Allah has made lawful for you, seeking the pleasure of your wives; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful" (1). "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 (41) narrated from him (42) that he said (43): If he says, "You are to me forbidden," intending divorce by it, I used to say: It is a divorce, which 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. 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) 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...