if it was in multiple sittings, then there are multiple expiations. This is also narrated from 'Ali, 'Amr ibn Dinar, and Qatada, because it is a statement that necessitates the prohibition of the wife, so when he intends a new instance, the ruling of that state applies to every time, just like divorce. Our argument is that it is a statement that does not effect a prohibition in the wife, so the expiation for Zihar is not made obligatory by it, just like an oath by Allah the Almighty. It is not hidden that it did not effect a prohibition, for she was already prohibited by the first statement, and her prohibition did not increase. Furthermore, it is a phrase to which an expiation is attached, so when one repeats it, a single expiation suffices, just like an oath by Allah the Almighty. As for divorce, whatever exceeds the third [pronouncement] does not have a ruling established for it by consensus, and with this, what they have cited is invalidated. As for the third [divorce], it does establish an additional prohibition, which is the prohibition prior to [her marriage to another] husband and sexual consummation, unlike the second Zihar, for no prohibition is established by it. Thus, we compare it to what exceeds the third divorce, to which no ruling is attached, and the same applies to the second Zihar. As for if he performs the expiation for the first one, then performs Zihar again, the expiation is obligatory upon him for the second one without disagreement, because the second Zihar is like the first; it prohibits a wife who was lawful, so it necessitates the expiation like the first, unlike the case prior to performing the expiation.

Section: Intent (niyya) is a condition for the validity of the expiation due to the saying of the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him: "Actions are but by intentions." Also, because emancipation may take place as a voluntary act, as an expiation for something else, or as a vow, so it does not count toward this expiation except with an intention. Its manner is that one intends the emancipation, the fasting, or the feeding as an expiation. If one adds that it is the obligatory one, it is an emphasis; otherwise, his intention for the expiation suffices. If he intends its obligation but does not intend the expiation, it does not suffice him because the obligation varies between an expiation and a vow, so it is necessary to specify it. The place for the intention is along with performing the expiation or slightly before it. This is what al-Shafi'i stated, and some of his companions held it. Others said: It does not suffice until he maintains the intention, even if the expiation is fasting.