Al-Khurāsānī said: One who possesses twenty dirhams does not fast, and one who possesses less than that has the right to fast. Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr said: If he possesses only three dirhams, he performs expiation with them. Al-Ḥasan said: Two dirhams. These two views are similar to our view. The basis for this is that Allah Almighty stipulated for fasting that one must not find [the means], by His saying, the Almighty: {Whoever cannot find [the means], then a fast of three days}. Whoever finds what suffices him as an excess over his food and the food of his dependents, he is a 'finder,' so he is obliged to perform expiation with property, due to the apparent meaning of the verse, and because it is a right that does not increase with the increase of wealth. Thus, what is considered in it is the excess over his food and the food of his dependents for his day and night, just like Sadaqat al-Fitr.

Section: If he possesses what he may perform expiation with, but he has an equivalent debt for which he is being pressed, then no expiation is required of him; because it is the right of a human being, while expiation is the right of Allah Almighty. If he is being pressed for the debt, it is obligatory to prioritize it, just like Zakat al-Fitr. If he is not being pressed for the debt, Aḥmad’s statement implies two narrations: The first is that expiation is obligatory, because no specific amount of wealth is considered for it, so it is not dropped by debt, like Zakat al-Fitr. The second is that it is not obligatory, because it is a right of Allah Almighty that is due in wealth, and the debt cancels it out, like Zakat on wealth. This is more correct, because the right of a human being is more deserving of being prioritized due to his stinginess and his need for it, and because there is benefit for the creditor and the clearing of the debtor’s liability. The right of Allah Almighty is built on forbearance due to His generosity and His richness, and because expiation with property has a substitute, while the debt of a human being has no substitute. It differs from Sadaqat al-Fitr, because the latter is treated like maintenance; for this reason, a person bears it on behalf of others, such as a husband for his wife, his family, and his slaves, and it has no substitute, unlike expiation.

Section: If he has absent property, or a debt that he expects to be repaid, he shall not perform expiation by fasting. This is the view of...