and Abu Hanifah; because it is breaking the fast without full intercourse, so it is similar to kissing. Furthermore, the fundamental principle is that there is no obligation for expiation, and there is no text, consensus, or analogy requiring it. Analogy to intercourse in the vagina is invalid because that [act] is more extreme, evidenced by the fact that it necessitates [expiation] without ejaculation, it warrants a legal penalty (hadd) if it is forbidden, and it involves twelve distinct legal rulings. Moreover, the effective cause (illah) in the fundamental case is intercourse without ejaculation, and intercourse here does not necessitate [the same], so it is not valid to consider it equivalent. The fourth issue is that if one has intercourse out of forgetfulness, the apparent view of the school is that it is like doing so intentionally. Ahmad explicitly stated this, and it is the opinion of 'Ata' and Ibn al-Majishun. Abu Dawud narrated from Ahmad that he withheld from answering and said: 'I am afraid to say anything about it, and I am afraid to say there is nothing upon him.' He said: 'I heard him more than once not having a definitive opinion on it.' Ahmad ibn al-Qasim reported from him: 'For every matter regarding which the fasting person is overcome, there is no making up (qada) nor anything else.' Abu al-Khattab said: 'This indicates the dropping of both the making up and the expiation in cases of compulsion and forgetfulness.' This is the opinion of al-Hasan, Mujahid, al-Thawri, al-Shafi'i, and the people of opinion (ashab al-ra'y); because it is a matter prohibited by the fast, so if it occurs due to compulsion or forgetfulness, it does not invalidate it, like eating. Malik, al-Awza'i, and al-Layth used to require the making up (qada) but not the expiation; because the expiation is for lifting the sin, and that is pardoned for the one who forgets. Our argument is that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) commanded the man who said: 'I have had intercourse with my wife,' to perform expiation, and he did not ask him whether it was intentional. Had the ruling differed, he would have asked and sought clarification. Furthermore, it is mandatory to provide the reason based on what the questioner's wording encompasses, which is 'having intercourse with the wife while fasting,' and the question is as if it were repeated in the answer, so it is as if the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: 'Whoever has intercourse with his wife during Ramadan must emancipate a slave.' If it is said: 'There is evidence in the hadith indicating it was intentional, which is his saying: "I have perished (8)." And it was narrated: "I have burned (9)."' We respond: It is possible that he was informing him of his feeling of destruction due to what he believes regarding intercourse, even if done out of forgetfulness, in terms of invalidating the fast, and his fear of other than that. Moreover, fasting is an act of worship