break the oath by the act of having intercourse with some of them, he is not a Muli (swearer of Ila') with respect to them in the present; because it is possible for him to have intercourse with any one of them without breaking the oath, so he has not prevented himself by his oath from having intercourse with her, and thus he is not a Muli with respect to her. If he has intercourse with three of them, he becomes a Muli with respect to the fourth; because he cannot have intercourse with her without breaking his oath. If one of them dies or he divorces her, his oath is dissolved and the Ila' ceases; because he would not break his oath by having intercourse with them, as he only breaks it by having intercourse with all four. If he takes back the divorced woman or marries her after her final separation (baynuna), the ruling of his oath returns. Al-Qadi mentioned that if we say he breaks the oath by the act of having intercourse with some of them, and he has intercourse with one, he breaks the oath, but the Ila' does not dissolve for the remainder; because the Ila' with respect to one woman is not dissolved by having intercourse with another. We argue that it is a single oath which he has broken, so it must be dissolved, just like all other oaths. Furthermore, when he has intercourse with one, he breaks the oath and becomes liable for expiation, so he is no longer liable for anything by having intercourse with the remaining ones; thus, he is no longer prevented from having intercourse with them by the ruling of his oath, so the Ila' is dissolved, just as if he had performed the expiation. The companions of Al-Shafi'i disagreed on this; some said he does not become a Muli with respect to them until he has intercourse with three, then he becomes a Muli with respect to the fourth. Al-Muzani narrated from Al-Shafi'i that he is considered a Muli with respect to all of them, such that a period (waqf) is granted for each one of them; if he has intercourse with some of them, she is removed from the ruling of Ila', and a period is granted for those remaining until he resumes relations (fa'a) or divorces them, and he does not break the oath until he has intercourse with all four. The jurists (Ashab al-Ra'y) said: He is a Muli with respect to all of them; if he leaves them for four months, they all become irrevocably separated (ba'in) from him due to the Ila', and if he has intercourse with some of them, the Ila' falls away only in her regard, and he does not break the oath except by having intercourse with all of them together. We argue that whoever does not break the oath by having intercourse with her is not a Muli with respect to her, just as in the case of one he did not swear against.

Section: If he says, "By Allah, I will not have intercourse with one of you," and he intends a specific one, his oath is attached to her alone, and he becomes a Muli with respect to her to the exclusion of the others. If he intends an indeterminate one among them, he does not become a Muli with respect to them in the present; when he has intercourse with three, he becomes a Muli with respect to the fourth, and it is possible that she is determined by drawing lots, as in the case of divorce if he pronounces it on an indeterminate one among his wives. If he uses the term absolutely, he becomes a Muli with respect to all of them in the present; because he cannot have intercourse with any one of them except by breaking the oath. If he divorces one of them, or she dies, he remains a Muli with respect to the remainder. If he has intercourse with one of them, he breaks the oath, his oath is dissolved, and the ruling of Ila' falls away for the remainder; because it is a single oath, so when he breaks it once, he does not break it a second time. The ruling of the oath does not remain after he has broken it, unlike the case where he divorces one or one dies, for he has not broken it in that case, so the ruling of his oath remains regarding those of them who are left. This is the school of Al-Shafi'i. Al-Qadi mentioned that if he uses the term absolutely, the Ila' is in relation to one who is not specified. This is the choice of some of Al-Shafi'i's companions; because his wording pertains to an indefinite one, so it does not imply generality. We argue that the indefinite in the context of a negation implies generality, like His saying, "He has not taken a female companion," and His saying, "And there is no one like unto Him," and His saying, "And whoever Allah has not granted light - for him there is no light." And if a person says, "By Allah, I will not drink water from a water-skin," he breaks the oath by drinking from any water-skin whatsoever; thus, it is necessary to interpret the wording, in the absence of specification, according to its implication of generality. If he says, "I intended one specific woman" or "one indeterminate woman," it is accepted from him; because the wording allows for this possibility, which is not far-fetched. This is the school of Al-Shafi'i, except that if he leaves the one sworn against as indeterminate, he may specify her by his statement. The principle of this is mentioned in the [chapter on] divorce.

Section: If he says, "By Allah, I will not have intercourse with each one of you," he becomes a Muli with respect to all of them in the present, and his statement, "I intended one of them as specific" or "as indeterminate," is not accepted; because the word "each" (kull) removes the possibility of specification. Whenever he breaks the oath regarding some of them, the Ila' is dissolved for all, just like in the previous case.