Zihar and divorce, it is zihar, because he began with it, so that is considered his choice, and he is bound by what he began with. Our position is that he employed the word "forbidden" while intending zihar by it, so it is zihar, just as if zihar stood alone with his intention. It is not a divorce, because his intention for divorce clashed with his intention for zihar, making a combination impossible, and zihar is more appropriate for this wording because their meaning is one and the same, which is prohibition; therefore, it is necessary to prioritize what is most appropriate. As for divorce, its meaning is release, which is the dissolution of the marriage bond, and prohibition is merely a ruling upon it in some of its states, and it may be separate from it; for a revocable wife is a divorced woman who is still permissible. As for the option [to choose], it is not valid, because the ruling of this wording was established the moment he uttered it, by virtue of his being qualified and the subject being receptive. This is why, if we ruled that it was a divorce, her waiting period ('idda) would be from the moment he enacted the divorce, and it is not for him to lift a ruling established upon the subject by his own choice or to substitute it by his will. The other opinion is based on the premise that he has the choice, which is unsound based on what we have mentioned. Furthermore, consideration is given to his entire statement, not what he began with; thus, if he said: "I divorce this one or this one," the divorce of the first does not become binding.

Section: If he compares a limb of his wife to the back of his mother or one of her limbs, he is a muthahir (one who has performed zihar). Thus, if he says: "Your private part, or your back, or your head, or your skin is to me like the back of my mother," or her body, or her head, or her hand, he is a muthahir. Malik held this view, and it is the explicit text of Al-Shafi'i. From Ahmad, there is another report that he is not a muthahir until he compares the entirety of his wife; because if he swore by Allah not to touch a limb of hers, it does not extend to anything else, so it is the same with zihar. Furthermore, this is not explicitly stated in the text, nor is it in the meaning of the explicitly stated; because comparing her entirety is comparing the place of enjoyment to that which has confirmed prohibition, and it contains a prohibition of her entire self, so it is more emphatic. Abu Hanifa said: If he compares her to what 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 the 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 [the wife's], he would not be a muthahir, and if looking is not forbidden, the enjoyment is forbidden, which is what is gained by the marriage contract.