components of expiation, so it is not valid on behalf of the one liable for expiation without his command, just like fasting. The same disagreement applies if he performs expiation on his behalf through feeding or clothing. It is not permissible for him to substitute for him in fasting with or without his permission because it is a physical act of worship, so representation does not enter into it. As for if he emancipates on his behalf with his command, consider this: if he assigned compensation for him, the emancipation on behalf of the one for whom it was intended is valid, the rights of patronage (wala') belong to him, and it suffices for his expiation without any disagreement known to us. This is the position held by Abu Hanifah, Malik, Al-Shafi'i, and others, because the emancipation occurred on his behalf through his wealth, so it resembles the case where he buys it and appoints the seller to emancipate it on his behalf. If he did not stipulate compensation, there are two narrations: the first is that the emancipation occurs on behalf of the one for whom it was intended and it suffices for his expiation. This is the opinion of Malik and Al-Shafi'i, because he emancipated it on his behalf by his command, so it is valid, just as if he had stipulated compensation. The second is that it does not suffice and the rights of patronage belong to the emancipator. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifah, because emancipation with compensation is like a sale, and without compensation it is like a gift, and a condition of a gift is possession (qabd), which did not occur, so it did not fall on behalf of the recipient, differing from a sale, as possession is not a condition for it. If the one on whose behalf the emancipation was done is deceased, consider this: if he bequeathed the emancipation, it is valid because it was by his command. If he did not bequeath it and a stranger emancipated on his behalf, it is not valid because he is not a deputy for him. If his heir emancipated on his behalf, and he had no mandatory obligation, the emancipation on his behalf is not valid, and it falls on behalf of the emancipator. If he had an obligatory emancipation, the emancipation on his behalf is valid because he is a deputy for him regarding his wealth and the performance of his duties. If he had a kaffarat yamin (expiation for an oath) upon him and he clothed or fed on his behalf, it is permissible. If he emancipated on his behalf, there are two views: one is that he does not have the right to do so because it is not specifically determined, so it follows the course of a voluntary act. The second is that it suffices because the emancipation falls as an obligatory act, for the obligation is determined by the action, so it resembles the determined emancipation.