corruption, just like the (state of) tahallul (exiting ihram). Our argument is that the statement of the Companions whose opinion we have narrated is absolute regarding anyone who has intercourse while in a state of ihram, and because it is intercourse that occurred while in a complete state of ihram, thus it corrupts it, just as it does before the Standing. His saying, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, "Hajj is Arafat," means it is the major part of it, or that it is a confirmed pillar within it. It does not follow from being safe from missing (fawat) that one is safe from corruption, as evidenced by 'Umrah. Once this is established, it is incumbent upon the one who has intercourse to offer a badana (camel). This was narrated from Ibn Abbas, Ata', Tawus, Mujahid, Malik, al-Shafi'i, and Abu Thawr. Al-Thawri and Ishaq said: A badana is incumbent upon him, and if he cannot find one, then a sheep (shat). The People of Opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y) said: If he has intercourse before the Standing, his Hajj is corrupted and he owes a sheep, but if it is after it, he owes a badana and his Hajj is valid; because before the Standing there is a rationale (ma'nan) that necessitates making it up (qada'), so a badana is not necessitated by it, just like missing the Hajj (fawat). Our argument is that it is intercourse that occurred while in a complete state of ihram, so a badana is necessitated by it, just as it is after the Standing, and because it is the opinion of those we named among the Companions, and they did not distinguish between before the Standing and after it. As for fawat (missing the Hajj), it is distinct from intercourse by consensus, and for this reason, they do not mandate a sheep for it, unlike intercourse. If the woman was coerced into the intercourse, there is no hady (offering) upon her, nor is it upon the man to offer it on her behalf. Ahmad stated this clearly; because it is intercourse that necessitates an expiation (kaffara), so it is not necessitated during coercion more than a single expiation, as in the case of fasting. This is the opinion of Ishaq, Abu Thawr, and Ibn al-Mundhir. From Ahmad, there is another narration: that it is upon him to offer it on her behalf. This is the opinion of Ata' and Malik; because the corruption of the Hajj was found to come from him in relation to both of them, so an offering is due from him for his corrupting of her Hajj, by analogy to his own Hajj. From him, there is also that which indicates that the offering is upon her; because the corruption of the Hajj is established in relation to her, so the offering is upon her, just as if she had willingly consented. It is possible that he intended that the offering is upon her, to be borne by the husband on her behalf, so it would not be a third narration. As for the state of willing consent, upon each one of them...