Is there an expiation for a woman if her husband has intercourse with her during the day of Ramadan, with evidence?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Now, if someone were to ask, what do you say about the woman? What do you say about the woman? Does she have an expiation or not? Yes, tell me, my brother, the one who raised his hand?
The questioner : If she was coerced, she has no expiation.
The Shaykh : Yes, and if she was willing.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Correct. So, if she was coerced, there is no expiation on her, meaning the man overpowered her in the matter until he had intercourse with her, so there is no expiation on her. But if she was willing, she has an expiation. Based on the principle, and the brother mentioned it, what is the evidence?
The questioner :Sunan Ibn Majah 2045Sahih (Darussalam).
The Shaykh : This is evidence that if she was coerced, there is nothing on her. But what is the evidence that if she was willing, she has an expiation? This is what is required now.
The questioner : Because there is no evidence that exempts the woman from the ruling that if she consented, she has no expiation. She is equal to the man unless evidence arises that exempts her from that.
The Shaykh : Good, well done. But if someone were to say, the evidence that the woman has no expiation is that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) did not mention anything regarding the woman; he did not mention anything regarding the woman. And the original state is the innocence of the conscience and the absence of obligation. So when the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) mentioned what is required of this man, he did not mention that such and such is required of the woman. And this is a problem.
The questioner : Many of the rulings, even verses of the Qur'an, mention the masculine form, and that applies to both men and women.
The Shaykh : It is true that the addresses of the Shari'ah in the Qur'an and the Sunnah are often directed to men, but the intended meaning is men and women. However, this is a specific case between a man and a woman where the ruling for the man was mentioned and the ruling for the woman was silent. It appears that we may not reach an answer. Let us take just one more.
The questioner : I know the principle, O Shaykh. The fact that it was not transmitted is not evidence that it was not transmitted.
The Shaykh : He is saying that the absence of transmission is not a transmission of absence. The fact that it was not transmitted that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered her to pay an expiation does not indicate that he did not order her. But there is no answer more sound than this. Do you have anything?
The questioner : He said, "He fell upon her," so it is as if he coerced her.
The Shaykh : Be patient. In some wordings of the hadith, it says "I perished" and "I caused to perish." So some scholars took from the word "caused to perish" that the woman was coerced, because if she had been obedient, she would have been the one who perished, not the one who caused to perish. Did you understand this answer? Another answer is that this was a consultation, and the ruling in a consultation is given only to the one who consulted. The woman was not mentioned; she did not come to consult. The parallel to this is the consultation of Hind bint 'Utbah when she came to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) and said, "So-and-so, meaning her husband, is a stingy man who does not give me enough maintenance for myself and my children." He said: Did the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) say, "Bring the husband so we can ask him"? Is this correct or not? No. Why did he not bring him? Why did he not request his presence? Because the woman might be making a claim. Why did he not request his presence? Because the fatwa is directed only to the questioner. As for the one behind him, the general rulings of the Shari'ah apply to him. And it is known that the woman is a partner with the man in what results from intercourse between them if it is with the consent of both parties. Have you seen zina? Allah made the ruling in it comprehensive for the man and the woman: "The fornicating woman and the fornicating man, flog each of them with one hundred lashes."
The questioner : If she was coerced, she has no expiation.
The Shaykh : Yes, and if she was willing.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Correct. So, if she was coerced, there is no expiation on her, meaning the man overpowered her in the matter until he had intercourse with her, so there is no expiation on her. But if she was willing, she has an expiation. Based on the principle, and the brother mentioned it, what is the evidence?
The questioner :
Allah has forgiven my nation for mistakes and forgetfulness, and what they are forced to do.
رفع عن أمتي الخطأ والنسيان وما استكرهوا عليهThe Shaykh : This is evidence that if she was coerced, there is nothing on her. But what is the evidence that if she was willing, she has an expiation? This is what is required now.
The questioner : Because there is no evidence that exempts the woman from the ruling that if she consented, she has no expiation. She is equal to the man unless evidence arises that exempts her from that.
The Shaykh : Good, well done. But if someone were to say, the evidence that the woman has no expiation is that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) did not mention anything regarding the woman; he did not mention anything regarding the woman. And the original state is the innocence of the conscience and the absence of obligation. So when the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) mentioned what is required of this man, he did not mention that such and such is required of the woman. And this is a problem.
The questioner : Many of the rulings, even verses of the Qur'an, mention the masculine form, and that applies to both men and women.
The Shaykh : It is true that the addresses of the Shari'ah in the Qur'an and the Sunnah are often directed to men, but the intended meaning is men and women. However, this is a specific case between a man and a woman where the ruling for the man was mentioned and the ruling for the woman was silent. It appears that we may not reach an answer. Let us take just one more.
The questioner : I know the principle, O Shaykh. The fact that it was not transmitted is not evidence that it was not transmitted.
The Shaykh : He is saying that the absence of transmission is not a transmission of absence. The fact that it was not transmitted that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered her to pay an expiation does not indicate that he did not order her. But there is no answer more sound than this. Do you have anything?
The questioner : He said, "He fell upon her," so it is as if he coerced her.
The Shaykh : Be patient. In some wordings of the hadith, it says "I perished" and "I caused to perish." So some scholars took from the word "caused to perish" that the woman was coerced, because if she had been obedient, she would have been the one who perished, not the one who caused to perish. Did you understand this answer? Another answer is that this was a consultation, and the ruling in a consultation is given only to the one who consulted. The woman was not mentioned; she did not come to consult. The parallel to this is the consultation of Hind bint 'Utbah when she came to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) and said, "So-and-so, meaning her husband, is a stingy man who does not give me enough maintenance for myself and my children." He said: