Is there any sin that requires expiation and any that does not require expiation?

Al-Halabi : Regarding the issue of intention, I mean, going back to intention, does it not pose a problem, or should we not say that the issue is framed by the fact that we follow what is explicitly stated in the texts? So if it is stated that this sin, even if committed intentionally, carries an expiation, we say so. And if there is no expiation for it, we do not say so. For example, the issue of fasting; we gave an example regarding fasting. Since nothing is stated regarding the issue of fasting, we do not invent anything for it. And the second issue we mentioned, what was the second issue, my teacher?

The Shaykh : The expiation for an oath.
Al-Halabi : The expiation for an oath has a text, and it is five [people], for whom there is no expiation; so he mentioned the oath of perjury, for which there is a text. So we state this one, and we do not state that one. So the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): came to confirm it, so we confirm it, just as the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him): .

The Shaykh : Yes, but there is a difference, my teacher.
Al-Halabi : Please, our Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Do you think that the one who says to his companion, "Come, let us gamble," and he has been commanded to give charity, would he repeat this statement?
Al-Halabi : How, my teacher?

The Shaykh : Do you think he would repeat it, meaning, one person made a mistake and said, "Come, let us gamble," and then he was reminded that an expiation falls upon him, would he return to it?
Al-Halabi : The principle is that he does not return to it.

The Shaykh : No, do you imagine that he would return to it?
Al-Halabi : It is possible, my Shaykh.

The Shaykh : No, I do not imagine it, because look, my brother, and from here do not hold me to account, the effect of the Messenger's saying appears: Understanding jurisprudence is very important. When does a person return to something? When he has a desire for it. Here, the one who said to his brother, "Come, let us gamble," there is no desire in it, but rather there is the dominance of an old pre-Islamic custom that precedes the tongue, so he says, "Come, let us gamble." So, to refine them and discipline them, the expiation came. But when this man is a Muslim, of course, committed as it is said today, and he is told that the Shari'ah commands him to expiate, what would make him return and fall into the same mistake that requires expiation? There is no lust here, but rather a dominant custom, which is according to what they lived in during 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, and therefore I am imagining that the man is not deterred by paying an expiation after an expiation, and he comes to his lawful [wife] but in the place where it is forbidden to come to her. This is what the expiation will never address, so he is sinful. Then you understand with me, what does it mean that the expiation is an expiation for what?
Al-Halabi : His sin.

The Shaykh : Is that not so? So if we now imagine that this man always has intercourse with his wife, he does not distinguish between the lawful and the forbidden, and based on the value we mentioned earlier, especially if he is wealthy, he is not disciplined by this expiation. The purpose of expiation is refinement and disciplining the soul that commands evil. So if he is not disciplined, then we return and say that he is sinful, and the expiation does not intercede for him, nor does it expiate his sin. This is what I testify to before Allah, and Allah the Exalted knows best. ... And [I say] Glory be to You, O Allah, and praise be to You, I testify that there is no deity but You, I seek Your forgiveness and I repent to You. ...