The ruling on a man saying to his wife: “You are forbidden to me,” and what follows from it
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
Question:
A letter reached the program from one of the listening brothers, (M.A.M.) al-Minawi. Our brother has a set of questions. In his first question, he says: I am married, and once a disagreement occurred between us, so I said to her: “You are forbidden to me if you do not give up the things you are doing.” After a few days, we reconciled, and we had marital relations. Then I traveled to Yemen, where I work.
So what is my position regarding what came from me? Is it a divorce? Or is it an oath? And if it is an oath, what is the expiation that is upon me? I have heard in the answers to some questions and inquiries about two expiations: the first says: freeing a slave, or feeding ten poor people, or fasting three days. The second says: freeing a slave, or feeding sixty poor people, or fasting three months. What is the difference between the two expiations in the Islamic legal ruling?
Is it possible to pay the expiation in the form of money distributed to the poor, equivalent to the value of the food?
May Allah reward you with good.
Answer:
This statement requires detail according to the intention of the speaker. If he said: “She is forbidden to me if she does not give up such and such matters,” this means that if she leaves them, there is no prohibition, and the matter is ended; because she obeyed the command and left them, so nothing is upon him. But if she did not leave them, meaning she was stubborn, opposed him, and did not care about the words, then there is detail in this:
If he intended by this statement to forbid her or to divorce her, then it is as he intended. If he intended to forbid her, she is forbidden. If he intended divorce, the divorce takes place. If he intended to prevent her and did not intend prohibition or divorce, but only intended to prevent her, to be strict with her, to frighten her, and to warn her, then this has the ruling of an oath.
So the issue differs according to the intention. If he intended by this statement to frighten her and warn her, but she did not obey, then an oath expiation is upon him. It is freeing a believing slave, or feeding ten poor people, or clothing them, with a choice between the three: freeing a believing slave, or feeding ten poor people, or clothing them. The feeding is that he provides them dinner or breakfast, or gives them half a sa' (a dry measure of about 3 kg) for each person, from dates or rice, which is the staple food of the country, meaning: approximately one and a half kilograms. Or he clothes them with clothing, giving each one an izar (lower garment) and a rida' (upper garment), or a shirt that covers him in prayer. This is the expiation. If he is unable to do all of this, unable to feed, clothe, or free, it suffices for him to fast three days. In the case of inability, he fasts three days. This is the oath expiation.
But if he intended to forbid her if she did not give up the matters, intending to forbid her, then its ruling is the ruling of zihar (likening one's wife to a forbidden relative), as if he said: “You are to me like the back of my mother,” or “the back of my sister,” or the like. If he forbade her with this prohibition, or said: “You are forbidden to me, or you are a prohibited woman, if you do not give up this matter,” and she did not give it up, and his intention was to forbid her, then the zihar expiation is upon him: which is freeing a believing slave. If he is unable, then fasting two consecutive months. If he cannot do that, then feeding sixty poor people. There are not three months in the expiation; it contains only two months, it is not three months. The expiation is either two months, or fasting three days in the oath expiation, as mentioned before.
The two months in zihar, meaning: forbidding the wife, and in intercourse in Ramadan, and in accidental killing and quasi-intentional killing. First: freeing a believing slave. If he is unable, in forbidding his wife, or in his intercourse in Ramadan, or in killing a soul without right, if he is unable to free a slave, he fasts two consecutive months, sixty days. If he is unable, the expiation remains pending in his liability until he is able, if it was a killing. If the sin was a killing, because the incident was a killing, then there is no feeding in it. Rather, the expiation remains pending, and it is freeing a believing slave. If he cannot do that, he fasts two consecutive months. This is the expiation for killing, as Allah explained in His great Book. If he is unable to fast and free, it remains in his liability. When he is able to free, he frees. When he is able to fast, he fasts.
But in zihar, and forbidding the wife, and in intercourse in Ramadan, there is a third matter in this, which is feeding. In the case of inability to free a slave and inability to fast, he feeds sixty poor people, thirty sa' (a dry measure of about 3 kg). In these two issues: the issue of intercourse in Ramadan and the issue of forbidding the wife absolutely, not conditionally on doing such and such and doing such and such, intending to prevent her. Rather, it is an absolute prohibition, as if he says: “You are forbidden to me,” “You are to me like the back of my mother,” or “You are forbidden to me if Ramadan enters.” This is the absolute prohibition, or a condition that does not contain encouragement or prevention, but a complete condition. Its ruling follows, and he is obligated to free a believing slave if he is able. If he is unable, he fasts two consecutive months. If he is unable, he feeds sixty poor people. In zihar, before he touches her, in forbidding the wife, he performs this expiation before he touches her, before he approaches her. It is ordered in this order: freeing, then fasting in the case of inability to free, then feeding in the case of inability to fast. The feeding is for sixty poor people, food, not money. He feeds them, provides them dinner or breakfast, or gives them half a sa' (a dry measure of about 3 kg) of dates, or rice, or wheat, according to the staple food of the country. Its amount by weight is approximately one and a half kilograms in terms of weight.
And as for the conditional prohibition, where the intention is encouragement or prevention or affirmation or denial, this has the oath expiation, as mentioned before. If he says: “You are forbidden to me if you do such and such,” or “You are divorced if you do such and such,” if you talk to so-and-so, if you do such and such a matter, if you disobey my mother, if you leave the house, and his intention is to warn her, not his intention is to divorce her, his intention is to warn her and frighten her, then this has the ruling of an oath.
And likewise, if he says: “You are, you are divorced if you do such and such,” and his intention is to prevent her, to warn her, and not his intention is to separate from her, then this has the ruling of an oath, in the most correct of the two opinions of the scholars, as mentioned before. And Allah is the guarantor of success.
The presenter: May Allah reward you with good.
A letter reached the program from one of the listening brothers, (M.A.M.) al-Minawi. Our brother has a set of questions. In his first question, he says: I am married, and once a disagreement occurred between us, so I said to her: “You are forbidden to me if you do not give up the things you are doing.” After a few days, we reconciled, and we had marital relations. Then I traveled to Yemen, where I work.
So what is my position regarding what came from me? Is it a divorce? Or is it an oath? And if it is an oath, what is the expiation that is upon me? I have heard in the answers to some questions and inquiries about two expiations: the first says: freeing a slave, or feeding ten poor people, or fasting three days. The second says: freeing a slave, or feeding sixty poor people, or fasting three months. What is the difference between the two expiations in the Islamic legal ruling?
Is it possible to pay the expiation in the form of money distributed to the poor, equivalent to the value of the food?
May Allah reward you with good.
Answer:
This statement requires detail according to the intention of the speaker. If he said: “She is forbidden to me if she does not give up such and such matters,” this means that if she leaves them, there is no prohibition, and the matter is ended; because she obeyed the command and left them, so nothing is upon him. But if she did not leave them, meaning she was stubborn, opposed him, and did not care about the words, then there is detail in this:
If he intended by this statement to forbid her or to divorce her, then it is as he intended. If he intended to forbid her, she is forbidden. If he intended divorce, the divorce takes place. If he intended to prevent her and did not intend prohibition or divorce, but only intended to prevent her, to be strict with her, to frighten her, and to warn her, then this has the ruling of an oath.
So the issue differs according to the intention. If he intended by this statement to frighten her and warn her, but she did not obey, then an oath expiation is upon him. It is freeing a believing slave, or feeding ten poor people, or clothing them, with a choice between the three: freeing a believing slave, or feeding ten poor people, or clothing them. The feeding is that he provides them dinner or breakfast, or gives them half a sa' (a dry measure of about 3 kg) for each person, from dates or rice, which is the staple food of the country, meaning: approximately one and a half kilograms. Or he clothes them with clothing, giving each one an izar (lower garment) and a rida' (upper garment), or a shirt that covers him in prayer. This is the expiation. If he is unable to do all of this, unable to feed, clothe, or free, it suffices for him to fast three days. In the case of inability, he fasts three days. This is the oath expiation.
But if he intended to forbid her if she did not give up the matters, intending to forbid her, then its ruling is the ruling of zihar (likening one's wife to a forbidden relative), as if he said: “You are to me like the back of my mother,” or “the back of my sister,” or the like. If he forbade her with this prohibition, or said: “You are forbidden to me, or you are a prohibited woman, if you do not give up this matter,” and she did not give it up, and his intention was to forbid her, then the zihar expiation is upon him: which is freeing a believing slave. If he is unable, then fasting two consecutive months. If he cannot do that, then feeding sixty poor people. There are not three months in the expiation; it contains only two months, it is not three months. The expiation is either two months, or fasting three days in the oath expiation, as mentioned before.
The two months in zihar, meaning: forbidding the wife, and in intercourse in Ramadan, and in accidental killing and quasi-intentional killing. First: freeing a believing slave. If he is unable, in forbidding his wife, or in his intercourse in Ramadan, or in killing a soul without right, if he is unable to free a slave, he fasts two consecutive months, sixty days. If he is unable, the expiation remains pending in his liability until he is able, if it was a killing. If the sin was a killing, because the incident was a killing, then there is no feeding in it. Rather, the expiation remains pending, and it is freeing a believing slave. If he cannot do that, he fasts two consecutive months. This is the expiation for killing, as Allah explained in His great Book. If he is unable to fast and free, it remains in his liability. When he is able to free, he frees. When he is able to fast, he fasts.
But in zihar, and forbidding the wife, and in intercourse in Ramadan, there is a third matter in this, which is feeding. In the case of inability to free a slave and inability to fast, he feeds sixty poor people, thirty sa' (a dry measure of about 3 kg). In these two issues: the issue of intercourse in Ramadan and the issue of forbidding the wife absolutely, not conditionally on doing such and such and doing such and such, intending to prevent her. Rather, it is an absolute prohibition, as if he says: “You are forbidden to me,” “You are to me like the back of my mother,” or “You are forbidden to me if Ramadan enters.” This is the absolute prohibition, or a condition that does not contain encouragement or prevention, but a complete condition. Its ruling follows, and he is obligated to free a believing slave if he is able. If he is unable, he fasts two consecutive months. If he is unable, he feeds sixty poor people. In zihar, before he touches her, in forbidding the wife, he performs this expiation before he touches her, before he approaches her. It is ordered in this order: freeing, then fasting in the case of inability to free, then feeding in the case of inability to fast. The feeding is for sixty poor people, food, not money. He feeds them, provides them dinner or breakfast, or gives them half a sa' (a dry measure of about 3 kg) of dates, or rice, or wheat, according to the staple food of the country. Its amount by weight is approximately one and a half kilograms in terms of weight.
And as for the conditional prohibition, where the intention is encouragement or prevention or affirmation or denial, this has the oath expiation, as mentioned before. If he says: “You are forbidden to me if you do such and such,” or “You are divorced if you do such and such,” if you talk to so-and-so, if you do such and such a matter, if you disobey my mother, if you leave the house, and his intention is to warn her, not his intention is to divorce her, his intention is to warn her and frighten her, then this has the ruling of an oath.
And likewise, if he says: “You are, you are divorced if you do such and such,” and his intention is to prevent her, to warn her, and not his intention is to separate from her, then this has the ruling of an oath, in the most correct of the two opinions of the scholars, as mentioned before. And Allah is the guarantor of success.
The presenter: May Allah reward you with good.
Source
binbaz.org.sa
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.