among the scholars. If it is on two days of Ramadan, there are two views regarding it: The first is that one expiation suffices him. This is the apparent implication of Al-Khiraqi, the choice of Abu Bakr, and the madhhab of Al-Zuhri, Al-Awza'i, and the Ashab al-Ra'y (the jurists of Kufa), because it is a recompense for an offense whose cause was repeated before it was fulfilled; therefore, they must overlap, just like the hadd punishment. The second: One does not suffice, and he is liable for two expiations. This was chosen by Al-Qadi and some of our companions. It is also the opinion of Malik, Al-Layth, Al-Shafi'i, and Ibn al-Mundhir, and it is narrated from 'Ata' and Makhul, because every day is a separate act of worship; thus, when the expiation becomes obligatory due to his invalidating it, they do not overlap, just like two Ramadans or two pilgrimages (Hajj).

498 - Issue: He said: "And if he performs expiation, then has intercourse a second time, then a second expiation is due."

In summary, if he performs expiation then has intercourse a second time, this must either be on the same day or on two different days. If it is on two days, then a second expiation is due upon him, with no disagreement known to us. If it is on the same day, a second expiation is due upon him. Ahmad explicitly stated this. Similarly, this is inferred for everyone who is required to abstain [from eating/drinking] and for whom intercourse is prohibited during the daylight of Ramadan. Even if he is not fasting, such as someone who did not know of the sighting of the new moon until after dawn broke, or someone who forgot the intention, or ate intentionally and then had intercourse, an expiation is due upon him. Abu Hanifah, Malik, and Al-Shafi'i said: Nothing is due upon him for that intercourse because he did not coincide with the fast, nor did he prevent its validity, so it did not necessitate anything, like intercourse at night. We argue that fasting in Ramadan is an act of worship for which expiation is required by intercourse, so it is repeated by the repetition of the act of intercourse if it occurs after the performance of the expiation, like the Hajj. Furthermore, it is intercourse that is prohibited due to the sanctity of Ramadan, so it necessitates expiation just like the first one, and it differs from intercourse at night, as that is not prohibited. If it is said: The first act of intercourse involved the violation of the fast, which is a factor in the obligation, so it is not valid to equate another [act] to it; we say: This is overruled by the case of one upon whom dawn breaks while he is having intercourse and he continues, for an expiation is due upon him, even though he did not violate the fast [by initiating it].