What are the implications for a man who said to his wife, with whom he had not yet consummated the marriage, "It is forbidden for me to touch you before I consummate the marriage with you," and then he touched her and secluded himself with her?

If a man forbids himself from touching his wife before consummating the marriage, there is a difference of opinion among jurists. The most sound opinion is that if he intended divorce, it is a divorce; if he intended ẓihār, it is ẓihār; and if he did not intend anything or intended to prevent himself from touching her, it is an oath.

If he intended divorce, then touched her: 1. If he secluded himself with her or touched her in a previous seclusion: The divorce is revocable according to the Hanbalis (he may take her back as long as she is within her ʿiddah), and irrevocable according to the majority of scholars. 2. If he touched her without seclusion: The divorce is irrevocably binding by consensus, and she does not become lawful for him except through a new marriage contract.

If he intended ẓihār (that she is forbidden to him like his mother or sister), then touched her: He must offer the expiation for ẓihār. If he intended an oath or to prevent himself, then touched her: He must offer the expiation for an oath (feeding ten needy persons or clothing them, or fasting three days if he cannot afford that).