And because zihar is a prohibition; therefore, when he intends to make her lawful again, he has returned regarding that prohibition, and thus he is a 'returner'. Al-Shafi'i said: The 'returning' is to retain her after his zihar for a period in which he could have divorced her; because his zihar from her entails her separation, so retaining her is a 'returning' in what he said. Dawud said: The 'returning' is the repetition of the zihar a second time; because 'returning' (al-'awd) in a thing is to repeat it. Our argument is that the 'returning' is an act contrary to his statement, and from this is the 'returner' (al-'a'id) in his gift, who is the one who goes back on what was gifted; and the 'returner' in his promise, who is the one who fails to fulfill what he promised; and the 'returner' in what he was forbidden from is the one who does the forbidden act. Allah (the Exalted) said: {Then they return to what they were forbidden from}. Thus, the one performing zihar has forbidden intercourse upon himself and has prevented it, so the 'returning' is his action. Regarding their saying that the 'returning' precedes the expiation and the intercourse follows it: we say that what is intended by His statement: {Then they return} is that they desire the 'returning', like the saying of Allah (the Exalted): {When you rise to perform the prayer} (12), meaning when you intend that. And His saying (the Exalted): {So when you recite the Quran, seek refuge} (13). If it is said: This is a reinterpretation (ta'wil), and it is still a reversion to making expiation mandatory upon mere intention, we say: the evidence for the reinterpretation is what we have mentioned. The one who commands (14) the expiation upon the intention only commanded it as a condition for lawfulness, like the command for purity for one who intends to perform a supererogatory prayer, and the command for the intention (niyya) for one who intends to fast. As for retention, it is not a 'returning' because it is not a 'returning' in a temporary zihar, so it is likewise in an absolute one. Also, because 'returning' is an act contrary to what he said, and retention is not contrary to it. Their saying that zihar entails her separation is not correct; rather, it entails forbidding her and avoiding her, which is why fixing a time for it is valid. Also, because He said: {Then they return to what they said}, and 'thumma' (then) denotes sequence/delay, while retention is not delayed. As for the opinion of Dawud, it is not correct; because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) commanded Aws and Salamah ibn Sakhr to perform expiation without repeating the wording. Furthermore, the 'returning' is only in what he said, not in his saying, like the 'returning' in a gift, a promise, and 'returning' to what one was forbidden from. What proves the invalidity of all these opinions is that zihar is an oath requiring expiation, so expiation is not mandatory except through breaking it (hinth), which is doing what he swore to abandon, like all other oaths.