therein, just like the fasting of three days for the one performing Tamattu' during Hajj. Our evidence is the reading of Ubayy and Abdullah ibn Mas'ud: "then a fast of three consecutive days." Imam Ahmad mentioned this in his "Tafsir" on the authority of a group. If this were Quran, it would be proof, because it is the speech of God to which falsehood does not come, either from before it or from behind it. Even if it were not Quran, it is a narration from the Prophet (may God bless him and grant him peace), as it is probable that both of them heard it from the Prophet (may God bless him and grant him peace) as an explanation and thus thought it was Quran; therefore, it acquired the status of a report (khabar) and does not fall short of the rank of the Prophet's (may God bless him and grant him peace) interpretation of the verse. On both accounts, it is proof that must be followed. Furthermore, because it is fasting as an expiation, consecutiveness is mandatory in it, like the expiation for killing and Zihar; the absolute is interpreted according to the restricted, based on what we have established previously. Based on this, if the woman breaks her fast due to illness or menstruation, or the man due to illness, the consecutiveness is not interrupted. Abu Thawr and Ishaq held this view. Abu Hanifa said: It is interrupted in both cases because the consecutiveness was not found, and the failure of a condition invalidates that which is conditioned upon it. Al-Shafi'i said: It is interrupted in the case of illness according to one of his two views, but it is not interrupted in the case of menstruation. Our evidence is that it is an excuse that permits breaking the fast, similar to menstruation in the expiation for killing.

1819 - Issue: He said: "And if the oath-breaker is a slave, he shall not perform expiation by anything other than fasting."

There is no disagreement that fasting suffices the slave for expiation, because that is the obligation of the insolvent among the free, and he is in a better state than the slave, for he owns [wealth] in general. Furthermore, the slave is included in His, the Almighty's, saying: "But whosoever finds not [the means], then a fast of three days." If the master gives his slave permission to perform the expiation with property, it is not binding on him, because he is not the owner of what he was given permission for. The manifest [text] of Al-Khiraqi's words implies that expiation other than fasting does not suffice him. Others among our companions said, regarding when his master gives him permission to perform the expiation...