A detailed discussion of the issue of declaring one's wife forbidden and the stronger opinion therein.

The Shaykh : This issue as well, which is declaring one's wife forbidden, is one in which the scholars have differed greatly, to the point that, in my opinion, their disagreement reached about sixteen opinions. This is because this phrase is pulled in different directions by various legal principles, so which one does it fall under? However, the stronger opinion is that declaring one's wife forbidden is an oath that requires expiation, just like declaring anything else forbidden. This is based on the generality of the saying of Allah the Exalted: Thus, Allah the Exalted made the declaration of prohibition an oath. For this reason, Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) said regarding the forbidden that it is an oath that requires expiation. He also said, "Indeed, there was for you in the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) a good example," where it was commanded that expiation for the declaration of prohibition be the expiation of an oath. Accordingly, if a man says to his wife, "You are forbidden to me," it is not zihar and it is not divorce. And if he says, "If I do such and such, then my wife is forbidden to me," it is not zihar and it is not divorce, but it is an oath. However, if by his saying "You are forbidden to me" he intended divorce, then we say that this phrase is suitable for separation, because one must distance oneself from what is forbidden. So if he says "You are forbidden to me," it is suitable for the intention of divorce. And if it is suitable for the intention of divorce and he intended divorce, it falls under the category of indirect expressions (kinaya). It becomes an indirect expression; if he intended divorce, it becomes a divorce. Do you understand? Because this phrase is suitable for what? It is suitable for separation, since what is forbidden is what? It is avoided. So if he says "You are forbidden to me" and intends divorce, we say this is a divorce. Now, if he intended zihar by his saying "You are forbidden to me," does it become zihar? In zihar, the woman is not divorced, but he does not touch her until he expiates by freeing a slave. If he does not find one, then by fasting two consecutive months. If he is unable to do that, then by feeding sixty poor people. So if he intended zihar, does it become zihar? The answer is no, it does not become zihar, because zihar is a specific prohibition, while "you are forbidden to me" is a general prohibition. Zihar is likening the most lawful person to him to the most forbidden person to him, such as saying, "You are to me like the back of my mother." And this is more heinous than saying "You are forbidden to me," because the prohibition of intercourse with one's mother is something detested by reason, nature, and the Shari'ah. And we cannot attach the lighter to the heavier, so his saying "You are forbidden to me," even if he intended zihar, is an oath. Now, if he intended to inform by his saying "You are forbidden to me," we say to him, "You lied, you lied," and that is all. Do we oblige him to pay an expiation? No, we do not oblige him to do anything. We say, "You lied." How do we say he lied? Because his wife is lawful, not forbidden. So if he is informing and not creating a new legal status, because there is a difference between creating a status and informing, and he is informing that his wife is forbidden, we say to him, "You lied." And this is idle talk that has no consequence upon it except the sin of lying. So the issue of declaring a woman forbidden, the original ruling in it is that it is an oath that requires expiation; this is the original ruling. So if the one who said to his wife "You are forbidden to me," or "If I do such and such, then you are forbidden to me," or "If I talk to so-and-so, then my wife is forbidden to me," if he says, "I don't know what I intended, I just let this phrase slip," we say it is an oath. This is the original ruling: an oath that requires expiation. Yes.