it is forbidden to look at from the mother, such as the private part, the thigh, and the like, he is a muthahir; but if it is not forbidden to look at, such as the head and face, he is not a muthahir; because he compared her to a limb that is not forbidden to look at, so he is not a muthahir, just as if he had compared her to a limb of another wife of his. Our position is that he compared her to a limb of his mother, so he is a muthahir, just as if he had compared her to her back, and it is distinguished from the wife; for if he compared her to her back, he would not be a muthahir. If looking is not forbidden, the enjoyment is forbidden, which is what is gained by the marriage contract.

Section: If he says: "Like the hair of my mother," or her tooth, or her nail, or if he compares anything of that sort from his wife to his mother, or to one of her limbs, he is not a muthahir; because these are not among the established limbs of the mother, and divorce does not occur by attributing her to them, so zihar is the same. Likewise, if he says: "Like my mother's husband." For a husband is not described by prohibition, nor is he a place of enjoyment. The same applies to saliva, sweat, and tears. If he says: "My face is forbidden to your face," it is not zihar. Ahmad explicitly stated this and said: "This is something people say; it is nothing." This is because this is used frequently in contexts other than zihar and does not carry the meaning of zihar, so it is not zihar, just as if he said: "I will not speak to you."

Section: If he says: "I am a muthahir," or "Zihar is upon me," or "The forbidden [harem] is upon me," or "The forbidden is binding upon me," and he has no intention, nothing becomes binding upon him; because it is not an explicit expression of zihar, nor did he intend zihar by it. If he intended zihar by it, or there is an accompanying indication that signifies his desire for zihar, such as if he suspends it on a condition, saying: "The forbidden is upon me if I speak to you," it is possible that it is zihar, because it is one of the two types of prohibiting a wife, so it is valid by way of metonymy (kinaya) with intention, like divorce. It is also possible that zihar is not established by it; because the Lawgiver only legislated it through its explicit wording, and this is not explicit therein, and because it is an oath requiring expiation, so its ruling is not established without explicit wording, like an oath by Allah the Almighty.