For Zihar and the 'aud (returning to the wife) have occurred in regards to each of the women, so an expiation is incumbent upon him for each one, just as if he had singled her out with it. We argue based on the generality of the statement of Umar and Ali, may Allah be pleased with both of them, as narrated from them by al-Athram, and we do not know of anyone among the Companions who opposed them, so it constitutes a consensus. Furthermore, Zihar is a statement that necessitates expiation upon its violation; therefore, when it is applied to a group, it necessitates one expiation, like an oath by Allah the Almighty. It differs from the case where he performs Zihar with separate statements, for every statement necessitates an expiation that removes its [ruling] and atones for its sin. Here, the statement is singular, so a single expiation removes its ruling and erases its sin, leaving no remaining ruling for it.

Section: The implication of the statement of al-Khiraqi is that if he performs Zihar against them with [multiple] statements, saying to each one: 'You are to me like the back of my mother,' then for each oath there is an expiation. This is the opinion of 'Urwah and 'Ata'. Abu Abd Allah ibn Hamid said: The Madhhab contains only one narration regarding this. The Qadi said: The Madhhab, according to me, is what Shaykh Abu Abd Allah mentioned. Abu Bakr said: There is another narration in it, that one expiation suffices him. He favored this and said: This is what we have stated, following Umar ibn al-Khattab, al-Hasan, 'Ata', Ibrahim, Rabi'ah, Qabisah, and Ishaq; because the expiation for Zihar is a right of Allah the Almighty, so it does not repeat by the repetition of its cause, like the hadd punishment, and upon this principle, divorce is analogous. We argue that they are multiple oaths directed at distinct individuals, so for each one there is an expiation, just as if he performed expiation and then performed Zihar [again]. Moreover, these are oaths where violating one does not constitute a violation of the others, so one expiation does not cover them, like the primary [case]. Also, because Zihar is a meaning that necessitates expiation, the expiation multiplies with its multiplicity in different instances, like homicide. It differs from the hadd punishment, as that is a penalty warded off by doubts. As for if he performs Zihar against his wife repeatedly without having performed expiation, then a single expiation is sufficient; because the violation is one, so a single expiation is mandatory, just as if the oath were singular.