Ruling on the one who says to his wife: I am your mahram

Question:
This is a question from the listener (S. M. S) from Taif. He says: My wife went to the house of one of the neighbors, so I decided to divorce her because she went without my permission. I said to her: Take all that belongs to you in this house, and I am your mahram. But both my parents said to me: You are the one who should leave, and she will sit with us. They forced me not to carry out my words.
I want to make it clear that I did not utter the words of divorce, but I said to her: I am your mahram. I asked some people, and they told me: This is not considered a divorce, and there is no expiation for it. Please inform us—may Allah reward you with good—of the correct statement on this matter.

Answer:
If the matter is as the questioner stated, then you owe the expiation for zihar for your saying: I am your mahram, just as if you had said: You are to me like the back of my mother. You owe the expiation for zihar if you did not intend divorce by this, if you did not intend divorce by this. This is its ruling, the ruling of zihar, according to the most correct of the statements of the scholars.
So you owe the expiation for zihar, which is freeing a believing slave. If you do not find one, you fast two consecutive months. If that is difficult for you and you are unable to do it, you feed sixty poor people, sixty destitute people. You give each one half a sa' of dates, or of rice, or of wheat, or of the staple food of your country, if the staple food of your country is corn, or sorghum. That is approximately one and a half kilograms for each of the sixty, before you touch her, before you have intercourse with her. This is what is obligatory for you if you did not intend divorce.
As for if you intended divorce by saying: I am your mahram, meaning your intention was to divorce her, then according to the correct view, it is one divorce. Its ruling is the ruling of one divorce. If there were not two divorces before it, you have the right to take her back by saying: I have taken back my wife, or I am taking back my wife, or I have returned my wife, or the like, with the testimony of two just men who testify that you took her back. She is lawful for you as long as she is in the waiting period.

The presenter: Even if he repeats it with the intention of divorce? If he repeats these words?

The Shaykh: The point is: As long as he said it once with the intention of divorce, it is one divorce. If two divorces did not precede it, he takes her back. But if two divorces preceded it, this is the third, and there is no taking back except after a new marriage.
As for if he repeats it, saying: Your mahram, your mahram, your mahram, and his intention is the triple divorce, it becomes three. And if he repeats it to make her understand, or to emphasize the words, it is not more than one divorce, if he intended divorce. But if he did not intend divorce, it is zihar, and if he repeats it a hundred times, it is zihar with only one expiation.
And zihar is when he says: You are to me like the back of my mother, you are forbidden to me, you are to me like my sister. This is zihar with the expiation for zihar, as mentioned before, which is freeing a believing slave. If that is not feasible, he fasts two consecutive months, sixty days. If he is unable, he feeds sixty poor people, thirty sa'—the sa' is approximately three kilograms. He gives each one approximately one and a half kilograms of the staple food of his country, of wheat, of rice, of dates, of corn. It suffices for sixty poor people, thirty sa', so the sa' is approximately three kilograms, divided between two, each one gets half a sa', approximately one and a half kilograms, before he touches her. This is if he did not intend divorce. But if he intended by his saying: Your mahram, divorce, then the correct view is that it is a divorce, it is one divorce. Even if he repeats it with the intention of emphasis or the intention of making her understand, it is one.
As for if he did not intend divorce, but only intended to forbid her, or did not intend anything, then there is the expiation for zihar in it. Yes.

The presenter: Suppose he will expiate for the zihar by fasting, but after he fasted several days, a sickness occurred that causes him to be unable to complete the fasting. Is it permissible for him to switch to feeding?

The Shaykh: He builds upon what has passed. If he recovers, he builds upon what has passed and completes the sixty days.

The presenter: Is it not permissible for him to switch to feeding after he has started...?

The Shaykh: No, if it is a sickness that is expected to be cured, he does not hasten. If he recovers, he starts from where he is; because he is able to fast. This is a temporary illness. But if it is a sickness, meaning: one that is not expected to be cured, or an old man who is unable, or a woman, or an old man who is unable, then for him is only feeding; because he is unable—or he has many heavy works to earn a living, or he is in a job where fasting is difficult for him, then switching to feeding suffices him. Yes.

The presenter: May Allah bless you.