either the cause itself, or a part of it, or a condition for it, as evidenced by the ruling being dependent upon its existence. Regardless, it has not been repeated, so it is not valid to equate it to that [other case]. Even if the analogy were valid, drawing an analogy for the expiation of an oath to its like is more appropriate than drawing an analogy to [the case of] killing, due to the distance between them.

Section: If one swears a single oath regarding different categories, such as if he says: "By Allah, I will not eat, nor will I drink, nor will I wear," and he then breaks the oath in all of them, there is only one expiation. I know of no disagreement regarding this, because the oath is single, and the violation is single, for by doing one of the things he swore against, he violates the oath, and the oath is dissolved. If he swears multiple oaths regarding [different] categories, saying: "By Allah, I will not eat, By Allah, I will not drink, and By Allah, I will not wear," and he violates one of them, he must perform an expiation. If he performs it and then violates another oath, another expiation is required of him. We know of no disagreement regarding this either, because the violation of the second [oath] necessitates an expiation after he has already performed the expiation for the first, so it is like if one were to have intercourse during Ramadan and perform expiation, then have intercourse again. If he violates all of them before performing the expiation, he must perform an expiation for each oath. This is the apparent [meaning of the] words of al-Khiraqi, and it was narrated by al-Marwudhi from Ahmad. It is the opinion of most scholars. Abu Bakr said: A single expiation suffices for him. Ibn Mansur narrated this from Ahmad. Al-Qadi said: "It is the correct one." Abu Bakr said: "What al-Marwudhi narrated from Ahmad is [merely] an opinion attributed to Abu Abd Allah, while his [established] school of thought is that one expiation suffices for him." This is also the opinion of Ishaq, because they are expiations of the same category, so they merge, like fixed penalties (hudud) of the same category, even if their instances differ, such as if one steals from a group or commits adultery with several women. Our argument is that these are oaths where violating one does not constitute violating the other, so one is not covered by the expiation of the other, just as if he had performed the expiation for one before violating the other, and like oaths that have different expiations. By this, they differ from oaths regarding one thing, for whenever he violates one of them, he is a violator of the other; since the violation was single, the expiation was single. Here, however, the violation is multiplied, so the expiations are multiplied. They also differ from fixed penalties (hudud), as they are obligatory for deterrence and are averted by doubts, unlike our issue. Furthermore, fixed penalties are bodily punishments, so carrying them out consecutively might lead to destruction, thus one is deemed sufficient; here, however, the obligation is to pay a small amount of money, or fast three days, so no great harm is incurred by performing them consecutively, and there is no fear of destruction.