with manumission, and the validity of manumission is not prevented by the absence of inheritance, just as if he were to manumit someone who differs from him in religion. Furthermore, the objective of manumission is the termination of ownership over the slave and granting him the benefit of his own self, and his liberation from the harm of servitude; what results from the consequences of that is not the intended purpose, so it is not prevented from being valid by the impossibility of some of its consequences. The argument for the first [position] is that the slave is property, he does not own property, so his expiation through wealth would occur by [the wealth] of another, and thus it does not suffice him, just as if he were to manumit someone else's slave for (5) his own expiation. According to both narrations, he is not obligated to perform expiation through wealth, even if his master permits him to do so, because his prescribed duty is fasting, so he is not obligated by anything else, just as if a wealthy person were to permit an indigent free person to perform expiation from his wealth. If (6) he were unable to fast and his master permitted him to perform expiation by whatever he wished from manumission or feeding, then he is permitted to perform expiation by feeding, because whoever is not obligated to manumit while he has the ability to fast, is not obligated to do so when he is unable [to fast], just like an indigent free person. Moreover, there is harm upon him in committing to a great favor [minnah] by accepting the slave, and no such thing is entailed in [providing] food due to the lesser degree of favor involved. This is [in the case where] (9) his master gives him permission to perform expiation before the return [to relations with his wife]. If he returns [to relations] and the expiation becomes incumbent upon his debt, and then his master permits him to perform expiation, it is built upon another principle: is the expiation considered based on the state of obligation, or [based on] the most severe of states? We will mention that, if Allah the Exalted wills. At any rate, when he fasts, only two consecutive months suffice him because of his inclusion in the generality of His saying, the Exalted: "then a fasting of two consecutive months." Furthermore, it is a fast in an expiation, so the free person and the slave are equal in it, just like the expiation for an oath. This was stated by al-Hasan, al-Sha'bi, al-Nakha'i, al-Zuhri, al-Shafi'i, and Ishaq. We know of no one who differs with them, except what is narrated from 'Ata', who said (10): If he fasted for one month, it would suffice him (11). Al-Nakha'i said this, then retracted it in favor of the opinion of the community.

Section: The consideration in expiation is based on the state of obligation, according to the most apparent of the two narrations, and this is the apparent meaning of the speech of al-Khiraqi.