So she freed me and married him. Sa'id (9) narrated these two reports in shortened forms. Furthermore, because she is a spouse who has committed a reprehensible statement and falsehood, she incurs the expiation of Zihar, just like the other [party]. Moreover, because the obligation is the expiation for an oath, the two spouses are equal in it, like an oath by Allah the Almighty. The second narration is that she does not incur an expiation. This is the opinion of Malik, al-Shafi'i, Ishaq, and Abu Thawr, because it is a reprehensible statement and a falsehood, not Zihar, so it does not necessitate an expiation, [like insults and false accusation (Qadhf). And because it is a statement that is not Zihar, it does not necessitate the expiation of] (10) Zihar, like other statements, or it is a prohibition from which Zihar is not valid, so it resembles Zihar from one's slave-woman. The third narration is that she incurs the expiation of an oath. Ahmad said: [Atta has adopted] (11) a good position; he placed it in the status of one who prohibits for himself something like food or similar items. This is more analogous according to the school of Ahmad and more consistent with his principles, because it is not Zihar, and the mere statement of what is reprehensible and false does not necessitate the expiation of Zihar, as evidenced by all other lies, Zihar before the 'awd (resumption of marital relations), and Zihar from one's slave-woman or mother of his child. Furthermore, it is a prohibition that does not establish prohibition in the subject matter, so it does not necessitate the expiation of Zihar, like the prohibition of any other lawful thing. Also, it is Zihar from someone other than his wife, so it resembles Zihar from his slave-woman. What was narrated from 'A'ishah bint Talhah regarding the freeing of a slave may be interpreted as her freeing being an expiation for her oath, for freeing a slave is one of the types of expiation for an oath. It is necessary to interpret it this way, because the event occurring from her is not Zihar. The speech of Ahmad, in the report of al-Athram, does not necessitate the obligation of the expiation of Zihar; he only said: It is more cautious to perform an expiation. This is also how Ibn al-Mundhir related it. There is no doubt that the most cautious action is to perform the most severe of expiations so as to exit the dispute, [but that] (13) is not obligatory upon her because it is not textually specified, nor is it in the meaning of the textually specified. It is merely 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...