explicitly stipulated, nor is it in the meaning of that which is stipulated; therefore, it remains upon the original principle. If a man whose penis has been cut off (majbub) engages in friction (musahaqa) and ejaculates, his ruling is the same as that of one who engages in intercourse without the vagina and ejaculates.

Section: If a woman engages in intercourse while having forgotten that she is fasting, Abu al-Khattab said: The ruling for forgetfulness is the ruling for compulsion; there is no expiation upon her in either case, but she must perform the compensatory fast (qada'). This is because intercourse results in the breaking of the fast for a man even with forgetfulness, so it is likewise for a woman. It is possible that she is not required to perform the compensatory fast, because it is an invalidator that does not necessitate expiation, so it resembles eating.

Section: If a man is compelled to engage in intercourse, his fast is invalidated, because if the woman's fast is invalidated, then the man's fast is even more so. As for expiation, al-Qadi said: Expiation is upon him, because compulsion into intercourse is impossible; for he cannot have intercourse unless his member is erect, and it does not become erect except due to desire, so he is like one who is not compelled. Abu al-Khattab said: There are two reports regarding this; one of them is that there is no expiation upon him, and this is the school of al-Shafi'i. This is because the expiation is either a punishment or something that wipes away sin, and there is no need for it in the presence of compulsion, due to the absence of sin in it and due to the statement of the Prophet - peace and blessings of Allah be upon him -: "My nation is pardoned for errors, forgetfulness, and what they are compelled to do." Moreover, the Law (Shar') did not bring forth an obligation of expiation in this case, and it is not valid to draw an analogy to what the Law has decreed because the two cases differ in the presence or absence of an excuse. As for if he was asleep, such as if his member was erect while he was asleep and his wife inserted it [into her], Ibn 'Aqil said: There is neither compensatory fast nor expiation upon him. The same applies if it was by physical force (ilja'), such as if she overcame him while he was awake. This is the school of al-Shafi'i, because it is a matter prohibited by the fast that occurred without his choice, so he did not break his fast by it, just as if the wind blew a fly into his throat. The apparent view of Ahmad is that the compensatory fast is upon him, because he said regarding the woman whom a man forced against her will and had intercourse with: She must perform the compensatory fast. Therefore, the man is more deserving [of that ruling]. And because fasting is an act of worship that is invalidated by