intercourse, therefore the state of choice and the state of compulsion are equal in this regard, like the Hajj. It is not valid to draw an analogy of intercourse to other things regarding the lack of invalidation, due to the emphasis placed upon it by the obligation of expiation, its invalidating effect on the Hajj among all other prohibited acts, and the obligation of the legal punishment (hadd) for it if it constitutes adultery (zina).

Section: Expiation is not obligatory for breaking the fast at times other than Ramadan, according to the scholars and the majority of the jurists. Qatada said: It is obligatory for one who engages in intercourse during a compensatory fast (qada') of Ramadan, because it is an act of worship for which expiation is obligatory during its performance, so it is obligatory during its compensation, like the Hajj. Our evidence is that he engaged in intercourse at a time other than Ramadan, so no expiation is required of him, just as if he had engaged in intercourse during a fast of expiation. Furthermore, the compensatory fast differs from the performance fast because the latter is fixed to a sacred time, so intercourse during it is a violation of that sacredness, unlike the compensatory fast.

Section: If he engages in intercourse at the beginning of the day, then falls ill, or becomes insane, or if it is a woman and she menstruates or experiences postpartum bleeding during the course of the day, the expiation is not dropped. This is the view of Malik, al-Layth, Ibn al-Majishun, and Ishaq. The scholars of opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y) said: There is no expiation upon them. There are two opinions for al-Shafi'i, corresponding to these two schools of thought. They argued that the fast of this day has ceased to be binding, so expiation does not become obligatory by intercourse during it, like the fast of a traveler or as if evidence were established that it was [the first day of] Shawwal. Our evidence is that this is a factor that occurred after the obligation of expiation had already been established, so it does not nullify it, similar to travel. Also, he has invalidated a fast that was obligatory in Ramadan through a complete act of intercourse, so the expiation is established upon him, just as if no excuse had intervened. Intercourse during the fast of a traveler is prohibited, and even if it were conceded, the intercourse there did not constitute an obligation in the first place, because it is permitted intercourse during a journey in which breaking the fast is permissible, contrary to our issue. The same applies if it becomes clear that it was Shawwal, for the intercourse is not a cause for obligation because it has become clear that the intercourse did not coincide with Ramadan, and the cause of the obligation is only intercourse that invalidates a fast of Ramadan.