The root of their disagreement is that the plain wording of the report clashes with analogy. In the ḥadīth the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—did not command the woman to offer any expiation, whereas analogy would treat her exactly like the man, since both are legally accountable.

The fourth issue concerns whether this expiation must be carried out in a fixed sequence, as with the expiation for ẓihār, or whether the options are left to one’s choice. By “sequence” we mean that a person may not move to the next option among the alternatives unless he is incapable of performing the one before it; by “choice” we mean that he may begin with whichever option he wishes without having to prove inability to carry out the others. Here, too, the jurists differed.
• Al-Shāfiʿī, Abū Ḥanīfah, al-Thawrī, and the rest of the scholars of Kūfah hold that it is sequential: first manumission of a slave; if that is not possible, then fasting; if that is beyond one’s capacity, then feeding the poor.
• Mālik maintains that the expiation is discretionary. Ibn al-Qāsim reports from him, however, that feeding the poor is preferable to manumission and to fasting.

The reason they differ over whether sequence is obligatory is the tension between the outward sense of the transmitted reports and the dictates of analogy. The apparent meaning of the previously cited Bedouin ḥadīth supports sequence, for the Prophet—peace be upon him—asked the man, step by step, about his ability to perform each act. By contrast, the wording transmitted by Mālik—

“A man broke the fast in Ramadan, and the Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him—ordered him to free a slave, or fast two consecutive months, or feed sixty needy people”—

suggests choice, for the Arabic particle aw (“or”) ordinarily conveys discretion. Even if that wording belongs to the Companion-narrator, those Companions were most familiar with the nuances of context and the implications of speech.

As for the analogies that oppose one another in this question, the expiation is sometimes compared to the expiation for ẓihār and sometimes to that for an oath. Yet it more closely resembles the expiation for ẓihār than that for an oath, and the sequence is inferred from the narrator’s phrasing.

Mālik’s recommendation to begin with feeding, however, contradicts the plain sense of the reports. He arrived at this view through analogy, noting that the Law in several places substitutes feeding for fasting and that feeding is more fitting in this context, as indicated by the Qur’ānic reading:

“And for those who are able, the ransom is to feed a needy person” (al-Baqarah 2:184).

For this reason he and a number of scholars recommended that when a person dies owing fast-days, expiation should be offered on his behalf by feeding the poor. This amounts to giving precedence to an analogy supported by general principles over a report that those principles do not support.

The fifth issue—namely, their disagreement over the quantity of food to be given—is as follows: Mālik, al-Shāfiʿī, and their disciples say that one mudd, measured by the mudd of the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—must be given to each needy person. Abū Ḥanīfah says that less than two mudds will not suffice; that is, a full ṣāʿ for every needy person.

The cause of their disagreement is again the conflict between analogy and transmitted evidence. The analogy likens this fidyah to the fidyah for injury that is explicitly prescribed, while the transmitted evidence is the report found in one chain of the expiation ḥadīth stating that the container (farq) held five