The authentic narration says (16): "He shall give in charity a dinar or half (17) a dinar" (18). And because this is a ruling that is connected to menstruation, it does not differentiate between its beginning and its end, like the rest of its rulings. If it is said: How can one be given a choice between a thing and its half? We say: Just as a traveler is given a choice between shortening the prayer and completing it; whichever of the two he performs is considered obligatory, and so it is here.

Section: If he has intercourse after she becomes pure but before she performs her ritual bath (ghusl), there is no expiation upon him. Qatada and al-Awza'i said: He must pay half a dinar. If he has intercourse while the blood is still flowing, a dinar is incumbent upon him, because it is a ruling connected to intercourse during menstruation, so it is established before the ritual bath, just like the prohibition. Our view is that the obligation of expiation is established by the Sharia, and the report regarding it has come specifically regarding the menstruating woman; others are not equal to her, because the injury that prevents intercourse with her has ceased with the cessation of the blood. What they mentioned is invalidated by the case where one swears not to have intercourse with a menstruating woman; the expiation becomes due by intercourse during menstruation, and it does not become due in any other state.

Section: Is the expiation incumbent upon the ignorant person and the forgetful one? There are two views: One of them is that it is incumbent, due to the generality of the report, and because it is an expiation that becomes due by intercourse, so it resembles the expiation for intercourse during fasting or while in the state of ihram. The second is that it is not incumbent, due to his statement (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "My nation is excused for errors and forgetfulness" (19). Furthermore, it is due to erase the sin, so it is not due in the case of forgetfulness, like the expiation for an oath. Based on this, if he has intercourse with a pure woman, and she begins to menstruate in the middle of the intercourse, there is no expiation upon him. According to the first narration, there is an expiation upon him. This is the view of Ibn Hamid, who said: If an underage boy has intercourse, the expiation is incumbent upon him, due to the generality of the report, and by analogy to the expiation for ihram. It is also possible that the expiation is not incumbent upon him, because the rulings of legal obligation (taklif) are not established regarding him, and this is one of their branches, so it is not established.

Section: Is the expiation incumbent upon the woman? The explicitly stated view is that the expiation is upon her. Ahmad said concerning a woman who deceived her husband: "The expiation is upon him and upon her." This is because it is an act of intercourse that necessitates an expiation.