If it is said, “The obligation is one,” we reply: What counts is the underlying expiation. Accordingly, if he wished to free a single slave on behalf of two obligations, that would not be valid.

If a man were to say, “I am required to fast two consecutive months—sixty days—for zihar, and I intend three of those days to count toward an oath,” that would not suffice; the two expiations do not overlap.

Likewise, if he were to say, “If I am unable to fast for zihar, I am required to feed sixty needy persons; I intend that feeding ten of the sixty needy persons count toward an oath,” this would not suffice. The reason is that the obligations differ.

If it is asked, “What is this analogous to?” they say: It is analogous to minor ritual impurity and major ritual impurity. According to the school, minor ritual impurity is not lifted merely by intending to remove major ritual impurity; rather, when performing ghusl, one must intend to remove both states of impurity. Accordingly, regarding the man who says, “By Allah, I will not speak to my wife; she is to me as my mother’s back,” we say: If he resumes marital relations, two expiations are binding upon him: an expiation for the oath and an expiation for zihar.

If a man says, “I vow to Allah not to eat from your food,” and says, “By Allah, I will not go out to the market,” and says, “If I speak to so-and-so, then my wife is divorced,” intending it as an oath, and then breaks all three, what is binding upon him according to the school?

The answer is: One expiation is binding upon him, because the consequence of these three matters is one. A vow intended as an oath is an oath, and a divorce statement intended as an oath is an oath. Thus, according to the school, one expiation suffices for him; however, the wife is divorced—though the correct view is that she is not divorced.

According to the second view—the view of the majority—three expiations are binding upon him, because the acts are multiple.