The ruling on a person in ihram who touches a perfume he thinks is dry, but it turns out to be wet

The questioner : Yes. The ruling for the one who is coerced is the same as the ruling for the one who forgets, because his excuse is even stronger. If he touches a perfume thinking it is dry, but it turns out to be wet, there are two views. The first is that he owes a fidyah (ransom payment) because he intended to touch the perfume. The second is that he owes no fidyah because he was ignorant of its prohibition, which makes him similar to one who is ignorant of the prohibition of perfume.

The Shaykh : The correct view is that he owes nothing, because he was ignorant of its state. This is ignorance of the state, because he touched it thinking it was dry. He did not ignore that perfume is forbidden, but he thought it was dry, and it turned out to be wet. So we say that because he was ignorant of the state, he is like one who is ignorant of the ruling. Which is more correct? That he owes nothing, because he is excused. If a woman touches a perfume thinking it is dry, and it turns out to be wet and sticks to her hand, she owes nothing. But she must hasten to remove what has stuck to her hand.