Expiation (kaffara)

In the lexicon kaffara comes from kufr, covering, since it covers and hides the sin; the word is also used for what is given in expiation, whether charity, fasting or the like ⁵. It is owed, by the Qur'an, the Sunna and consensus, to make good certain sins and legal violations ⁶. It has both a penal and a devotional character; the devotional character predominates, except for the expiation of breaking the fast in Ramadan, where the penal character prevails ^{6 7}.

The article then covers breaking the fast of Ramadan and the rules on intercourse in it, the prohibitions of the hajj and ihram, the expiation for zihar, and the conditions and kinds of expiation ^{1 2 3 4}.

Expiation for an oath is owed only on breaking it, that is, acting against what the oath bound one to ⁷. The vain oath about the past or present owes nothing; the oath of deception is disputed: the Hanafis, Malikis and Hanbalis, and most jurists, hold it owes no expiation, since it is a major sin and major sins have none, and the Shafi'is hold it does, relying on the general verse about sworn oaths ^{8 9 10}.

The Shafi'is and Hanbalis hold that the vain oath about the future owes nothing; the Hanafis hold that it does, citing "and God will hold you to account for the oaths you bound" ^{11 12}.

One oath on several matters owes one expiation. Several oaths on one matter owe one expiation by the majority, while the Hanafis distinguish repeating the divine name from repeating the object. Several oaths on several matters owe an expiation for each, by the Hanafis, Malikis and Shafi'is, with a view of Ahmad and of Muhammad that one suffices ^{12 13 14 15}.

It is not allowed to expiate before breaking the oath, since it advances the ruling before its cause; it may be delayed after breaking. Those who allow it argue from analogy with zihar, and the others cite the verses and the hadith "let him come to the better and expiate for his oath" ^{15 16 17 18}.

All agree that expiation is owed for quasi-intentional killing and for killing by mistake. The Hanafis, Malikis and the preferred Hanbali view owe no expiation for intentional killing; the Shafi'is and al-Zuhri hold it is owed, citing the report of Wathila about a man who merited the Fire and the freeing of a slave to protect him from it ^{18 19 20}. It is owed for killing by causation according to the Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis, and not according to the Hanafis ^{20 21}.

All agree that expiation is owed when a blow to a woman's belly causes a live foetus which then dies. The Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis hold it owed also when a dead foetus is expelled by aggression, citing the verse on mistaken killing ²¹.

All agree that expiation is owed by one who has intercourse in the private parts on purpose and without excuse, whether or not he ejaculates, and not by one who does so with an excuse such as illness ¹. They differ on intercourse in the anus: the majority owe expiation, and al-Hasan reports from Abu Hanifa that none is owed ²². On intercourse with an animal there are two views ²². On contact short of the private parts that ends in ejaculation, the Hanafis, Shafi'is and a view of Ahmad owe none, while the Malikis, Ata, al-Hasan, Ibn al-Mubarak and Ishaq owe it ^{22 23}.

For one who has intercourse in forgetfulness, error or ignorance, the Hanafis, Malikis and Shafi'is owe no expiation, while the Hanbalis and Ibn al-Majishun owe it, citing the hadith of the Bedouin who had intercourse in Ramadan, since the Prophet ﷺ did not ask about his state ^{24 25}. For a man compelled, the Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi'is and a view of Ahmad owe none, while the Hanbalis and Ibn al-Majishun owe it ^{26 27}. For a woman compelled, the Hanafis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis owe none; the Malikis and a Shafi'i view hold it owed, and the husband bears it for her ^{27 28}.

The Hanafis and Malikis hold expiation owed for deliberately eating, drinking or doing another breaking act without excuse. The Shafi'is, Hanbalis, Sa'id ibn Jubayr, al-Nakha'i and Dawud do not, since the text concerns intercourse and other acts are not in its sense ^{26 29}.

Jurists differ on expiation for a man who withdraws at the first light of dawn while still in intercourse. The Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi'is and Abu Hafs of the Hanbalis hold that none is owed, since withdrawal is the cessation of intercourse ²⁸. They argue that the emission came from lawful contact and so nothing is due, like a man whose hand is cut off in lawful retaliation and who then dies, and that it is unavoidable and so pardoned ³⁰. The second view is that expiation is owed; it is held by Ibn Hamid, al-Qadi, most Hanbalis and Zufar among the Hanafis, who say that withdrawal during intercourse is itself intercourse, since it is a pleasure taken from it, and so carries the same ruling as continuing it ³⁰.

Jurists differ on what is owed by one whom dawn overtakes while in intercourse and who continues ³⁰. The Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis hold that expiation is owed: he forbade himself a day of Ramadan by intercourse without excuse, so he sinned and must expiate, as if he had had intercourse after dawn or during the day; and otherwise intercourse on purpose in Ramadan would never carry an expiation ³⁰. The Hanafis hold that none is owed: the cause of expiation is breaking the fast in a way that completes the offence, which did not happen, since his fast was not valid while in intercourse; intercourse means inserting the private part into the private part, and after dawn there was only continuation, which is not insertion, just as one who swears not to enter a house and then stays in it for an hour does not break the oath ³⁰.

Jurists differ on the duty of one who had intercourse believing dawn had not risen, and dawn then proved to have come ³¹. The Hanafis, Malikis and Shafi'is hold no expiation is owed, as do Ibn Abbas, Mu'awiya, Ata, Sa'id ibn Jubayr, Mujahid, al-Thawri, al-Zuhri, Abu Thawr, Ishaq, Urwa and al-Hasan. They cite the hadith that God lifted from my community error, forgetting and what they were forced to do; the expiation lifts sin, which is absent in one who errs; and expiation is a penalty that comes with sin, so it is not owed where the man believed he was permitted ³¹. The Hanbalis hold that it is owed: the hadith of the man who had intercourse in Ramadan was answered with an order to expiate without distinction, and he broke a fast of Ramadan by full intercourse, as if he had known ³¹.

Jurists differ on whether an obstacle that arises after intercourse early in the day cancels the expiation: illness, madness, or a woman's menses or post-natal bleeding during the day ³¹. The first view, held by the Malikis, Hanbalis, the more correct view of the Shafi'is, Layth, Ishaq, Ibn Abi Layla and Abu Thawr, is that it is not cancelled: the obstacle came after the duty arose, as travel does, and the fast had been broken by full intercourse, so the expiation was settled ^{31 32}. The second view, held by the Hanafis, al-Thawri and a second Shafi'i view, is that it is cancelled: illness allows breaking the fast, so the fast was shown not to have been due; a doubt over the illness itself blocks expiation; and madness contradicts fasting. The Hanafis limit this to a heavenly obstacle with no action of the person in it or its cause; if the person caused it, as by travelling or wounding himself, they hold that the expiation stands ³².

All agree that no expiation is owed for intercourse during a voluntary fast or a fast that is itself an expiation for intercourse ³². They differ on intercourse during the making-up of Ramadan or during a vowed fast, in three views ³². First, no expiation at all: the Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis hold this, because the expiation was given for violating the sanctity of Ramadan, and the making-up of a fast is not tied to a sacred time, so intercourse then is not a violation of it, unlike the performed fast ^{32 33}. Second, expiation for breaking the making-up of Ramadan by intercourse, a view of Qatada, who likens it to the hajj, which has expiation in its performance and in its making-up ³³. Third, expiation for deliberately breaking a vowed fast of the whole life, held by Sahnun and Ibn al-Majishun of the Malikis, since it cannot be made good by a later fast and so resembles Ramadan ³³.

All agree that repeated intercourse on one day of Ramadan before expiating carries one expiation, and that one who has expiated and then has intercourse on another day owes a second ³³. Where one has intercourse on two days and does not expiate, the Malikis, Shafi'is, Layth, Ibn al-Mundhir, and in a narration reported from Ata and Makhul, with Ahmad in the sounder of his two narrations, hold that he owes two expiations: each day is a separate act of worship, so expiations for each breach do not merge, as with two Ramadans or two pilgrimages or two 'umras ^{33 34}. The Hanafis, with al-Zuhri, al-Awza'i and the apparent sense of al-Kharaqi, and Abu Bakr among the Hanbalis, hold that one suffices, because the expiations are for offences whose cause recurred before the first was paid, and such offences merge, as penalties do ³⁴. If one has intercourse on the same day after expiating, the Hanafis, Malikis and Shafi'is hold that nothing is owed for the second act, since it did not fall on a valid fast, unlike the first; Ahmad held that a second expiation is owed, since a fast of Ramadan is an act of worship for which expiation falls by intercourse, so it recurs with each act, as the hajj does, and this act is forbidden in Ramadan, unlike a night act ³⁴.

All agree that one overtaken by vomiting owes neither making-up nor expiation ³⁴. Where one vomits on purpose during the day of Ramadan, the Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis, with Ali, Ibn Umar, Zayd ibn Arqam (may God be pleased with him), Alqama, al-Zuhri, Ishaq, al-Thawri and al-Awza'i, hold that he owes only the making-up, not expiation ^{34 2}. They cite the hadith of Abu Hurayra (may God be pleased with him): one overtaken by vomiting owes no making-up, and one who vomits on purpose must make it up; it names making-up only, and expiation would have been stated, since explanation may not be delayed beyond the time of need; and the deliberate breaking of a fast did not occur in full form, so the offence is incomplete and the heaviest penalty of expiation is not owed ². Ata and Abu Thawr hold that he owes both making-up and expiation ².

Expiation makes good a deficiency that befalls the pilgrim, and expiations are either named in the text or not named ².

• Several kills: a penalty for each animal is owed by the Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi'is and the preferred view of Ahmad; Ibn Abbas, Shurayh, al-Hasan, Sa'id ibn Jubayr, Mujahid, al-Nakha'i and Qatada hold a penalty only for the first ^{2 35}.
• Game in the sanctuary of Medina: no penalty is owed by the Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi'i in his later view and Ahmad in his first narration; a penalty is owed according to Ibn Abi Dhi'b, Ibn al-Mundhir, Shafi'i in his earlier view and a narration of Ahmad, who cite the Prophet's words that he made Medina sacred as Abraham made Mecca sacred ^{36 37}.
• Killing and then eating the game: one penalty is owed by the Malikis, Shafi'is, Hanbalis and the two companions of Abu Hanifa; two penalties by Abu Hanifa and Ata ^{37 38}.
• Eggs of game: a penalty is owed for breaking them according to the Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis, in the form of their value, citing the report about an ostrich egg ^{38 39}.
• Intercourse: there is no dispute that it invalidates the hajj, and one who has intercourse before standing at Arafat, or a pilgrim for the minor pilgrimage before circumambulating and running, owes expiation ³⁹. Whether the woman who consents owes it too is disputed: the Hanafis, Malikis and Hanbalis say yes, while most Shafi'is hold one expiation suffices ^{39 40}. If repeated before the first expiation is paid, the Malikis, Hanbalis and one Shafi'i view count one, while the Hanafis and the prevailing Shafi'i view count each act ^{40 41}. Forgetfulness and ignorance do not remove it according to the Hanafis, Malikis, Hanbalis and the earlier view of al-Shafi'i, and do remove it according to his later view ^{41 42}.
• Passing the miqat without ihram: all agree it is forbidden, and one who returns to the miqat and assumes ihram there owes nothing. For one who assumed ihram beyond it and then returned, there are three views: a dam in every case (Malikis, Hanbalis, Ibn al-Mubarak and Zufar); a dam if he began the rites before returning, and none if he returned before beginning them (the sounder Shafi'i view, and Abu Yusuf and Muhammad); no expiation if he returned before pronouncing the talbiya, and a dam if he began the rites or returned without it (Abu Hanifa) ^{41 42 43}.
• Washing the head with khatmi and sidr: no fidya is owed according to the Shafi'is, Hanbalis, Abu Thawr, Ibn al-Mundhir and al-Thawri, who cite the hadith about the pilgrim whose camel broke his neck; the Hanafis, Malikis and a view of Ahmad owe it, since khatmi has a scent and kills vermin ⁴³.
• Scent of saffron and wearing it dyed: no fidya according to the Malikis, Shafi'is, Hanbalis, Jabir and Ibn Umar, who cite the reports that the Prophet allowed women in ihram to wear dyed clothing; the Hanafis and al-Thawri owe it by analogy with musk-like scents ^{43 44}.
• Wearing trousers when no waist-wrap is available: the pilgrim is forbidden to wear shirts, turbans, trousers, socks and cloaks, and a fidya is owed for them; the question of trousers when lacking a waist-wrap is disputed ⁴⁴.
• Trousers when no waist-wrapper is found (continued): those who owe no ransom cite Ibn Abbas's hadith that trousers are for one who finds no waist-wrapper. It is explicit in permission and clear in dropping the ransom, since it orders the wearing and names no ransom, and it is compared to the one who lacks sandals, who may wear cut khuffs without ransom by agreement. The Hanafis and Malikis owe the ransom, comparing trousers to a shirt worn without a cloak, and because trousers cannot be wrapped around the body ⁴⁵.
• Khuffs when sandals are lacking: all agree that khuffs may be worn when sandals are lacking; they differ on the ransom for wearing them uncut, and for wearing them cut when sandals are present ⁴⁵. The Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi'is, a second narration of Ahmad, Urwa, al-Nakha'i, al-Thawri, Ishaq and Ibn al-Mundhir hold a ransom is owed for wearing them uncut, citing Ibn Umar's hadith that the pilgrim must cut them below the ankles, read as an order and therefore binding ⁴⁶. The Hanbalis (the well-known narration of Ahmad), Ata, Ikrima, Sa'id ibn Salim al-Qaddah, and a view attributed to Ali, hold no ransom is owed, citing Ibn Abbas and Jabir, who allow khuffs without cutting; Ali said that cutting them is spoilage ^{46 47}.
• Cut khuffs when sandals are present: the Malikis, Hanbalis, the sounder Shafi'i view and Abu Thawr hold a ransom is owed, since the reports make the permission conditional on lacking sandals, and a cut khuff is a sewn covering fitted to a limb, like gloves ^{47 48}. The Hanafis and some Shafi'is hold none is owed, since the cut khuff becomes like a sandal: it cannot be wiped over and does not cover the ankle ⁴⁸.
• Gloves: all agree that a man owes a ransom for wearing gloves; they differ for a woman. The Malikis, Hanbalis, the sounder Shafi'i view, Ata, Tawus, Mujahid, al-Nakha'i and Ishaq hold she owes it, citing Ibn Umar's report that a woman in ihram must not wear the veil or gloves, as with the veil ^{47 48}. The Hanafis, a Shafi'i view, and reports from Ali, Aisha and Sa'id ibn Abi Waqqas, with al-Thawri, hold none is owed, citing the hadith that a woman's ihram is in her face, and that Sa'id dressed his daughters in gloves while they were in ihram; the hand is not a part that must be covered in prayer, and may be covered with something other than sewn cloth like the feet ^{48 49}.
• A man covering his face: all agree that a woman's ihram is in her face, that she may cover her head, and that a man in ihram may not cover his head. They differ on whether a man owes a ransom for covering his face ⁴⁹. The Shafi'is, Hanbalis, and reports from Uthman, Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf (may God be pleased with him), Zayd ibn Thabit (may God be pleased with him), Ibn al-Zubayr, Sa'id, Jabir, al-Qasim, Tawus and al-Thawri, with Abu Thawr, hold none is owed, citing the hadith that a woman's ihram is in her face and a man's in his head, and the report of the man thrown from his mount who was told to cover his face but not his head; Ibn Qudama calls the practice of Uthman, Zayd and Marwan a consensus with no known dissent ⁴⁹. The Hanafis, Malikis and the second narration of Ahmad hold a ransom is owed, citing the hadith that the dead man of the mount must not have his head or face covered, and Malik's report from Ibn Umar that a pilgrim may not cover what is above the chin ^{49 3}.

All agree that a free Muslim who says to his wife, "you are to me as my mother's back," has made zihar and owes expiation to return to her ³. All agree that conditional zihar carries no expiation until the condition is met; that zihar made to four wives in one word applies to all of them; that expiation multiplies if one has made zihar, expiated, and made it again; that the zihar-maker must not have intercourse before expiating and sins if he does ^{3 50}. Other points are disputed and are treated in the entry on zihar ⁵⁰.

Whether a wife owes expiation for zihar

Jurists differ on whether a wife who makes zihar on her husband owes expiation, in three views ³. The Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi'is, a Hanbali narration, Ishaq, Abu Thawr, al-Thawri and others hold it is not valid zihar and owes nothing: the verse addresses men, zihar is a statement that makes the wife unlawful and only the husband may lift it, as with divorce, and authority over the marriage lies with men ⁵⁰. The second view is that it is not zihar, a Hanbali position; the narrations from Ahmad differ on expiation: that she owes the expiation of zihar, reported by a group, that she owes none, or that she owes an oath expiation, which Ibn Qudama held closest to Ahmad's principles ^{50 51}. The third view, of Abu Yusuf and al-Hasan ibn Ziyad, is that it is zihar and she owes its expiation, since the meaning of zihar, making the lawful like the forbidden, applies to her and the lawfulness is shared ⁵⁰.

Exception by the will of God

Jurists differ on whether saying "if God wills" cancels the expiation for zihar ⁵⁰. The Hanafis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis, with Abu Thawr, hold that the exception cancels it and no zihar is formed, citing the hadith that whoever swears and makes an exception may keep or drop the oath without breach, and analogy with the oath by God ^{50 51}. The Malikis hold it stands, since divorce, emancipation, walking and charity are not legal oaths but binding commitments, so that if one says "I bind myself to zihar if God wills", it binds him and his will counts for nothing ⁵¹.

Expiry of time in time-limited zihar

Jurists differ on whether expiation falls away when the time of a time-limited zihar ends, as in "you are to me as my mother's back for a month" or until the month ends, or Ramadan; the detail is treated in the entry on zihar ⁵¹.

Multiple zihar expiations

One who makes zihar on his wife several times and does not expiate

The first view, held by the Malikis and Hanbalis, with Ata, Jabir ibn Zayd, Tawus, al-Shu'bi, al-Zuhri, Ishaq, Abu Ubayd and Abu Thawr, and attributed to Ali, and the old view of al-Shafi'i, is that one expiation suffices whether the repetition is in one session or several and whether intended as emphasis or renewal. They cite the verse's general wording, which covers one zihar and many, and that a repeated zihar creates no new prohibition since the wife is already forbidden, like an oath by God ^{51 52}. The second view, held by the Hanafis and reported from Ali, Amr ibn Dinar and Qatada, is that expiation multiplies if repetition is not meant as emphasis. They cite the verse's causal wording, so that each zihar is the cause of a new expiation, and the analogy with divorce, since each renewed zihar creates a prohibition that only expiation lifts ^{52 53}. The Shafi'is distinguish: repetition in one unbroken utterance meant as emphasis is one zihar; meant as renewal, the newer view is multiple; and separated repetitions meant as renewal are more likely multiple ⁵³.

One who makes zihar on four wives in one word

The first view, held by the Malikis and Hanbalis, with Ali, Umar, Urwa, Tawus, Ata, Rabi'a, al-Awza'i, Ishaq, Abu Thawr and the old view of al-Shafi'i, is that one expiation suffices; the Malikis add the condition that he did not intend separate expiations. They cite reports from Umar and Ali that one expiation suffices for four wives, which no companion disputed, and that the zihar is a single oath, like an oath by God ^{53 54}. The second view, held by the Hanafis, the new view of al-Shafi'i, al-Hasan, al-Nakha'i, al-Zuhri, Yahya al-Ansari, al-Hakam and al-Thawri, is that expiation is owed for each wife: the verse makes zihar the cause, so each zihar is a cause, and zihar creates a prohibition on each wife that lasts until an expiation is paid ^{54 55}.

One who makes zihar on his wives in separate words

Most jurists, the Hanafis, Malikis, Hanbalis and Shafi'is, with al-Awza'i, Ishaq, al-Thawri, Abu Thawr, al-Hasan, al-Nakha'i and al-Zuhri, hold that expiation multiplies with each separate zihar, as each is a separate oath on separate persons ^{54 55}. The Shafi'is add that if he makes zihar on four wives in four words and does not separate them, the expiations are counted by how many returns follow; if he divorces the fourth at once, three; otherwise four ⁵⁵. The second view, of Abu Bakr and a Hanbali narration, is that one expiation suffices, as the expiation of zihar is a right of God and is not multiplied by repeated causes, like a hadd punishment ⁵⁵.

Intercourse before expiating

The first view, held by the majority of jurists (Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis), with Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, Ata, Tawus, Jabir ibn Zayd, Mawraq al-Ijli, Abu Mijlaz, al-Nakha'i, al-Thawri, al-Awza'i, Ishaq and Abu Thawr, is that intercourse before expiating does not multiply the expiation. They cite the hadith of the man who had intercourse with his wife before expiating: the Prophet told him to refrain from her until he expiated, and did not order a second expiation for the intercourse; had more been owed, it would have been explained, since explanation may not be delayed beyond the time of need ^{55 56}. The second view, held by Amr ibn al-As (may God be pleased with him), Sa'id ibn Jubayr, Qabisa ibn Dhu'ayb, al-Zuhri, Qatada, Ibn Shihab and Abd al-Rahman ibn Mahdi, is that it multiplies: the first expiation is for the zihar joined with return, and the second for a forbidden intercourse, as intercourse in Ramadan is ⁵⁶.

Expiation owed for zihar without return

The first view, held by the Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis, with Ata, al-Nakha'i, al-Awza'i, al-Thawri, al-Hasan and Abu Ubayd, is that no expiation is owed until the husband returns to the wife, since the verse makes expiation depend on both zihar and return, and oath expiation is owed on breach, not on the oath ^{57 58}. The second view, held by Tawus, Mujahid, al-Shu'bi, al-Zuhri and Qatada, is that expiation is owed on zihar alone: it is a grave kind of expiation like that for killing, and the verse's "then they return" abrogated zihar as a divorce of the Jahiliyya ^{57 58}.

Meaning of the return that requires expiation

Jurists give four views on what return means ⁵⁸. First, it is the intention to have intercourse, the Hanafi position, the sound view among the Malikis, and al-Qadi and his companions. Second, it is intercourse itself, the Hanbali position, reported from al-Hasan, Tawus and al-Zuhri and one weak Maliki narration. Third, it is keeping the wife in marriage for a time in which divorce would be possible, the Shafi'i position. Fourth, it is repeating and renewing the zihar utterance, held by Bukayr ibn al-Ashajj, Abu al-Aliya and al-Farra' ⁵⁸. The first view relies on the verse's expiation before touching, and on the view that a zihar-maker who has resolved to have intercourse has taken back the prohibition he set. The second relies on the sense of return as doing the contrary of the utterance, like returning to a gift or a waiting period, and holds that the zihar-maker forbade intercourse, so return is the act of having it ^{58 4}. The fourth holds that return means repetition, as in "they return to what was forbidden" in another verse ⁴.

Jurists list general conditions for all expiations and special conditions for each cause ⁴.

General condition: intention

All agree intention is required for an expiation to be valid; the detail differs ⁴. The Hanafis say that one owing two zihar expiations who frees two slaves without naming for which wife is valid, since the kind is one; but freeing one for zihar and one for killing is valid for neither ^{4 59}. The Malikis say that freeing two slaves for two expiations, sharing each between them, is not valid, as it amounts to one slave for two expiations ⁵⁹. The Shafi'is require the intention to be an expiation, without naming its cause, as with zakat on property ⁵⁹. The Hanbalis require the intention, and do not require naming the cause, whether known or not, since the intention is attached to the expiation ^{59 60}.

General condition: capacity

Capacity is required, because an act cannot be imposed on one who cannot do it ⁶⁰. Where expiations are ordered, one may not move to the next step until unable to perform the earlier one ⁶⁰. The Hanafis, Malikis and the Shafi'i preferred view take the time of performance as the time capacity is judged; the Hanbalis and a Shafi'i view take the time of obligation, as expiation is a purification and so is judged at the time it falls due, as with a hadd ^{60 61}.

Special conditions for each cause

These conditions differ with the cause ⁶¹.

• Oath: puberty, sanity and valid formation of the oath are agreed conditions; no expiation falls on a child or insane person who breaks an oath, or on one whose oath is idle. Whether Islam, choice and intention are conditions is treated in the entry on oaths ⁶¹.
• Zihar: puberty and sanity are agreed; whether a non-Muslim, one who is coerced, or one who acts unintentionally owes it is disputed and treated in the entry on zihar ^{61 60}.
• Killing by mistake: Islam. The Hanafis and Malikis require the killer to be a Muslim, since expiation is an act of worship needing intention; the Shafi'is and Hanbalis do not, since the unbeliever is addressed by the branches of the law ⁶¹. Puberty and sanity: the Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis do not require them, so a child or insane killer owes it from his own property, the guardian freeing a slave for him, and a discerning child may fast; the Hanafis require both and exempt them ⁶². Choice: the Hanafis, Malikis and Hanbalis require it, so one forced to kill owes nothing, on the hadith that God lifted error and forgetting and what they were forced to do; the Shafi'is hold a forced killer liable since he struck the blow ⁶². Freedom: the Hanafis and Malikis require the killer to be free, since a slave has no standing for expiation and fasting two months would harm his master; the Shafi'is and Hanbalis do not, on the general wording of the verse about killing a believer by mistake ^{62 63}.
• Intercourse in Ramadan: Islam, puberty and sanity are agreed conditions, and Ramadan itself is required, since the expiation was ordained for violating the sanctity of that month ⁶³. On intention and choice, the Hanafis, Malikis and Shafi'is require both, so no expiation falls for intercourse by mistake or under compulsion; the Hanbalis do not require them, since the Prophet did not ask the man who came to him about his state ⁶³.

Conditions for an expiation to be valid

These are the conditions that must hold for each expiation to count ⁶³.

Feeding

As to manner: the Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis require ownership, so food given as an allowance does not count, since every financial duty must be of known measure and the poor person must take all of it. The Hanafis require only enabling the poor to take the food, so inviting the poor to lunch and supper suffices, since to feed means to enable someone to eat ⁶⁴. As to amount: the Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis require one mudd of the staple food of the region for each poor person, and do not allow the value to be paid; the Hanafis accept half a sa' of wheat, a sa' of barley or dates, or their value, and hold that two meals a day for each poor person suffice ^{64 65}. As to kind: the Hanafis accept wheat, barley, dates and their flours, or the value; the Malikis require wheat where it is the staple, and what equals it in filling otherwise; the Shafi'is accept grains and fruit subject to zakat; the Hanbalis require wheat, barley, dates and raisins ^{65 66}. As to recipients: one's dependants may not receive it; the majority hold that a non-Muslim may not receive it, while Abu Hanifa and Muhammad allow poor dhimmis; a Hashimi may not receive it, since God gave the Hashimis what suffices them from the fifth of the spoils ^{66 67}.

Clothing

The conditions are that the garment be given as a gift, that it be usable, and that it be of a kind called clothing. A turban or trousers do not count for the Hanafis, Malikis and Hanbalis, though the Shafi'is allow them. A woman must receive a covering garment and a veil in which she may pray ⁶⁶.

Fasting

The fast must be intended from the night before, since it is an obligatory fast, and the two months must be consecutive for zihar, killing and intercourse in Ramadan; if the sequence is broken, even on the last day, it must be begun again ⁶⁷.

Freeing a slave

The slave must be owned fully by the one who frees him; he must be wholly a slave, so a mudabbar or umm walad may not be freed, though the Hanafis permit a mukatab; he must be free of defects that impair work; and the majority require him to be a believer, while the Hanafis allow freeing a non-believer except for killing ^{67 68}.

Kinds of expiation

The kinds of expiation in general are freeing a slave, fasting, feeding and clothing ⁶⁷. The Hanafis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis hold that expiation for breaking a fast, zihar and killing are in fixed order: free a slave if one can; if not, two consecutive months of fasting; if unable, feed sixty poor people ^{67 68}. The Malikis hold that the expiation for breaking a fast is a choice, with feeding the best because of its wide benefit, while zihar and killing are in order ⁶⁸. The oath expiation is a choice at the start and in order at the end: one may choose to feed ten poor people, clothe them, or free a slave, and if none is possible, three days of fasting ^{68 69}. If a person cannot do any of these, most jurists hold the debt stays on him; a narration of Ahmad and a view of al-Shafi'i hold that it falls away, as zakat al-fitr does, since the Bedouin who was given dates was not ordered another expiation ⁶⁸. For killing there is no feeding; a slave must be freed, and if that is impossible, two consecutive months of fasting ⁶⁸. The majority hold that only a believing slave free of harmful defects may be freed, for all expiations, by analogy with the expiation for killing; the Hanafis allow a non-believer except in expiation for killing ^{68 69}.