two consecutive months, and feeding the poor is not an acceptable substitute. If he is unable to fast, the liability remains upon him; feeding will not discharge it, because Allah, exalted is He, did not mention it, and substitutions in expiations are established only by textual proof, not by analogy.

A slave makes expiation by fasting, for he possesses no wealth with which he could set a slave free.

If the killer is insane or a minor, his guardian must expiate on his behalf by freeing a slave, since fasting is impossible for either of them and proxy fasting is not permitted. The expiation is nevertheless incumbent upon each of them, for it is a financial right arising from killing and thus resembles blood money, and it is a monetary act of devotion akin to zakat.

The expiation multiplies with the number of victims, just as blood money does. Therefore, if someone kills several people, he must offer as many expiations as there are victims.

When the killing is lawful—such as killing a rebel, an apostate, a married adulterer, a person executed in retaliation (qiṣāṣ) or under a ḥadd penalty, or someone slain in legitimate self-defence—no expiation is required, for the slain person lacked inviolability.

Note
Fulfilling the expiation for manslaughter is something many people today take lightly, especially in automobile accidents that claim numerous lives: finding the prospect of fasting burdensome—particularly when several expiations become due—they simply do not fast, leaving their responsibility outstanding. Another widespread practice is that the killer’s ʿāqila (male agnate relatives responsible for blood money) do not shoulder the blood money for accidental killing; and if any of them does contribute something, he regards it merely as a charitable donation. Therefore