqi mentioned this in a place other than this. Among those who said it is zihar are Uthman ibn Affan, Ibn Abbas, Abu Qilaba, Sa'id ibn Jubayr, Maymun ibn Mihran, and al-Batti. Al-Athram narrated with his chain of authority from Ibn Abbas regarding "the forbidden" that it is the emancipation of a slave, and if he cannot find one, then fasting for two consecutive months, or feeding sixty poor persons. This is because it is explicit in prohibiting her, so it is zihar, even if he intended something else, like his saying, "You are to me like the back of my mother." It is narrated from Ahmad that if he intended divorce by it, it is divorce. He said: If he says, "What Allah has made lawful is forbidden to me," meaning by it divorce, I fear it may be three [divorces], but I do not issue a legal opinion (fatwa) for it. This is like his statement regarding explicit metonymies (kinayat), as if he made it one of the metonymies of divorce, which results in divorce if he intends it. Al-Baghawi narrated from him regarding a man who said to his wife: "Your command is in your hand," and she said: "I am forbidden to you," that she has become forbidden to him. He thus treated it as a metonymy of divorce, and the same applies to the husband. Ibn Aqil chose this view. It is the school of Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i, and it was narrated from Ibn Mas'ud. Among those from whom it was narrated that it is a triple divorce are Ali, Zayd ibn Thabit, Abu Hurayrah, al-Hasan al-Basri, and Ibn Abi Layla. This is the school of Malik regarding a woman with whom the marriage has been consummated, because divorce is a type of prohibition, so it is valid to use it as a metonymy for it, like his saying: "You are separated (ba'in)." As for if he did not intend divorce, it is not a divorce in any case, because it is not explicit regarding divorce, so if he does not intend it with it, no divorce occurs, like all other metonymies. And if we say that it is a metonymy for divorce and he intends it, its ruling is the ruling of explicit metonymies, according to the disagreement mentioned previously regarding them.