as per the difference of opinion mentioned previously regarding them. This is the view of Malik, Abu Hanifa, and al-Shafi'i, each based on his own foundational principle. It is possible to interpret it as falling under implied metonymies if we say that returning (raj'ah) is prohibited, because the minimum state through which a wife is prohibited is a revocable divorce, so it is construed to be the certain [ruling]. It has been narrated from Ahmad that which points to this; for he said: If one says, "You are to me forbidden," intending divorce by it, then it is a single [divorce]. This has also been narrated from Umar ibn al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, and al-Zuhri. It has been narrated from Masruq, Abu Salama ibn Abd al-Rahman, and al-Sha'bi that: It is nothing, because it is a statement in which he is lying. This is refuted by the case of zihar, for it is a reprehensible statement and a falsehood, yet it has necessitated an expiation. Also, because this is an effectuation of divorce, so it resembles his saying: "You are separated (ba'in)," or "You are divorced (taliq)." It has been narrated from Ahmad that if he intended an oath, it is an oath. For he said, in a narration by Muhanna: That if he says, "You are to me forbidden," and intends an oath, then leaves her for four months, he said: It is an oath, and ila' (vow of abstinence) is only when one swears by Allah not to approach his wife. Thus, the apparent meaning of this is that if he intended an oath, it is an oath. This is the school of Ibn Mas'ud and the view of Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i. Among those from whom it was narrated that an expiation for an oath is required are Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, Umar, Ibn Abbas, Aisha, Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, al-Hasan, Ata', Tawus, Sulayman ibn Yasar, Qatada, and al-Awza'i. In the agreed-upon [hadith], from Sa'id ibn Jubayr, that he heard Ibn Abbas saying: If a man forbids his wife to himself, it is an oath for which he must make expiation. He said: "There has certainly been for you in the Messenger of Allah an excellent pattern" (39). This is because Allah the Exalted said: "O Prophet, why do you forbid [what] Allah has made lawful for you... Allah has already ordained for you the dissolution of your oaths" (40). Thus, He made the 'forbidden' an oath. The meaning of his statement 'he intended an oath'—and Allah knows best—is that he intended by his statement "You are to me forbidden," the cessation of having intercourse with her and avoiding her, and he placed that in the position of his saying: "By Allah, I will not have intercourse with you."

Section: If he says, "You are to me forbidden," intending divorce by it, then it is a divorce. This was narrated by the group from Ahmad. Abu Abd Allah al-Naysaburi narrated from him (41) that he said (42): If he says, "You are to me forbidden," intending divorce by it, I used to say: It is a divorce (43) that requires the expiation of zihar. This is as if it were a retraction of his statement: It is a divorce. The reasoning is that it is explicit in zihar, so it does not become a divorce by his saying: "I intend divorce by it," just as if he said: "You are to me like the back of my mother," intending divorce by it. Al-Qadi said: However, the group of our companions hold that it is a divorce, and this is the famous narration reported from him by the group; because he stated the word 'divorce' explicitly, so it is a divorce, just as if he struck her and said: "This is your divorce." This is not explicit in zihar, but it is only explicit in prohibition, and prohibition is categorized into prohibition by zihar and prohibition by divorce. So, when he specified with his words the intent of prohibition by divorce, it is mandatory to direct it toward that, and it differs from his saying: "You are to me like the back of my mother," for that is explicit in zihar, which is a prohibition that cannot be lifted except by expiation, so it is not possible to make that a divorce, unlike our issue. Furthermore, if he says: "I intend divorce by it," or intended three [divorces] by it, then it is three. Ahmad stated this explicitly, because he brought the definite article 'al' (the/all) which denotes totality, in explanation of the prohibition, so it encompasses all of divorce, and if he intended three, he has intended by his phrasing what it is capable of bearing in terms of divorce, so it occurs, just as if he said: "You are separated (ba'in)." And according to another narration: It does not become...