What is the ruling regarding a husband's statement to his wife in a state of anger: "You are forbidden to me like my mother is forbidden to me, and do not sleep at your family's house, and if you do, you will be forbidden to me"?

The statement made by your sister's husband: "You are forbidden to me, just as my mother is forbidden to me, and you shall not sleep at your parents' house, and if you do sleep there, you are forbidden to me," can be interpreted in two ways:

1. He made his wife's being forbidden contingent upon her sleeping at her parents' house, which is explained by his statement: "and if you do sleep there, you are forbidden to me." In this case, it is a single ẓihār (a statement comparing one's wife to an unmarriageable relative) contingent on her sleeping there, and if the wife sleeps at her parents' house, the ẓihār takes effect.

2. He forbade his wife immediately, likening her to his mother, and then made her being forbidden contingent upon her sleeping at her parents' house. In this case, he is liable for ẓihār for the first prohibition. As for the contingent prohibition: If the wife does not sleep at their house, there is nothing due from the husband. If she does sleep there, his intention behind the prohibition must be considered: If he intended divorce: Then it is effective, and he can take her back before the end of her iddah (waiting period), provided the divorce does not complete the three divorces. If he intended ẓihār: He is liable for a ẓihār expiation in addition to the expiation for the first ẓihār. Thus, according to the majority of scholars, two ẓihār expiations are due. However, according to the Hanbalis, he is only liable for one ẓihār expiation if the breach of the oath occurs before the expiation for the first ẓihār is performed. If he intended an oath by Allah or had no specific intention: He is liable for an expiation for breaking an oath (kaffārat yamīn).

It was obligatory to inquire about this matter immediately when it occurred.