1792 - Issue: He said: (And if he swears to one thing with two oaths of different expiations, he is required to perform the expiation for each of the two oaths.)

This is like swearing by Allah and [by] zihar, or by the manumission of his slave. If he violates it, he must perform an expiation for an oath and an expiation for zihar, and he must manumit the slave. This is because the merging of rulings only occurs with unity of category, like fixed penalties (hudud) of the same category. The expiations here are of different categories, and their causes are different, so they do not merge, like the penalty (hadd) for adultery, theft, slander, and wine-drinking.

1793 - Issue: He said: (And whoever swears by the right of the Quran, he is required to perform an expiation of an oath for every verse.)

Ahmad explicitly stated this, and it is the opinion of Ibn Mas'ud and al-Hasan. Another narration from him [Ahmad] is that what is obligatory is one single expiation, which is the analogy of the school of thought. [It is the madhhab of] al-Shafi'i and Abu 'Ubayd, because swearing by all of the attributes of Allah, and the repetition of the oath by Allah, Exalted is He, does not necessitate more than one expiation; therefore, swearing by one of His attributes is even more deserving of being satisfied by one expiation. The basis for the first [opinion] is what Mujahid narrated, saying: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Whoever swears by a surah of the Quran, then he owes an expiation of an oath for every verse; he may then repent if he wishes, or he may transgress if he wishes." Al-Athram narrated it. Furthermore, Ibn Mas'ud said: "He owes an expiation of an oath for every verse." We do not know of any dissenter among the Companions regarding this, so it is considered a consensus (ijma'). Ahmad said: "I know of nothing that refutes it." It is possible that Ahmad's statement, "for every verse there is an expiation," refers to recommendation for whoever is capable of it, for he said: "He owes an expiation for every verse, and if he cannot, then [he performs] one expiation." Referring it back to one when unable to do otherwise is evidence that what exceeds it is not mandatory. The statement of Ibn [Mas'ud is also to be interpreted as referring to choice and caution regarding the word of Allah, and hyperbole in magnifying it, just as 'A'ishah emancipated forty slaves when she swore by a covenant, and that is not obligatory, nor is more than one expiation required; because of the saying of Allah the Exalted: {Allah will not impose blame upon you for what is unintentional in your oaths, but He will impose blame upon you for what you have intended of oaths. So its expiation is the feeding of ten needy people.} This is an oath, so it enters into the general category of binding oaths, and because it is a single oath, it does not necessitate multiple expiations, like other oaths. Furthermore, making expiations mandatory according to the number of verses leads to preventing righteousness, piety, and reconciliation among people, for whoever knows that by violating his oath all these expiations become due, will abandon the thing sworn against, whatever it may be, even if it were an act of righteousness, piety, and reconciliation, and his oath would prevent him from it. Allah the Exalted has forbidden this by His saying: {And do not make [your oath by] Allah an excuse against being righteous and fearing Allah and making peace among people.} If we say that expiations are mandatory according to the number of verses and he is not able to fulfill that, one expiation suffices him. Ahmad explicitly stated this.

1794 - Issue: He said: (And from Abu 'Abd Allah, regarding one who swears by the slaughter of his child, there are two narrations; one of them is the expiation of an oath, and the other is that he must slaughter a ram.)

The narration differs regarding one who swears by the slaughter of his child, such as if he says: "If I do such and such, then I owe it to Allah to slaughter my child," or he says: "My child is a slaughter-offering if I do such and such," or he vows to slaughter his child unconditionally, without attaching it to a condition. From Ahmad, an expiation of an oath is required of him. This is the analogy of the school of thought, because this is a vow of disobedience or a vow of obstinacy, and both necessitate expiation. This is the opinion of Ibn 'Abbas, for it was narrated from him that he said to a woman who vowed to slaughter her son: "Do not slaughter your son, and perform an expiation for your oath." The second narration is,)