Thus, it does not suffice him for anything else, just like the two days of the two Eids, and it does not suffice for Ramadan, because the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "Actions are but by intentions, and every person shall have what he intended." (15) He did not intend Ramadan, so it does not suffice him. There is no difference between being a resident or a traveler, because the time is specifically designated. It is only permissible to break the fast during a journey as a concession, so if he exerts himself and fasts, he returns to the original ruling. If he travels during the Ramadan that intervenes in the fast of the expiation and breaks his fast, the continuity is not interrupted, because it is a time in which it is not permissible for him to fast for the expiation, so the continuity is not interrupted by his breaking the fast, just like the night.

1323 - Issue; He said: (And if the one pronouncing zihar is a slave, he shall not perform expiation except by fasting, and when he fasts, only two consecutive months will suffice him.)

We have mentioned that the zihar of a slave is valid and his expiation is by fasting, because Allah, the Exalted, said: "but he finds not, then a fasting of two consecutive months" (1). A slave is unable to free a slave, so he is like an indigent free person, or even worse in state. The apparent meaning of the speech of al-Khiraqi is that nothing other than fasting suffices him, regardless of whether his master gives him permission (2) to perform expiation by manumission or not (3). This has been narrated from al-Hasan, Abu Hanifah, and al-Shafi'i. There is another narration from Ahmad that if his master permits him to perform expiation (2) through wealth, it is permissible. This is the school of al-Awza'i and Abu Thawr, because with the permission of his master, he becomes capable of performing expiation with wealth, so it is permissible for him, like a free person. According to this narration, it is permissible for him to perform expiation by feeding [the needy] when unable to fast. Is it permissible for him to manumit? There are two narrations: one of them is [it is not permissible] (4). This was narrated from Malik, who said: I hope that feeding [the needy] would suffice him. Ibn al-Qasim, his companion, rejected this and said: Nothing suffices him except fasting; this is because manumission entails wala' (patronage), guardianship, and inheritance, and a slave does not possess these. The second narration is that he may manumit. This is the opinion of al-Awza'i, and Abu Bakr chose it because whoever's expiation by feeding is valid, his expiation by manumission is valid.