Tafsir of Al-Mujadilah 58:2-4

{Those who pronounce zihar among you...} The mention of "among you" serves as a rebuke to the Arabs and a condemnation of their custom of zihar, as it was a practice specific to their pre-Islamic ignorance, unlike other nations.

{They are not their mothers} The meaning is that whoever says to his wife, "You are to me like the back of my mother," is equating his wife to his mother in his speech. This is a false analogy because the two states are entirely different.

{Their mothers are none but those who gave birth to them} He means that mothers in reality are only those who gave birth. Others are attached to this status by legal ruling:

• Wet nurses: They are considered mothers because, through breastfeeding, they enter into the legal status of mothers.
• Wives of the Prophet (ﷺ): They are the mothers of the believers because God forbade the nation from marrying them, thus they entered into the legal status of mothers.
• Wives: They are the furthest from motherhood; they are not mothers in reality, nor do they fall under the legal status of mothers.

Therefore, the statement of the one who performs zihar is a "reprehensible statement" (munkar)—denied by reality and by legal rulings—and a "falsehood" (zur)—a lie that deviates from the truth.

{And indeed, Allah is Pardoning, Forgiving} This applies to what preceded from him, provided he repents and does not return to it.

{And those who pronounce zihar from their wives, then return to what they said} This means those whose custom was to say this reprehensible statement—which they ceased upon entering Islam—then return to it. The expiation for one who returns is to free a slave before they touch the woman. Touching is not lawful for him until he performs the expiation.

Another interpretation of "return to what they said" is that they seek to rectify what they said, as one who rectifies a matter "returns" to it. The meaning is to remedy this statement by performing expiation so that their state returns to what it was before the zihar.

A third interpretation is that "what they said" refers to what they forbade upon themselves by the utterance of zihar, treating the utterance as equivalent to the object of the utterance. The meaning would then be: "then they desire to return to intimacy." Intimacy here means enjoyment through intercourse, touching with desire, or looking at her private parts with desire.

{That is what you are admonished with} The ruling of expiation is proof that a crime has been committed; you must take heed of this ruling so that you do not return to zihar and fear God’s punishment for it.

If you ask: Is zihar valid with other than this specific wording? I say: Yes. If one replaces "back" with another body part used to represent the whole (like the head, face, neck, or private parts), or replaces "back" with another part of the mother that is forbidden to look at (like the stomach or thigh), or replaces "mother" with any woman who is permanently forbidden to him by blood, nursing, marriage, or affinity (such as saying, "You are to me like the back of my sister by nursing, or my paternal aunt, or my son’s wife, or my mother-in-law"), then he is a muzahir (one who has performed zihar). This is the school of Abu Hanifa and his companions. Al-Shafi‘i held that zihar is only valid using the word "mother" specifically.

If you ask: If the muzahir refuses to perform the expiation, can the wife take him to court? I say: She may. The judge must compel him to perform the expiation and may imprison him. No other expiation carries the penalty of imprisonment except zihar, because he harms her by refusing to expiate and refusing intimacy, so he must be compelled to fulfill her rights.

If you ask: What if he touches her before expiating? I say: He must seek forgiveness and not repeat it until he performs the expiation, based on the narration of Salama bin Sakhr al-Bayadi, who said to the Prophet (ﷺ): "I performed zihar on my wife, then I saw her anklet on a moonlit night and had intercourse with her." The Prophet (ﷺ) said: "Seek forgiveness from your Lord and do not return until you have performed the expiation."

If you ask: Which slave suffices for the expiation? I say: Both a Muslim and a non-Muslim slave suffice, as the verse is absolute. According to Al-Shafi‘i, only a believing slave suffices, based on the verse regarding the expiation for killing.

If you ask: How much does the poor person receive in feeding? I say: Half a sa‘ of wheat or a full sa‘ of other grains according to Abu Hanifa. According to Al-Shafi‘i, it is one mudd of the staple food of his land.

If you ask: Why was intimacy not mentioned in the context of the feeding expiation as it was in the other two? I say: There is a difference of opinion. According to Abu Hanifa, there is no difference between the three expiations regarding the necessity of performing them before intimacy; the omission in the feeding context indicates that if intimacy occurs during the feeding process, he does not have to restart (unlike fasting).

{That}—this explanation and instruction of rulings—{is so you may believe in Allah and His Messenger} by acting upon the laws He has legislated, rejecting what you were upon in your ignorance. {And those are the limits of Allah} which may not be transgressed. {And for the disbelievers}—those who do not follow them and do not act upon them—{is a painful punishment.}