with the intention that it is for the obligation he owes, but without specifically designating it as being for zihār. The apparent meaning of the author’s words is that this would not suffice. However, the correct view is that it does suffice, because this is a designation when he has no other expiation due. This is why they stipulated in marriage that he must identify the woman: if he says, “I give you my daughter in marriage,” while he has another daughter, it is not valid; but if he has no other daughter, it is valid. For when there is only one, the matter is understood to refer to her. Thus, if he intends it as an expiation, and the only expiation he owes is that of zihār, this freeing of a slave suffices for it.
His statement, “or otherwise,” includes such things as freeing a slave and feeding.
Question: Is it a condition that one intend consecutiveness when fasting, or not? It is not a condition. Rather, he intends each day individually; intending consecutiveness is not a condition. This is just as in Ramadan: he intends each day individually, and it is not a condition that he intend consecutiveness. So long as he knows that consecutiveness is required, then from the moment he begins the fast, he has intended consecutiveness. However, if the consecutiveness is interrupted by something that does not invalidate it, he must renew his intention. For example, if he travels, then upon returning he must renew his intention; otherwise, the basic rule is that the fasting remains consecutive.
Must he make an intention for each day? Yes, he must intend each day. However, according to the correct view, if he begins it having intended to continue, then it is not necessary for him to form the intention each day during the preceding night. Based on this, if he sleeps after the afternoon prayer until the sun rises the following day, then, if we say that a specific intention during the night is obligatory, his fast for that day is not valid; but if we say that it is not a condition, it is valid. This is the correct view.