Is fasting permissible for one who possesses absent wealth or a recoverable debt when seeking expiation?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Expiations
Primary text
Fasting is not permissible for one who possesses absent wealth or a debt expected to be repaid. This is the opinion of Al-Shafi'i. The evidence for this position is that the obligation for expiation through wealth, being a right over property, is not nullified by the property being absent, similar to Zakat. Furthermore, since this obligation is not time-bound and its delay does not cause immediate harm, its absence does not negate the requirement to pay with wealth, unlike the Hady (offering) which has a time limit, or the delaying of sexual relations during Dhihar which causes harm.
Supporting text
Abu Hanifa permits fasting, considering such a person as one who does not possess the means (*ghayr wajid*). He bases this on the verse {Whoever cannot find [means], then fasting for three days} (Quran 5:89) and analogy with the insolvent person. He argues that if the Mutamatti' pilgrim lacks the Hady, he moves to fasting, or lacks water, he moves to Tayammum, or the one practicing Dhihar lacks wealth, he moves to fasting; all these transitions are conditioned upon lack of possession. However, the majority counters that the sale of absent property is valid, thus possession is not entirely absent, and the analogy to Hady and Tayammum fails due to differences in the consequences of delay.