A man who was ill and traveling sat in his house and had intercourse with his wife during the day in Ramadan; he is one who broke his fast for a valid legal excuse, so does he owe an expiation?

The questioner : All right, Shaykh, another question, and may Allah reward you with good. One of the brothers is asking, saying: A man was ill or was traveling, and he sat in his house and had intercourse with his wife. That is, he broke his fast for a valid legal excuse and had intercourse with his wife during the day in Ramadan. Does he owe an expiation?

The Shaykh : And what is the matter with his wife?

The questioner : I mean, they might be traveling with him.

The Shaykh : What is the problem with that?

The questioner : He owes nothing.

The Shaykh : No. What is the difference between intercourse and eating?

The questioner : There is absolutely no difference.

The Shaykh : I mean, what was in my mind, my Shaykh, is the issue the jurists mentioned, that it is for the sanctity of the month, not for the fast. The difference is not for the fast; the difference is that it is not for the fast but for the sanctity of the month. So even if a person is one who has broken his fast, meaning it is not permissible for him to do this because of the sanctity of the month.

The Shaykh : The sanctity of the month—I do not think that is said in this context. It is said in cases where, for example, a person was traveling and then settled down as a resident; does he continue breaking his fast on the basis that he was traveling? The scenario you are assuming is that he is a traveler who is permitted to eat and permitted to drink, so what prevents him from enjoying what is lawful for him? That is a separate aspect with other scenarios.

The questioner : Even if the wife is fasting.

The Shaykh : No, it is not permissible. Why did you ask?

The questioner : All right, in this scenario, my Shaykh, what is the ruling for him at that time and for her? I mean, what is the ruling for both of them?

The Shaykh : The ruling is, of course, forbidden. That is, he caused her to break her fast, not specifically...

The questioner : From the perspective of breaking the fast, is it upon him or upon her?

The Shaykh : It is not for his specific sake, but for her specific sake. In this case, the two of them are here. At that point, the expiation, as we observe in the authentic hadiths, the Lawgiver made it obligatory for the one who broke his fast, who is the husband. And here, of course, the situation is different. That one was fasting, so he broke his fast and caused her to break her fast. Here, he was already fasting and caused her to break her fast. Does that ruling remain and also apply to him, or does it differ? The issue requires study, and I do not have a study on it.