One who knows the ruling but is ignorant of the punishment does not have it waived for him.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : But if a person knows the ruling but is ignorant of the punishment, is it waived for him?
It is not waived. If the thief says, "If I had known that my hand would be cut off, I would not have stolen," and the married fornicator says, "If I had known that I would be stoned, I would not have committed fornication," we say: This is no excuse for you.
Similarly, if someone says, "If I had known that intercourse during the day of Ramadan requires freeing a slave, then fasting for two consecutive months, then feeding [the poor], I would not have done it," what do we say? It is no excuse for you. Because the man who had intercourse during the day of Ramadan came to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) not knowing what the punishment was. He knew that it was forbidden, because he said, "I am ruined," but he did not know the punishment. So the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered him to perform the expiation and did not make his ignorance of it a barrier to obligating it upon him. Is that clear, everyone?
Therefore, we must know the difference between ignorance of the ruling and ignorance of what follows from it. Ignorance of the ruling is an excuse, but ignorance of what follows from it is not an excuse.
It is not waived. If the thief says, "If I had known that my hand would be cut off, I would not have stolen," and the married fornicator says, "If I had known that I would be stoned, I would not have committed fornication," we say: This is no excuse for you.
Similarly, if someone says, "If I had known that intercourse during the day of Ramadan requires freeing a slave, then fasting for two consecutive months, then feeding [the poor], I would not have done it," what do we say? It is no excuse for you. Because the man who had intercourse during the day of Ramadan came to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) not knowing what the punishment was. He knew that it was forbidden, because he said, "I am ruined," but he did not know the punishment. So the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered him to perform the expiation and did not make his ignorance of it a barrier to obligating it upon him. Is that clear, everyone?
Therefore, we must know the difference between ignorance of the ruling and ignorance of what follows from it. Ignorance of the ruling is an excuse, but ignorance of what follows from it is not an excuse.