Obligations of Making Up Fasts and Expiation
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
Fatwa No. ( 9393 )
Q: I would like to know the obligations of making up fasts and expiation in Ramadan, knowing that I have previously researched the topic, and my research led me to two opinions: one holds that the obligation of making up fasts and expiation is intercourse and nothing else, and the evidence is well known in the pure Sunnah. As for the second opinion: it makes everything that reaches the stomach intentionally an obligation for making up fasts and expiation, in addition to intercourse, without me finding evidence from the Book and the Sunnah. Therefore, I ask your eminence to inform me with a satisfying answer supported by evidence from the Book and the Sunnah, and may Allah reward you with good for us and for all Muslims.
A: The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) explicitly stated the ruling that expiation is obligatory for a Bedouin (because he intentionally had intercourse with his wife during the day in Ramadan while fasting...). This was from him (peace and blessings be upon him) a clarification of the basis of the ruling, and an explicit statement of its cause. The jurists agreed that his being a Bedouin is a descriptive attribute with no legal implication and no effect on the ruling, so expiation is obligatory for a Turk or a non-Arab having intercourse with his wife. They also agreed that the description of the wife in the one with whom intercourse is had is a descriptive attribute that is not considered, so expiation is obligatory for having intercourse with a slave woman and for unlawful sexual intercourse. They also agreed that the fact that the one who had intercourse comes back repentant has no effect on the obligation of expiation, so it is also not considered in the basis of
the ruling. Then they differed on whether intercourse alone is the considered factor in the obligation of expiation by invalidating the fast with it only, or whether the considered factor is violating the sanctity of Ramadan by invalidating the fast intentionally, even with food or drink. So al-Shafi'i and Ahmad said the first, and Abu Hanifah and Malik and those who agreed with them said the second. The origin of the disagreement between the two groups is their difference in refining the basis of the ruling: is it violating the sanctity of the Ramadan fast by invalidating it specifically with intentional intercourse, or is it violating it by invalidating the fast intentionally in general, even with food or drink? The correct view is the first; in accordance with the apparent text, and because the original state is that the conscience is free from the obligation of expiation until the obligating factor is established by clear evidence. And success is from Allah, and may Allah send prayers and blessings upon our Prophet Muhammad and his family and his Companions.
Q: I would like to know the obligations of making up fasts and expiation in Ramadan, knowing that I have previously researched the topic, and my research led me to two opinions: one holds that the obligation of making up fasts and expiation is intercourse and nothing else, and the evidence is well known in the pure Sunnah. As for the second opinion: it makes everything that reaches the stomach intentionally an obligation for making up fasts and expiation, in addition to intercourse, without me finding evidence from the Book and the Sunnah. Therefore, I ask your eminence to inform me with a satisfying answer supported by evidence from the Book and the Sunnah, and may Allah reward you with good for us and for all Muslims.
A: The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) explicitly stated the ruling that expiation is obligatory for a Bedouin (because he intentionally had intercourse with his wife during the day in Ramadan while fasting...). This was from him (peace and blessings be upon him) a clarification of the basis of the ruling, and an explicit statement of its cause. The jurists agreed that his being a Bedouin is a descriptive attribute with no legal implication and no effect on the ruling, so expiation is obligatory for a Turk or a non-Arab having intercourse with his wife. They also agreed that the description of the wife in the one with whom intercourse is had is a descriptive attribute that is not considered, so expiation is obligatory for having intercourse with a slave woman and for unlawful sexual intercourse. They also agreed that the fact that the one who had intercourse comes back repentant has no effect on the obligation of expiation, so it is also not considered in the basis of
the ruling. Then they differed on whether intercourse alone is the considered factor in the obligation of expiation by invalidating the fast with it only, or whether the considered factor is violating the sanctity of Ramadan by invalidating the fast intentionally, even with food or drink. So al-Shafi'i and Ahmad said the first, and Abu Hanifah and Malik and those who agreed with them said the second. The origin of the disagreement between the two groups is their difference in refining the basis of the ruling: is it violating the sanctity of the Ramadan fast by invalidating it specifically with intentional intercourse, or is it violating it by invalidating the fast intentionally in general, even with food or drink? The correct view is the first; in accordance with the apparent text, and because the original state is that the conscience is free from the obligation of expiation until the obligating factor is established by clear evidence. And success is from Allah, and may Allah send prayers and blessings upon our Prophet Muhammad and his family and his Companions.
Source
www.alifta.gov.sa
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.