and before the soul departs. Ibn 'Abd al-Barr said: "It is astonishing that the followers of Abu Hanifah permit the advancement of Zakat without having narrated regarding it such traditions as those narrated regarding the advancement of expiation, yet they refuse the advancement of expiation despite the abundance of reports narrated concerning it." The argument lies in the Sunnah, and whoever contradicts it is refuted by it. As for the followers of al-Shafi'i, they are refuted by the hadiths, even though they have used them as evidence in some instances and contradicted them in others, differentiating between matters that the primary text (nass) has combined. Furthermore, because fasting is a type of expiation, it is permissible before the breaking of the oath, just like expiation with wealth; analogizing an expiation to an expiation is more appropriate than analogizing it to an obligatory prayer, given the fundamental basis of its institution.

Section: As for performing expiation before the oath, it is not permissible according to any of the scholars, because it is an advancement of a ruling before its cause; therefore, it is not valid, just like the advancement of Zakat before the ownership of the nisab (minimum threshold), and the expiation for killing before the wounding.

Section: Performing expiation before the breaking of the oath and after it are equal in virtue. Ibn Abi Musa stated: "Performing it after is superior according to Ahmad." This is also the opinion of al-Shafi'i, Malik, and al-Thawri, due to what it contains of avoiding disagreement and attaining certainty regarding the exoneration of one's liability. Our evidence is that the hadiths narrated concerning it contain advancement at one time and delay at another, and this is proof of equality. Furthermore, it is the hastening of wealth whose hastening is permissible before it becomes due, so delaying it is not superior, just like the hastening of Zakat and the expiation for killing. What they mentioned is countered by the hastening of benefit to the poor and volunteering with that which was not incumbent upon him. Moreover, disagreement that contradicts the textual evidence does not necessitate favoring that which is agreed upon, just like the omission of combining two prayers.

Section: If the breaking of the oath is prohibited (mahzur) and one hastens the expiation before it, there are two opinions: One is that it is valid, because he hastened the expiation after its cause, so it is valid for him, as if the breaking of the oath were permissible. The second is that it is not valid, because the act of hastening is a concession, and one does not obtain a concession through disobedience, just like shortening prayers during a journey of disobedience. The hadith did not address disobedience, for it says: "If you swear an oath and then see that something else is better than it, then perform expiation." And this person did not see something else as better than it. The followers of al-Shafi'i have two opinions regarding this, as we have mentioned.