His statement, “And if he makes ẓihār concerning his wives with a single expression”: for example, if he says to his four wives, “You are to me like my mother’s back,” then only one expiation is required of him, because the ẓihār is one. From this we know that if the ẓihār is one, or the wife subjected to ẓihār is one, then only one expiation is required.

His statement, “And if he makes ẓihār of them,” meaning, of his wives.

His statement, “with separate expressions, then separate expiations,” means: according to their number. Thus, if he says to the first, “You are to me like my mother’s back”; to the second, “You are to me like my mother’s back”; to the third, “You are to me like my mother’s back”; and to the fourth, “You are to me like my mother’s back,” then he must make four expiations, because both the ẓihār and the wives subjected to it are multiple. Even if he has not made expiation for the first, he must still make four expiations, because the subject matter is multiple, as are the expressions themselves.

Some of our scholars held that only one expiation is required, on the basis that expiations overlap, and that when oaths are repeated while the obligation incurred is one, only one expiation is required. This is the position of the madhhab regarding oaths.

Thus, according to the madhhab, if multiple oaths are made, only one expiation is required. Accordingly, if someone says, “This is forbidden to me”; then says, “By Allah, I will not enter so-and-so’s house”; then says, “By Allah, I will surely wear this garment”; and then says, “I owe Allah a vow to wear a turban”—these are four different oaths according to their wording. If he breaks all of these oaths and does not make expiation, then according to the madhhab only one expiation is required of him. They say: if the obligation incurred is one, then multiplicity of causes carries no weight. They analogized this to a man who ate camel meat, urinated, defecated, and passed