or repeated the oath for one thing, for example if he said: 'By Allah, I will certainly fight the Quraysh, by Allah I will certainly fight the Quraysh, and by Allah I will certainly fight the Quraysh.' If he then breaks the oath, there is nothing upon him but one expiation. Something similar to this was narrated from Ibn Umar (1). This is also the view of al-Hasan, Urwah, and Ishaq. It was also narrated from Ata', Ikrimah, al-Nakha'i, Hammad, and al-Awza'i. Abu Ubayd said regarding one who says: 'Upon me is the covenant of Allah, His pact, and His guarantee,' and then breaks the oath: 'He must perform three expiations.' The scholars of opinion (ashab al-ra'y) said: 'He must perform an expiation for every (2) oath, unless he intends emphasis and clarification.' Something similar is narrated from al-Thawri and Abu Thawr. There are two opinions from al-Shafi'i, like the two schools of thought. From Amr ibn Dinar it is reported that if it is in a single gathering, it is like our view, and if it is in multiple gatherings, it is like their view. They argued that because the causes for expiation are repeated, the expiations are repeated, like killing a human being or hunting game in the sanctuary (4). Also, because the second oath is like the first, it necessitates what the first necessitates. Our argument is that it is one violation that necessitated one category of expiation, so no more than one expiation is required, just as if he intended emphasis and clarification. Regarding their claim that they are repeated causes, we do not concede (5) that; for the cause is the violation (hinth), and it is single. Even if we were to concede it, it is invalidated by [the case of] when intercourse is repeated in Ramadan over several days, and by fixed penalties (hudud) when their causes are repeated, for they are expiations [that do not multiply], and by when he intends emphasis. It is not valid to draw an analogy to hunting game in the sanctuary, because the expiation [there] is a substitute; for that reason, it increases with the size of the game and is measured according to it, so it is like the blood money for a killed person. Nor [is it valid to draw an analogy] to the expiation for killing a human being, because it was also treated as a substitute for the right of Allah Almighty. For when he destroyed a human being who was a worshiper of Allah Almighty, it was appropriate that he produce a slave to take his place in worship. When he was unable to produce [one], he was required to free a slave, for emancipation is the creation of a servant by saving him from the bondage of slavery and its preoccupations to a state of peace of mind for worship through the freedom attained by emancipation. Furthermore, the difference is evident, which is that the cause here was repeated with its completeness and conditions, while in the area of dispute that is not found, because the violation is either