And because it is one of the components of the expiation for an oath, it is permissible to perform it on his behalf, just like feeding and clothing. If the one liable for expiation said: "Feed on behalf of my expiation" or "Clothe," and he did so, it is valid according to one narration, whether he guaranteed compensation for him or did not guarantee compensation for him.

1811 - Issue: He said: "And if he purchased her on the condition of emancipation, then he emancipated her for the expiation, she is emancipated, but it does not suffice him for the expiation."

This is the school of Al-Shafi'i. It has been narrated from Ma'qil ibn Yasar that which points to it. This is because when he purchased her on the condition of emancipation, it is apparent that the seller reduced the price because of this condition, so it is as if he took compensation for the emancipation, thus it does not suffice him for the expiation. Ahmad said: "If it was a mandatory slave, it does not suffice him, because she is not a sound slave, and because her emancipation is due for another reason, which is the condition, so it does not suffice him, just as if he purchased his relative, intending by his purchase the emancipation for the expiation, or he said: 'If I enter the house, you are free,' then he intended at the time of his entry that it was for his expiation."

Section: If a man said to him: "Emancipate your slave for your expiation, and you shall have ten dinars," and he did so, it does not suffice him for the expiation, because the slave was not obtained purely for the expiation. Al-Qadi mentioned that the entire emancipation falls on behalf of the giver of the compensation, and he has the rights of patronage (wala'). There is a critique of this; for the emancipator did not emancipate him on behalf of the giver of the compensation, nor did he consent to his emancipation on his behalf, nor did the giver of the compensation request that. The correct view is that his emancipation is on behalf of the emancipator, and the rights of patronage belong to him. Al-Khiraqi mentioned that if he says: "Emancipate him, and the price is upon me," then the price is upon him, and the patronage belongs to the emancipator. If he returned the ten to its giver, so that the emancipation might be for the expiation, it does not suffice for it, because if the emancipation occurs under a specific condition, it does not transition from it. And if he intended the emancipation for the expiation alone,