his master. As for the other view, he has the right to perform the expiation with it [property] in this situation, a fortiori, because if it is permissible for him in his state of servitude to perform expiation with property, then in his state of freedom it is even more appropriate. He only needed his master's permission in his state of servitude because the property belongs to his master, or because his master's right is attached to his property. After freedom, that has ceased, so there is no need for his permission. If we say: "Expiation is by the most severe of the states," then he would not have the right to perform expiation with anything other than property if he were affluent. If a slave swears and breaches the oath while he is free, his ruling is the ruling of free men, because expiation does not become obligatory before the breach, so it did not become obligatory except while he was free.

Section: He who is half-free, his ruling regarding expiation is the ruling of the fully free person. So when he possesses, through his free part, property with which to perform expiation, it is not permissible for him to fast, and he has the right to perform expiation with one of the three matters. The apparent view of the school of Al-Shafi'i is that he has the right to perform expiation through feeding or clothing, but not through manumission; because the right of patronage (wala') is not established for him. Some of them said: "Only fasting suffices him, because he is deficient due to servitude, so he is similar to the full slave." Our view is the saying of Allah Almighty: {Whoever cannot find [the means], then a fast of three days}. This one is a "finder" [of the means], because he possesses full ownership, so he is similar to the fully free person. We do not concede that the right of patronage is not established for him. Furthermore, the absence of some of his rulings does not prevent the validity of it, such as a Muslim freeing his infidel slave.

1821- Issue: He said: "And he who does not have an excess of his food and the food of his dependents, for his day and night, the amount with which he may perform expiation, shall perform expiation by fasting." The totality of this is that the expiation for an oath combines choice and sequence. He is given the choice between the three options; if he does not find them, he moves to fasting for three days. It is considered that he must not find an excess of his food and the food of his dependents, for his day and night, the amount with which he may perform expiation. This is the view of Ishaq. Similar to this was said by Abu 'Ubayd and Ibn al-Mundhir. Al-Shafi'i said: "Whoever is permitted to take from Zakat due to his need and poverty, for him fasting suffices, because he is poor." And from Al-Nakha'i: "If he is a possessor of twenty dirhams, then he has the right to fast." And 'Ata' said...