one of them with the violation of the other, so one expiation does not suffice for 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.

Section: If he performs Zihar against one woman, then says to another: "I have associated you with her," or "You are her partner," or "Like her," and intends Zihar regarding the second, he becomes a Zihar-performer against her without any disagreement that we know of. This is the opinion of Malik and al-Shafi'i. If he leaves it absolute, he also becomes a Zihar-performer, provided it is immediately following his Zihar against the first. Abu Bakr mentioned this, and Malik also held this view. Abu al-Khattab said: It is possible that he does not become a Zihar-performer. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i; because it is not an explicit statement of Zihar, nor did he intend Zihar by it, so it is not Zihar, just as if he said that before he performed Zihar against the first. Also, because it is possible that she is her partner in religion, in dispute, in marriage, or in bad character, so it is not specified as Zihar except by intention, like other metaphorical expressions (kinayat). We argue that partnership and resemblance must be in something, so it is necessary to link it to the matter mentioned with it, like the answer to a question when one is asked: "Do you have a wife?" and he says: "I have divorced her." It is also like an attached clause with that to which it is attached, and an adjective with the described noun. As for their statement that it is a metaphor and he did not intend Zihar by it, we say: The evidence for the intention has been established, so it suffices. As for their statement that it is possible [it means something else], we say: The contextual evidence we have mentioned removes the possibility. Even if some possibility remains, it is weaker and thus not regarded, like the possibility in an explicit (sarih) expression.

1315- Issue: He said: (The expiation is the manumission of a believing slave, free from defects that hinder work).