emancipating someone else. This reasoning indicates that if his master gave him permission to emancipate himself for his expiation, it is permissible. However, if he gave general permission for emancipation, he has no right to emancipate anyone other than the least [valuable] person that would suffice for the obligation, and he has no right to emancipate himself if it is of greater value than what would suffice. This [view] from Abu Bakr implies that he does not consider it a condition for the expiation that his master must transfer the ownership of what he is performing the expiation with, because he does not own himself. Rather, whenever he gives him permission to perform expiation by emancipation or providing food, it suffices him, because if he had considered [the transfer of ownership] a condition, it would not have been valid for him to emancipate himself, as he does not own himself. Also, because the transfer of ownership can only be of a specific item, so it would not be valid for him to permit it unconditionally.

Section: If the slave emancipates a slave for his expiation with the permission of his master, and we hold that emancipation for expiation establishes wala' (patronage) for its emancipator, his wala' is established for the slave he emancipated, according to the statement of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "Patronage belongs only to the one who emancipates." He does not inherit, because he is not among those entitled to inheritance, yet the establishment of wala' is not prevented by the absence of inheritance, just as if their religions were different, or if the emancipator killed the one he emancipated; he does not inherit from him despite the establishment of wala' in his favor. If the emancipator is emancipated, he inherits by virtue of the wala' because the impediment is removed, just as if they were of different religions and the disbeliever among them embraced Islam. This was mentioned by Talhah al-A'quli. The implication of this is that the master of the slave does not inherit from the person the slave emancipated during the slave's lifetime, just as he does not inherit from the child of his slave. If he emancipates his slave, then he dies, the master inherits from the freedman of his slave, because he is the master of his master, just as if he had emancipated a slave who had a child whose patronage belonged to his mother's master, he would draw his patronage, and his master would inherit from him if his father died.

Section: The master does not have the right to prevent his slave from performing expiation by fasting, whether the oath or the breach thereof occurred with or without his permission, and whether fasting harms him or does not harm him. Al-Shafi'i said: If he breached the oath without...