Is there a ruling in the matter of intentional sin that we say what is stated in the text regarding expiation is what we follow, such as what came in the hadith?

The questioner : ... Should we not say that we establish a ruling for the issue based on what is stated in the text? If it is stated that this sin, even if intentional, has an expiation, we say so. If there is no expiation for it, we do not say so. For example, the issue of fasting: whatever is not stated, we do not invent a penalty for it. The second issue we mentioned is the expiation for an oath, which has a text, namely . It mentions the oath of perjury, for which there is a text. So we affirm this one and do not affirm the other. The saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) came as an affirmation, so we affirm it, just as the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ?

The Shaykh : But there is a difference, my professor!

The questioner : Please, our Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Do you think that the one who says to his companion, "Come, let us gamble," and has been ordered to give charity, will repeat this statement?

The questioner : How, my professor?

The Shaykh : Do you think he will repeat it? I mean, one person made a mistake and said, "Come, let us gamble," and then was informed that he does not have an expiation to pay. Will he return to it?

The questioner : The principle is that he does not return to it.

The Shaykh : No, do you imagine that he will return to it?

The questioner : It is possible, our Shaykh.

The Shaykh : He does not return to it. And from us here—and do not hold me to this—the impact of the hadith of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is apparent: . Understanding the religion is very important. When does a person return to something? When he has a desire for it. Here, the one who says to his brother, "Come, let us gamble," does not have a desire for it; rather, there is the prevalence of an old pre-Islamic custom, so it slips off his tongue and he says, "Come, let us gamble." So, to refine them and discipline them, the expiation came. But when a committed Muslim, as it is said today, is told that the Shari'ah orders him to pay an expiation, what would make him return and commit the same mistake that requires an expiation? There is no desire here, but rather a prevailing custom, which was according to how they lived in the pre-Islamic age of ignorance. But our issue here differs completely from the issue of "Come, let us gamble." Here there is a desire. So I imagine that a man who is not deterred by expiation after expiation, and who comes to his wife but in the place where it is forbidden to come to her, we do not permit him the expiation; rather, he is sinful. Then you understand with me what the meaning of the expiation is, and the expiation of what? If we imagine now that this man always has intercourse with his wife, does not distinguish between the lawful and the unlawful, and pays out the amount we mentioned earlier, especially if he is wealthy, this is not what he was raised with through this expiation, because the purpose of the expiation is refinement and training of the soul that commands evil. If he is not trained, then we say he is sinful, and the expiation does not intercede for him, so it does not expiate this sin of his for which he has sinned against Allah. And Allah the Exalted knows best.