What is the ruling if the husband intended an oath (Yamin) when saying, 'You are forbidden to me'?
Chapter on Explicit Divorce and Others
Al-Mughni
Book of Divorce
Primary text
If the husband intended an oath when uttering, "You are forbidden to me," it is ruled to be an oath requiring expiation. This opinion is supported by Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq, Umar, Ibn Abbas, Aisha, Sa'id ibn Al-Musayyib, Al-Hasan, 'Ata', Tawus, Sulayman ibn Yasar, Qatadah, and Al-Awza'i. The textual basis is drawn from the Quranic passage {You have forbidden for yourself what Allah has made lawful for you... Allah has ordained for you the dissolution of your oaths} (Quran 66:1-2), where 'Al-Haram' (the forbidden) is linked to the dissolution of oaths. The intent here is understood as abstaining from intercourse and avoiding her, treating the statement as equivalent to swearing, "By Allah, I will not approach you sexually."
Supporting text
Imam Ahmad, in one narration, indicated that if he intended an oath, it is indeed an oath. This aligns with the view of Ibn Mas'ud, and is also one opinion attributed to Abu Hanifa and Al-Shafi'i.