Malik said: If he ejaculates, his fast is invalidated, because he ejaculated through looking, resembling the case where he repeats the gaze. We respond that the first look cannot be guarded against, so it does not invalidate the fast even if it leads to it, just like thought, and repeating the gaze is extrapolated from it. Once this is established, repeating the gaze is disliked for one who triggers his desire, and not disliked for one who does not, just like kissing. It is also possible that it is not disliked in any case, because its leading to an invalidating ejaculation is very remote, unlike kissing, as the occurrence of madhiy (prostatic fluid) through it is not remote.

Section: If he thinks [of something] and ejaculates, his fast is not invalidated. It is narrated from Abu Hafs al-Barmaki that it is invalidated, and Ibn ‘Aqil chose this view; because thought is recalled, so it falls under choice, evidenced by the fact that its perpetrator is considered sinful for dwelling upon it (57) in heresy and disbelief. Allah, Glory be to Him, praised those who reflect on the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) forbade reflection on the essence of Allah, and ordered (58) reflection upon His signs; if it were not within one’s capability, it would not have been attached to it, like a wet dream. As for a image of the act occurring to his heart, resulting in ejaculation, his fast is not invalidated; because a passing thought cannot be repelled. We respond with the statement of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "My nation is pardoned for error, forgetfulness, and what their selves suggest to them, as long as they do not act upon it or speak of it" (59). And because there is no text or consensus regarding it breaking the fast, and it cannot be analogized to physical contact or repeating the gaze, because it is lower than them in inducing desire and leading to ejaculation, and differs from them in terms of being prohibited if attached to a foreign woman, or disliked if attached to a wife, so it remains on the original status.

Sixth Section: The invalidator of the fast in all of this is what was done intentionally and deliberately. As for what occurred without intent, such as dust that enters his throat from the road, the sifting of flour, a fly (60) entering his throat, or water being sprayed upon him and entering his ears, nose, or throat, or being submerged in water so it reaches his interior, or water from rinsing the mouth preceding into his throat, or something poured into his throat or nose forcibly, or his head wound or abdominal wound being treated without his choice, or being cupped against his will, or a woman kissing him without his choice and he ejaculates, or what resembles this, his fast is not invalidated; we know of no disagreement regarding this; because he has no action [of his own], so he does not break his fast, like a wet dream. But if he is coerced into any of that by a threat and he performs it, Ibn ‘Aqil said: Our companions said: He does not break his fast by it either; because of the statement of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "My nation is pardoned for error, forgetfulness, and what they are coerced into." He said: And it is possible in my view that he does break it; because he performed the invalidating act to repel harm from himself, so he resembles the sick person who breaks his fast to repel illness, and one who drinks to repel thirst, and he differs from the coerced; because he has exited through that from the realm of action, and therefore it is not attributed to him, and that is why they differ in the case if one is coerced into killing a human being and is thrown upon him.

Seventh Section: Whenever he breaks his fast by any of these things, he is obligated to make it up (qada'), and we know of no disagreement regarding this; because the fast was established as a liability, so it is not discharged except by performing it, and he did not perform it, so it remains as it was; and there is no expiation (kaffarah) for anything we have mentioned, according to the manifest view of the school. This is the view of Sa‘id ibn Jubayr, al-Nakha‘i, Ibn Sirin, Hammad, and al-Shafi‘i. It is reported from Ahmad that expiation is obligatory upon one who ejaculates through touching, kissing, or repeating the gaze; because it is an ejaculation resulting from physical contact, resembling ejaculation through intercourse. There is also a report from him regarding the one being cupped: if he is aware of the prohibition, expiation is upon him. ‘Ata’ said regarding the one being cupped: Expiation is upon him. Malik said: Expiation is mandatory for everything that violates the fast, except for apostasy; because it is breaking the fast in Ramadan, resembling intercourse. [It is narrated from ‘Ata’, al-Hasan, al-Zuhri, al-Thawri, al-Awza‘i, and Ishaq (61) that breaking the fast by eating and drinking necessitates what intercourse necessitates] (62). And this was also said by