Section: The Fitra of a present or absent slave whose life is known is mandatory, as well as for the runaway slave, the young, the old, the mortgaged, and the usurped slave. Ibn al-Mundhir said: The scholars have reached a consensus that a person is required to pay Zakat al-Fitr for his present slave who is not a Mukatab (slave under a contract of emancipation), as well as for the usurped, the runaway, and slaves intended for trade. As for the absent slave, his Fitra is incumbent upon the owner if he knows he is alive, regardless of whether he has hope of his return or has despaired of it, and whether he is at liberty or imprisoned, such as a captive and others. Ibn al-Mundhir said: Most scholars hold the view that Zakat al-Fitr should be performed for the slave, whether absent or present, because he owns them, so their Fitra is mandatory upon him just like those who are present. Among those who deemed the Fitra of the runaway slave mandatory are al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr, and Ibn al-Mundhir. Al-Zuhri deemed it mandatory if his location is known; al-Awza'i if he is in the land of Islam; and Malik if his absence is of a short duration. Ata, al-Thawri, and the People of Opinion (Ashab al-Ra'i) did not deem it mandatory because maintenance is not incumbent upon the master, so his Fitra is not mandatory, like the rebellious wife. Our argument is that he is property belonging to him, so his Zakat is mandatory during his absence, like trade property. It is also possible that he is not required to pay his Zakat until he returns to his possession, like the Zakat on debt and usurped property, a view mentioned by Ibn Aqil. The reasoning for the first view is that Zakat al-Fitr is mandatory as a dependency to maintenance, and maintenance is mandatory even during absence, evidenced by the fact that whoever returns a runaway slave can claim his maintenance expenses. As for those among them whose life is in doubt and whose news has been cut off, their Fitra is not mandatory, as stated by him in a narration from Salih, because one does not know if his ownership of him remains. Even if he were to manumit him as an expiation, it would not suffice, so his Fitra is not mandatory, like that of a deceased person. If years pass and then he learns he was alive, he must pay for the past, because it became evident that the cause of the obligation existed in the past time, so he must pay for the past, just as if he heard of the destruction of his absent wealth and it later appeared that it was safe. The ruling regarding the absent relative is the same as the ruling regarding slaves because they are among those whose Fitra is mandatory while present, so they are the same while absent, just like slaves.