What is the ruling on one who swore an oath to do something and at the same time swore an oath not to expiate for his oath?

A person's oath not to do a certain thing is a binding oath. If he swore to abandon an obligation, breaking the oath is obligatory. If he swore to abandon something recommended, breaking the oath is recommended. If he swore to abandon something disliked, fulfilling the oath is recommended. If he swore to abandon something forbidden, fulfilling the oath is obligatory. Expiation is necessary for him if he breaks this oath. If he expiates for his oath, another expiation becomes necessary for him because he swore not to expiate. He is not permitted to refrain from giving expiation because he swore to abandon it, because expiating for an oath is obligatory, and swearing to abandon an obligation is forbidden, so breaking it is obligatory. Ibn Qudamah said: "Whenever the oath is to perform an obligation, or abandon something forbidden, then dissolving it is forbidden... And if it is to perform something forbidden, or abandon an obligation, then dissolving it is obligatory." This is if the intention of "to do that thing" means if he does that thing. However, if his intention was not to expiate before breaking the oath so that the oath would be dissolved and he could do what he swore to do, then he does not break the oath, and consequently, only one expiation is required of him.