I work in the Kingdom and I called for my wife to visit me, and she actually came to me. I had been away from her for a long period, and she arrived at my place in the month of Ramadan, and
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : I work in the Kingdom and I called for my wife to visit me, and she actually came to me. I had been away from her for a long period, and she arrived at my place in the month of Ramadan, and I had intercourse with her during the day of Ramadan. I did not know what the expiation for that was. After that, three months later, I performed the obligatory Hajj with her. What is the expiation for this, and is the Hajj valid? I was not aware of the severity of this act.
The Shaykh : As for the Hajj, the Hajj is valid because failing to perform the expiation does not render it invalid. As for the expiation, it is obligatory for him to make expiation, and for his wife as well if she was willing.
The expiation is freeing a slave for each person. If no slave is found, then each person must fast for two consecutive months. If he is unable to do so, he must feed sixty poor people. However, if the wife was coerced, then she owes nothing, neither making up the fast nor an expiation. Likewise, if the wife thought that it was obligatory for her to respond to her husband in this situation, then she owes neither making up the fast nor an expiation, because she was ignorant.
Here, we must know the difference between ignorance of the ruling and ignorance of what follows from the ruling.
Ignorance of the ruling excuses a person, and nothing follows from his action. Ignorance of what follows from the action does not remove what is obligatory in it. For example, if a man has intercourse during the day of Ramadan knowing that it is forbidden, but he does not know that there is this severe expiation, then the expiation is not removed from him; he must make expiation.
As for if he thought that there was nothing in it, meaning that there was no prohibition, then he owes nothing. The story of the man who had intercourse with his wife during the day of Ramadan in the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) indicates this. He then came to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and informed him, saying, "What is upon me?" The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) informed him of the expiation. This is evidence that if a man has intercourse knowing that intercourse is forbidden, but he does not know what is upon him, then the expiation is upon him and it is necessary.
A correction regarding what passed in the story of the woman who came to her husband and he had intercourse with her during the day of Ramadan. I say that if the woman was not fasting when she arrived, considering that she was a traveler, and then her husband had intercourse with her, then she owes nothing. This is because the stronger position is that if a traveler arrives while not fasting, he is not required to abstain, but rather he remains in a state of not fasting.
The Shaykh : As for the Hajj, the Hajj is valid because failing to perform the expiation does not render it invalid. As for the expiation, it is obligatory for him to make expiation, and for his wife as well if she was willing.
The expiation is freeing a slave for each person. If no slave is found, then each person must fast for two consecutive months. If he is unable to do so, he must feed sixty poor people. However, if the wife was coerced, then she owes nothing, neither making up the fast nor an expiation. Likewise, if the wife thought that it was obligatory for her to respond to her husband in this situation, then she owes neither making up the fast nor an expiation, because she was ignorant.
Here, we must know the difference between ignorance of the ruling and ignorance of what follows from the ruling.
Ignorance of the ruling excuses a person, and nothing follows from his action. Ignorance of what follows from the action does not remove what is obligatory in it. For example, if a man has intercourse during the day of Ramadan knowing that it is forbidden, but he does not know that there is this severe expiation, then the expiation is not removed from him; he must make expiation.
As for if he thought that there was nothing in it, meaning that there was no prohibition, then he owes nothing. The story of the man who had intercourse with his wife during the day of Ramadan in the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) indicates this. He then came to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and informed him, saying, "What is upon me?" The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) informed him of the expiation. This is evidence that if a man has intercourse knowing that intercourse is forbidden, but he does not know what is upon him, then the expiation is upon him and it is necessary.
A correction regarding what passed in the story of the woman who came to her husband and he had intercourse with her during the day of Ramadan. I say that if the woman was not fasting when she arrived, considering that she was a traveler, and then her husband had intercourse with her, then she owes nothing. This is because the stronger position is that if a traveler arrives while not fasting, he is not required to abstain, but rather he remains in a state of not fasting.