as for his sufficiency, it is already attained through his own earnings and wealth. If he has neither earnings nor wealth, his master declares him unable to pay, he returns to him, and he becomes self-sufficient through his (the master's) spending on him. This differs (10) from Zakah, for Zakah is distributed even to the wealthy, whereas expiation is the opposite. The third condition is that they must be Muslims, and it is not permissible to distribute it to a disbeliever, whether he is a Dhimmi (protected subject) or a Harbi (at war with Muslims). This is the view held by al-Hasan, al-Nakha'i, al-Awza'i, Malik, al-Shafi'i, Ishaq, and Abu 'Ubayd. Abu Thawr and the scholars of the school of ra'y (reason) said: It is permissible to pay it to a Dhimmi because he is included under the term "needy," so he enters into the generality of the verse, and because he is a needy person from the people of the Abode of Islam, so payment to him fulfills the expiation, just like a Muslim. Something similar was reported from al-Sha'bi. Abu al-Khattab derived this as a valid position within the school based on the permissibility of manumitting him as an expiation. Al-Thawri said: One may give it to them if one does not find anyone else. Our argument is that they are disbelievers, so it is not permissible to give it to them, just like the Musta'man (those granted temporary safety) among the people of war, and the verse is specifically limited in this regard, so we draw an analogy. The fourth condition is that they must have consumed food. If the recipient is a child who has not yet eaten, payment to him is not permissible, according to the apparent statement of al-Khiraqi and the view of the Qadi. This is also the apparent view of Malik, for he said: Payment to a weaned child is permissible. This (11) is one of the two narrations from Ahmad. The second narration states that it is permissible to pay it to a small child who has not yet eaten, and his guardian receives it on behalf of the child. This (11) is what Abu al-Khattab (12) mentioned as the established school position. This is the school of al-Shafi'i and the scholars of ra'y. Abu al-Khattab said: This is the view of the majority of jurists, because he is a free, needy Muslim, so he resembles an adult. Furthermore, his eating the expiation is not a condition; rather, this distributes the expiation to what he needs, from that which completes (13) his sufficiency, so he resembles an adult. Our argument is the saying of the Almighty: {feeding ten needy people}. This implies their eating of it. Thus, if the literal fact of [their eating is not considered, one must consider] (14) its possibility and its likely scenario, and that likely scenario is not realized in one who does not eat. Also, if the intended purpose were merely to fulfill a need (15), then it would be permissible to pay the value, and the provision of food would not be specified; this restricts what they have mentioned. Thus, when these four qualities are combined in an individual, it is permissible to pay to him, whether he is