a badana (camel). This is the opinion of Ibn Abbas, Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, al-Nakha'i, al-Dahhak, Malik, al-Hakam, and Hammad; because Ibn Abbas said: "Offer a she-camel, and let her offer a she-camel." Because she is one of the two people having intercourse without coercion, so a badana is incumbent upon her just like the man. From Ahmad, it is narrated that he said: "I hope that one offering suffices for both of them." This was narrated from Ata', and it is the school of al-Shafi'i; because it is one instance of intercourse, so it does not necessitate more than a badana, as in the case of coercion. A woman who is asleep is like one who is coerced in this regard. As for the corruption of the Hajj, there is no difference in it between the state of coercion and willing consent. We do not know of any disagreement regarding this.

Section: There is no difference between intercourse in the frontal passage or the anal passage, whether with a human or an animal. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i and Abu Thawr. It is derived in the case of intercourse with an animal that the Hajj is not corrupted by it. This is the opinion of Malik and Abu Hanifah; because it does not necessitate the prescribed punishment (hadd), so it resembles intercourse that is not within the private parts. Abu Thawr related from Abu Hanifah that sodomy and intercourse in the anal passage do not corrupt the Hajj; because state of chastity (ihsan) is not established by it, so it does not corrupt the Hajj, like intercourse not within the private parts. Our argument is that it is intercourse within a passage that necessitates ghusl (ritual bathing), so it corrupts the Hajj, like intercourse with a woman in the frontal passage. It differs from intercourse not within the private parts, as that is not among the major sins when done with a stranger, and it does not necessitate a dowry, a waiting period (idda), a prescribed punishment (hadd), or ghusl, unless one ejaculates, in which case it would be like our main issue, according to one narration.

Section: If the intercourse is repeated, then if he has already offered the expiation for the first, another expiation is due for the second, just like the first. If he has not yet offered the expiation for the first, then one expiation suffices. Another narration from him states that there is an expiation for every instance of intercourse; because it is a cause for expiation, so it necessitates it like the first. The school's primary position is the first one; because it is intercourse that necessitates an expiation, so if it is repeated before offering the expiation for the first, it does not necessitate a second expiation, just as in the case of fasting. Abu Hanifah said: He owes a sheep for the second act of intercourse, whether he has offered expiation for the first or not.