his permission, and the fasting is harmful to him, then he has the right to prevent him; and because the master did not grant him permission for that which he imposed upon himself, from that which involves harm to the master, so he has the right to prevent him and annul it, just as if he entered into the state of ihram for Hajj without his permission. Our view is that it is a mandatory fast for the right of Allah Almighty, so his master has no right to prevent him from it, like the fast of Ramadan and its make-up, and it differs from Hajj; because its harm is significant, due to its long duration, his absence from his master, and the loss of his service. For this reason, he has the right to annul his wife's fast [if it were an optional fast], yet he does not have the right to prevent her from the fast of expiation. As for the voluntary fast, if it involves harm to him, the master has the right to prevent him from it; because he causes the loss of his right for something that is not obligatory upon him, and if it does not harm him, his master does not have the right to prevent him from it; because he is worshipping his Lord with something that involves no harm, so it is similar to the remembrance of Allah Almighty and voluntary prayer during non-service time. A husband has the right to prevent his wife from it in all cases because it causes the loss of his right to intimacy, and he prevents her from it.

1820- Issue: He said: "And if he breaches the oath while he is a slave, then he does not perform expiation until he is emancipated, then fasting is incumbent upon him, and nothing else suffices him."

The apparent meaning of this is that the consideration in expiations is the state of the breach of the oath; because it is the time of obligation, and he is a slave at that time, so fasting became incumbent upon him, thus nothing other than what was incumbent upon him suffices him. The Qadi said: There is a consideration in this; for the text states that he performs the expiation of a slave; because he only performs the expiation for what was incumbent upon him on the day he breached the oath, and its meaning is that it does not bind him to perform expiation with property, so if he does perform it with it, it suffices him. This is the explicit statement of Al-Shafi'i, and among his companions are those who said like the statement of Al-Khiraqi, and there is no evidence against Al-Khiraqi from the words of Ahmad, rather it is evidence for him; because of his saying: "He only performs the expiation for what was incumbent upon him." And "only" is for restriction, it establishes the mentioned and negates what is other than it, and nothing was incumbent upon him except fasting, so he does not perform expiation with anything else. The facet of that is that it is a ruling related to the slave in his state of servitude, so it does not change with his freedom, like the prescribed penalty (hadd), and this is according to the view that did not permit the slave to perform expiation with property with the permission of...