one. In this case, one expiation unquestionably suffices, and there is no difficulty in it.

The second case is where the oath is one, but the matters sworn about are multiple. For example, someone is told, “Go to your friend; he has invited you to a wedding feast. Eat from his food and congratulate him on his marriage.” He replies, “By Allah, I will not go to him, congratulate him on his marriage, or eat from his food.”

Thus, the matters sworn about are three, but the oath is one. Here too, one expiation unquestionably suffices, because the oath is one.

The third case is where both the oaths and the matters sworn about are multiple. This is the point over which the scholars differ. Some hold that one expiation suffices; this is the well-known position in the school of Imam Ahmad. Others hold that each oath requires its own expiation; this is the view of the majority. What appears correct is the view of the majority: if the oaths concern separate acts, then each act has its own ruling—unless they fall under one of the two preceding categories.

If their required expiations differ—for example, a declaration of zihar and an oath by Allah—then both become binding upon him and do not overlap.

His statement, “If their required expiations differ, such as a declaration of zihar and an oath by Allah, then both become binding upon him and do not overlap”: it is well known that the expiation for zihar differs from the expiation for an oath. Thus, if he incurs the expiation for zihar and the expiation for an oath, he must fulfill the expiation for zihar in full and the expiation for the oath in full, because the required expiations differ.

An example is a man who says, “By Allah, I will not speak to my wife; she is to me as my mother’s back.” This involves both an oath and zihar. If the man wishes to resume marital relations, we say to him: You must offer the expiation for an oath and the expiation for zihar. If he says, “I wish to free one slave for both,” that does not suffice; he must free two slaves.