and al-Awza'i. Hanbal narrated from Ahmad that there is an atonement (kaffarah) upon him. This is the view of al-Hasan, al-Zuhri, and the choice of the Qadi, because it is an act of worship corrupted by the very act of intercourse itself, so an atonement is required for the act of intercourse during it, like Hajj and the fast of Ramadan. To us, it is an act of worship that is not required by the origin of the Law (Shari'ah), so no atonement is required for its corruption, like supererogatory (nawafil) acts. Furthermore, it is an act of worship that does not allow for financial compensation (jibran) to repair it, so no atonement is required for its corruption, like prayer. Moreover, the obligation of an atonement is only established by the Shari'ah, and the Shari'ah has not specified its obligation, so it remains according to the original state. What they mentioned is invalidated by prayer and fasting other than Ramadan. Analogy (Qiyas) to Hajj is not valid, because it is distinct from all other acts of worship; this is why it continues even in its invalid state, is required once started, and requires a sacrificial camel (badana) for intercourse during it, unlike others. Also, if an atonement were required here by analogy to it, it would necessitate that it be a camel; for the ruling in the derivative case (far') is established according to the nature of the ruling in the original case (asl), since analogy is merely the extension of the channel of the ruling, so the text (nass) stated for the original becomes applicable to the derivative, and the ruling established in the original is established in the derivative itself. As for the analogy to fasting, it points to the negation of an atonement, because for all fasting, no atonement is required for intercourse during it except for Ramadan, and I'tikaf is more similar to non-Ramadan fasting, as it is a supererogatory act that is not required unless through a vow. Furthermore, it is not correct to compare it to Ramadan as well, because intercourse during it only necessitates an atonement due to the sanctity of the time (of Ramadan), and therefore it is required for everyone obligated to abstain (imsak), even if they do not spoil a fast with it. Those who obligate an atonement for it disagreed; the Qadi said: The atonement for Zihar is required. This is the view of al-Hasan, al-Zuhri, and the apparent meaning of Ahmad's words in the narration of Hanbal; for it was narrated from al-Zuhri that he said: 'Whoever commits sexual intercourse during his I'tikaf is like the state of the one who performs Zihar.' Then Abu 'Abd Allah said: 'If it is daytime, the atonement is required upon him.' It is possible that Abu 'Abd Allah only obligated the atonement upon him if he did that during Ramadan; because he considered that during the day due to the fast. If it were for I'tikaf alone, the obligation would not have been specific to the daytime, just as the corruption (by intercourse) was not specific to it.