the meaning of the text, but rather it is a prohibition of something lawful without it being Zihar, so it resembles the case if she had prohibited her slave-woman or her food. This is the opinion of 'Atta. And Allah knows best.

Section: If we say that the expiation is obligatory upon her, it is not obligatory until he has sexual intercourse with her while she is a willing participant. If he divorces her, or one of them dies before he has intercourse with her, or if he forces her (14) into intercourse, there is no expiation upon her, because it is an oath, and its expiation does not become due before the violation (hinth) of it, like other oaths. It is not obligatory to offer it before the act of intercourse, like the expiations for other oaths, and it is permissible to offer it beforehand (15). She must enable her husband to have intercourse with her before performing the expiation because it is a right of his upon her, so it is not dropped by her oath, and because it is not Zihar; it is only a prohibition of something lawful, so it does not establish a prohibition, just as if she had prohibited her food. It was reported that the apparent view of Abu Bakr is that she does not enable him before the expiation, by analogy to the man. This is not sound, because for the man, Zihar is valid, whereas the Zihar of a woman is not valid, and because the permissibility (al-hill) is a right of the husband (16), so he possesses the authority to remove it, whereas the permissibility is a right upon her, so she does not possess the authority to remove it. And Allah knows best.

1326 - Issue; He said: (And if he performs Zihar from his wife repeatedly, and does not perform expiation, then it is a single expiation).

This is the apparent view of the school, whether it occurred in one sitting or multiple sittings, whether he intended by that emphasis, a new instance, or spoke without qualification. A group reported this from Ahmad. Abu Bakr, Ibn Hamid, and the Qadi (1) chose this. This was also narrated from 'Ali, may Allah be pleased with him. 'Atta, Jabir ibn Zayd, Tawus, al-Sha'bi, al-Zuhri, Malik, Ishaq, Abu 'Ubayd, and Abu Thawr held this view. It is the old opinion of al-Shafi'i. It was reported from Ahmad regarding someone who swore many oaths that if he intended to emphasize the oath, then it is a single expiation. Its implication is that if he intended a new instance, then there are two expiations. Al-Thawri and al-Shafi'i in the new [opinion] held this view. The People of Opinion said: If it was in one sitting, then it is a single expiation, and if...