it. If it is said: "Your argument is invalidated by the case where one performing tamattu' begins the fast of the three days." We respond: When he is capable of the sacrificial animal [during the fast of the three days, it becomes clear that he was not lacking it at its proper time; for the time of the sacrifice is] the day of Nahr (slaughter), unlike our issue here.

The second part: If he wishes to shift to the superior option, he may do so, according to the opinion of the majority of them, and we know of no disagreement regarding this, except in the case of a slave who violates his oath and then is emancipated. Abu al-Khattab said: Shifting is not permissible in our issue, arguing based on the statement of al-Khiraqi: "If he violates his oath while he is a slave, and does not perform the expiation until he is emancipated." He said: This is the apparent meaning of Ahmad's words, due to his statement regarding the slave: "He only performs the expiation for what became obligatory upon him." Our position is that emancipation and feeding are the original requirements, so expiation through them suffices him, just as if a poor person took the trouble to borrow money and then emancipated a slave. As for the slave who is emancipated, it is possible that it is permissible for him to shift as in our issue, and Ahmad's statement is interpreted to mean that he is not obligated to shift. It is also possible that a distinction is made between him and the free person, in that the free person would have been sufficed by expiating with wealth had he taken the trouble to do so, whereas the slave would not have been sufficed by anything other than fasting, according to one narration.

Section: If an expiation becomes obligatory upon an affluent person and he then becomes poor, fasting does not suffice him. This is the position of al-Shafi'i. Abu Thawr and the companions of reasoning said: It suffices him; because he is unable to perform the original, so it is permissible for him to revert to the substitute, just as if the prayer became obligatory upon him while he had water, but it spilled before he could perform wudu with it. Our position is that feeding became obligatory upon him in the expiation, and it does not fall away due to inability to perform it, like the feeding in the expiation of zihar (injurious comparison). It differs from wudu because prayer is mandatory and must be performed, so there is a need for purification for it at its time, unlike the expiation.

Section: Expiation is the same in the case of a slave and a free person, a man and a woman, and a Muslim and an infidel, because God the Almighty mentioned the expiation in a general term covering all those who are addressed, so everyone enters into its generality except...