purchase a slave, it is mandatory for him. The sufficiency that prohibits the taking of Zakat is considered in this matter; so if there is anything beyond that, the expiation becomes mandatory regarding it. The school of al-Shafi'i in this entire section is similar to what we have stated. If he has a concubine (surriya), it is not mandatory for him to manumit her because he has a need for her. If it is possible for him to sell her and purchase another concubine, and a slave to manumit, it is not mandatory for him because the intent may be tied specifically to her, so another does not take her place, especially if it is for less than her price.
Section: If he was wealthy at the time the expiation became mandatory, but his wealth was absent (not present with him), if its arrival is expected soon, it is not permitted to move to fasting, because that is in the status of waiting to purchase a slave. If it is far off, it is not permitted to move to fasting in other than the expiation for Zihar, because there is no harm in the wait. Whether this is permitted in the expiation for Zihar is a matter of two opinions: one of them is that it is not permitted, because the original source (the slave) exists in his wealth, so it is like all other expiations. The second is that it is permitted, because intercourse is prohibited for him, so it is permissible for him to move to the place of necessity. If it is said: If water or its price were missing, it would be permissible for him to move to Tayammum, even if he were capable of them in his land. We say: Purity is mandatory for the sake of prayer, and he has no right to delay it from its time, so the need demanded moving to it, unlike our issue. And because if we were to prevent him from Tayammum due to the existence of capacity in his land, the concession of Tayammum would be rendered void, as everyone is capable of that.
Section: If he finds the price of a slave but does not find a slave to purchase, he is permitted to move to fasting, just as if he found the price of water but did not find what he could purchase it with. If he finds a slave being sold for an increase over the standard price that would be ruinous to his wealth, it is not mandatory for him to purchase it because there is harm in that. If it does not ruin his wealth, there are two potential views: one is that it is mandatory, because he is capable of a slave for a price he can afford, not
(7) In (M): "it is mandatory for her". (8) In (B): "the object". (9) In the original, (A), and (M): "and its price". (10) In the original: "so the need called him". (11) In (B): "over".
