the transfer to manumission along with what they mentioned. If it is said: The slave was not among those upon whom the neck [providing a slave] is incumbent, nor does it suffice him, so when the surplus did not suffice him, it did not become binding upon him by a change of condition, unlike our issue. We say: This has no effect. Once this is established, if he becomes wealthy and wishes to transfer to manumission, it is permissible for him, according to the apparent words of al-Khiraqi; for he said: Whoever commences the fast, then becomes capable of the sacrificial animal, he does not have [the right to transfer to it] (16) unless he wishes. This indicates that if he wishes, he may transfer to it, and it suffices him, unless the one who broke the oath is a slave, in which case he has no option but fasting, even if he is manumitted. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i, according to the opinion we have agreed upon; and this is because manumission is the fundamental basis, so it must suffice him like other fundamental bases. However, if his incapacity continues until he has commenced (17) the fasting, he is not obligated to transfer to manumission, without any disagreement in the Madhhab. This is the school of al-Sha'bi, Qatadah, Malik, al-Awza'i, al-Layth, al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr, and Ibn al-Mundhir. It is one of the two opinions of al-Hasan. Ibn Sirin, 'Ata', al-Nakha'i, al-Hakam, Hammad, al-Thawri, Abu 'Ubayd, and the Ashab al-Ra'y held the view that manumission is binding upon him; because he became capable of the fundamental basis before performing his obligation through the substitute, so returning to it became binding upon him, like the one who performs tayammum and finds water before the prayer or during it. Our argument is that he is not capable of manumission before engaging in fasting, so it does not fall away from him, just as if the incapacity were to continue until after completion. It does not resemble ablution, for if he found water after the tayammum, it would be nullified, whereas here it is the opposite. Furthermore, he found the substitute after commencing the fast of the substitute, so the transfer (18) to it did not become binding upon him, like the Mutamatti' who finds the sacrificial animal after commencing the fasting of the seven [days].

Section: If we say that the consideration is based on the state of obligation, its time in the case of Zihar is the time of the 'awd (resumption of relations), not the time of the Zihar itself; because the expiation does not become incumbent until he returns. Its time (19) in the case of an oath is the time of the breach, not the time of the oath. In the case of homicide, it is the time of the expiration of life, not the time of the wounding, and offering the expiation before the obligation