its binding before marriage is valid, like an oath by Allah the Exalted. As for the verse, the specification came in the context of what is prevalent; for it is usually the case that a person only performs Zihar from his wives, so this does not necessitate restricting the ruling to them, just as the mention of the stepdaughter who is under one's guardianship did not necessitate that she is the only one subject to the prohibition. As for Ila', its ruling is restricted to his wives because he intends to cause harm to them specifically and not to others, whereas expiation is made mandatory here due to the utterance of a reprehensible and false statement, and that is not restricted to his wives. Zihar differs from divorce in two aspects: First, that divorce is the dissolution of the marriage bond, and it is impossible to dissolve it before contracting it, while Zihar is a prohibition of intercourse, so it is permissible to precede the contract, like menstruation. Second, that divorce terminates the contract, so it is not permissible for it to precede it, whereas this does not terminate it, but rather permissibility is attached to a condition, so its precedence is permissible. As for Zihar from a slave woman, it has become binding as an oath for which expiation is mandatory, though the expiation for Zihar is not mandatory for it, because she is not his wife at the time of expiation, unlike our issue.

Section: If he says, "Every woman I marry is to me like the back of my mother," and then he marries women and intends to return [to intercourse], he owes one expiation, whether he marries them in one contract or in separate contracts. Ahmad specified this. This is the opinion of Urwah and Ishaq, because it is one oath, so its expiation is one, just as if he performed Zihar against four women with one statement. Another opinion narrated from him is that for every contract there is an expiation; so if he marries two in one contract and intends to return, he owes one expiation, then if he marries another and intends to return, he owes another expiation. This was also narrated from Ishaq, because for the third woman, a contract was found upon her through which Zihar is established, and he intended to return to her after performing the expiation for the first two, so an expiation was incumbent upon him for her, as if he had performed Zihar against her initially. If he says to a foreign woman, "You are to me like the back of my mother," and says, "I intended that she is like her in terms of prohibition in the present," he is deemed truthful regarding that. As for whether this is accepted in legal judgment, there are two possibilities: one of them...