al-Shafi'i, from Ahmad, and it is the school of Abu Hanifa, because they are two acts of worship of different types, so it is necessary to specify the intention for both, just as if he were obligated to fast for a makeup fast (qada') and a vow (nadhr). Based on this, if he had one expiation for which the cause is unknown, and he performed one expiation, it suffices him according to the first view, as stated by Abu Bakr. According to the second view, it should be binding upon him to perform the expiation according to the number of the causes of the expiations, each one for a cause, like someone who forgot a prayer from a day and does not know which one it is; he is obligated to perform five prayers. If he knew that he owed a day's fast but did not know whether it was from a makeup fast or a vow, it would be binding upon him to fast two days. If he owed three days of fasting and did not know if they were for an oath expiation, a makeup fast, or a vow, he would be obligated to fast nine days, each three for one of the three categories.

Section: If a man has two expiations upon him and he emancipates two slaves for them, this situation does not escape four scenarios. The first is that he says: "I have emancipated this one for this expiation and this one for that one." It suffices him, by consensus. The second is that he says: "I have emancipated this one for one of the two expiations, and this one for the other," without specification. One must look; if they are of the same type, such as two expiations for Zihar or two expiations for killing, it suffices him. If they are of two types, such as an expiation for Zihar and an expiation for killing, it is derived from the two views regarding the requirement to specify the cause; if we say: "It is required," neither of them suffices him. If we say: "It is not required," it suffices him for both. The third is that he says: "I have emancipated both of them for the two expiations." If they are of the same type, it suffices for both, and each one counts for one expiation, because the custom of the Law (Shari'ah) and usage is to emancipate a slave for an expiation, so if he uses an absolute term, it must be interpreted accordingly. If they are of two types, it is derived from the two views. The fourth is that he emancipates each one for both of them together, so he would be an emancipator of half of two slaves for each of the two expiations. This is based on another principle: if he emancipates half of two slaves for one expiation, does it suffice him or not? According to the statement of al-Khiraqi, it suffices him, because