Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (6/400)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

The third condition is that the intercourse take place in the vagina or anus. This is indicated by his statement, “whether vaginally or anally, he must make up the fast and offer expiation.” “Vaginally” includes both lawful and unlawful intercourse. Thus, if he commits fornication, the ruling is the same as if he had intercourse in a lawful private part.

His statement, “or anally”: Anal intercourse is impermissible, but scholars discuss legal issues without regard to whether the act itself is lawful or unlawful.

His statement, “he must make up the fast”: This is because he has invalidated an obligatory fast, and therefore must make it up, just as with the prayer. This is the view held by the majority of the scholars. Some scholars maintain that whoever deliberately invalidates his fast without an excuse is not required to make it up. This does not mean that waiving the make-up fast is a concession; rather, making it up would not benefit him. This was the view of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah—may Allah have mercy on him.

However, someone might object to this view and say: If you hold this position, it means that the things which invalidate the fast serve no purpose, for you stipulate that they only invalidate it when done deliberately, yet you say that if someone deliberately breaks his fast, he does not have to make it up. How can this be?

The answer, according to this view, is that the things which invalidate the fast have an effect where breaking the fast is permitted due to an excuse. But where there is no excuse, these things invalidate his fast, though he is not required to make it up. The majority of the scholars, however, hold that he must make it up, even if he deliberately breaks the fast. This differs from a man who did not fast that day at all and deliberately abandoned it. In his case, the stronger view is that of Shaykh al-Islam: making it up does not benefit him. The difference between this case and that of one who began the fast is that whoever begins fasting has committed himself to it and made it binding upon himself. Thus, if he invalidates it, he is required to make it up, just as with a vow, unlike one who did not fast at all.

His statement, “and offer expiation”: This is out of reverence for the sanctity of the time. Accordingly, if it were

الشرط الثالث: أن يكون في قبل أو دبر وإليه الإشارة. بقوله: «في قبل أو دبر فعليه القضاء والكفارة» والقبل يشمل الحلال والحرام، فلو زنى فهو كما لو جامع في فرج حلال. وقوله: «أو دبر» الجماع في الدبر غير جائز لكن العلماء يذكرون المسائل بقطع النظر عن كونها حلالاً أو حراماً. وقوله: «فعليه القضاء»؛ لأنه أفسد صومه الواجب فلزمه القضاء كالصلاة، وهذا هو الذي عليه جمهور أهل العلم، وذهب بعض العلماء إلى أن من أفسد صومه عامداً بدون عذر، فلا قضاء عليه وليس عدم القضاء تخفيفاً، لكنه لا ينفعه القضاء، وإلى هذا ذهب شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية ﵀ لكن لو قال قائل يرد على هذا القول: إنكم إذا قلتم بذلك فمعناه أن المفطرات لا فائدة منها؛ لأنكم تشترطون في المفطرات أن يكون متعمداً وأنتم تقولون: إذا أفطر متعمداً فلا قضاء فكيف ذلك؟ الجواب: نقول على هذا الرأي تكون المفطرات نافعة فيما إذا جاز الفطر لعذر، أما إذا كان لغير عذر فإن هذه المفطرات تفسد صومه ولا يلزمه القضاء، لكن جمهور أهل العلم على أنه يلزمه القضاء، ولو تعمد الفطر بخلاف الرجل الذي لم يصم ذلك اليوم أصلاً وتركه متعمداً، فإن الراجح ما ذهب إليه شيخ الإسلام من أنه لا ينفعه القضاء، والفرق بين هذه المسألة وبين من شرع في الصوم أن من شرع في الصوم فقد التزمه وألزم نفسه به، فإذا أفسده ألزم بقضائه كالنذر بخلاف من لم يصم أصلاً. وقوله: «والكفارة» احتراماً للزمن، وبناء على ذلك لو كان