Is the ruling regarding the prohibited sexual intercourse following 'Zihar' (in the context of delaying abstinence) the same as the ruling for a sick person?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of the Oath of Abstention (Ila')
Primary text
The ruling concerning the prohibition of sexual intercourse following 'Zihar' (a form of divorce pronouncement) is analogous to the ruling for a sick person, according to the apparent view of Al-Khirqi, and similarly applies to vowed 'I'tikaf (seclusion in the mosque) and 'Zihar'. The primary opinion among our scholars is that the person who made the 'Zihar' pronouncement is not granted respite; rather, he is commanded to issue a divorce. This implies that any excuse originating from the actor that prevents him from sexual intercourse does not warrant granting him respite from an obligation. This is the position of Al-Shafi'i because the impediment stems from his own action, and thus an obligatory ruling concerning him is not voided. Consequently, he is not commanded to engage in intercourse because it is forbidden to him, but he is commanded to divorce.
Supporting text
The basis for the first opinion is that he is incapable of intercourse due to an order he cannot escape, thus resembling a sick person. Regarding the person who made the 'Zihar' pronouncement, he is told: either perform the expiation and retract the statement, or issue a divorce. If he requests respite to seek a slave or provide food, and it is known that he is capable of performing the expiation immediately, and he only intends to delay and postpone, he is not granted respite because the right is due immediately. Respite is granted only for necessity, and there is no necessity in this case.