The correct view is that if the man has an excuse due to ignorance, forgetfulness, or coercion, then he is not required to make up the fast or offer expiation. The same applies to the woman: if she has an excuse due to ignorance, forgetfulness, or coercion, then she is not required to make up the fast or offer expiation.

According to the madhhab, she must make up the fast but is not required to offer expiation. This is one of the peculiarities of legal knowledge: that an excuse is deemed effective with respect to one of two obligations but not the other. For the implication of an excuse is that it should either affect them both or affect neither of them. You have already learned the correct view on this matter.

An important issue: the jurists, may Allah have mercy on them, said that it is not possible for a man to be coerced into sexual intercourse—that is, a man cannot be forced to have intercourse—because intercourse necessarily requires the penis to become engorged and erect, and this cannot occur in one who is coerced.

It may be said: This is incorrect. If a person is threatened with death, imprisonment, or the like, and then approaches a woman, he is not immune from becoming erect. Thus, when they say that this is impossible, we say: Rather, it is possible.

If someone were to ask: Was not the man who came to the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, ignorant?

The answer is that he was ignorant of what was required of him; he was not ignorant that it was unlawful. This is why he said, “I am ruined.” (1) When we say that ignorance is an excuse, we do not mean ignorance of what results from this prohibited act; rather, we mean ignorance of the act itself—whether it is unlawful or not. Thus, if someone were to commit fornication while ignorant that it is prohibited, and he was someone who had lived outside Muslim lands