nor does it refer to it without intention, just as it does not refer to the prohibition of divorce. The reasoning for the first view is that it is a prohibition he imposed upon his wife, so by its absolute usage, it is zihar, like comparing her to the back of his mother. As for their argument that 'prohibition' is categorized into various types, we reply: except that those categories are ruled out, and nothing is produced by his statement except divorce, and this is more appropriate than that; because divorce separates the woman, while this makes her forbidden while maintaining the marital bond, so it was the lesser of the two prohibitions, making it more appropriate. As for if he says this to one who is forbidden to him due to menstruation or the like, and he intends zihar, it is zihar. If he intends that she is forbidden to him due to that cause, then there is nothing against him. If he speaks absolutely, it is not zihar, because it allows for informing about her state and allows for initiating prohibition through zihar, so one cannot be determined without specification.

Section: If he says, "The lawful is forbidden to me," or "What Allah has made lawful is forbidden to me," or "What I turn to is forbidden," and he has a wife, he is a zihar-maker. Ahmad explicitly stated this in these three scenarios; this is because his wording implies generality, so it encompasses the wife through its generality. If he explicitly mentions the wife or intends her, it is more confirmed. Ahmad said regarding someone who says, "What Allah has made lawful is forbidden to me"—referring to family or wealth: "Upon him is the expiation of zihar; it is an oath." One expiation suffices him, according to the apparent meaning of this statement of Ahmad. Ibn Aqil chose the view that two expiations are incumbent upon him: one for zihar and one for the prohibition of wealth; because the prohibition encompassed both, and each one of them, if taken separately, would necessitate an expiation, so it is the same when they are combined. Our position is that it is a single oath, so it does not necessitate two expiations, just as if he performed zihar regarding two wives or prohibited two things of his wealth. What he mentioned is invalidated by this. In Ahmad's statement, "It is an oath," there is an indication of the reasoning we mentioned, because a single oath does not necessitate more than one expiation. If he intended by his saying, "What Allah has made lawful is forbidden to me," and other expressions of generality, only wealth, then nothing is incumbent upon him except the expiation of an oath; because a general expression is permitted to be used for the specific. According to the other narration which states that 'forbidden' used absolutely is not zihar, he would not be a zihar-maker here unless he intends zihar.

Section: If he says, "You are to me like the back of my mother, forbidden," it is explicit in zihar and cannot be diverted to anything else, whether he intended divorce or did not intend it. There is no disagreement regarding this, praise be to Allah; because he explicitly stated zihar and clarified it by his saying, "forbidden." And if he says, "You are forbidden to me like the back of my mother," or...