Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (6/405)

Islamic lands—such as one who has only recently embraced Islam, or who has lived in a remote desert region where people do not know that fornication is prohibited—and he commits fornication, then no prescribed legal punishment is to be imposed on him. But if he knows that fornication is unlawful, yet does not know that its punishment is stoning, or flogging and exile, then the prescribed punishment is imposed on him, because he has violated the sanctity of what is forbidden. Ignorance of the consequences entailed by a prohibited act is not an excuse; rather, ignorance as to whether the act itself is prohibited or not is an excuse.

His statement: “Or if one who had intended to fast while travelling has intercourse, his fast is invalidated, but no expiation is due.” His statement, “one who had intended to fast while travelling,” means that he was fasting while on a journey. “His fast is invalidated,” means that his fast is rendered invalid through intercourse.

For example, a person is travelling a distance that permits him to break his fast, and he fasts; then, during the day, he has intercourse with his wife. His fast is invalidated because he has had intercourse, and intercourse is one of the acts that invalidate the fast. Yet no expiation is due from him, because he has not violated the sanctity of the fast: fasting is not obligatory upon him while travelling. He must, however, make up that day. Accordingly, those who go for umrah during Ramadan and fast there, then one of them has intercourse with his wife during the daytime, owe no expiation, because he is a traveller. A traveller is permitted to break his fast, and thus he is permitted to have intercourse and eat. This applies if he intends to stay for fewer than four days. If he intends to stay for more than four days, then this is a well-known matter of scholarly disagreement.

The correct view is that he remains a traveller even if he stays for the entire month, and he may break his fast.

His statement, “His fast is invalidated, but no expiation is due,” is the answer to the conditional clause, and it includes the following three cases:

If he engages in sexual activity short of penetration and ejaculates.
If the woman has an excuse.

الإسلامية، بأن يكون حديث عهد بالإسلام، أو عاش في بادية بعيدة لا يعلمون أن الزنى محرّم فزنى فإنه لا حدّ عليه، لكن لو كان يعلم أنّ الزنى حرام، ولا يعلم أن حده الرجم، أو أن حده الجلد والتغريب، فإنه يحد لأنه انتهك الحرمة، فالجهل بما يترتب على الفعل المحرم ليس بعذر، والجهل بالفعل هل هو حرام أو ليس بحرام، هذا عذر. قوله: «أو جامع من نوى الصوم في سفره أفطر ولا كفارة» قوله: «من نوى الصوم في سفره» أي كان صائماً في سفره أفطر أي: فسد صومه بجماعه. مثاله: إنسان مسافر سفراً يبيح الفطر فصام، ثم في أثناء النهار جامع زوجته، فهذا يُفطر لأنه جامع، والجماع من المفطرات وليس عليه كفارة؛ لأنه لم ينتهك حرمة الصوم حيث إن الصوم لا يجب عليه في السفر ويلزمه القضاء، وعليه فالذين يذهبون إلى العمرة في رمضان ويصومون هناك، ثم يجامع أحدهم زوجته في النهار ليس عليه كفارة؛ لأنه مسافر، والمسافر يباح له الفطر فيباح له الجماع والأكل، هذا إذا نوى أقل من أربعة أيام، أما إذا نوى أكثر من أربعة أيام، فالمسألة خلافية معروفة. والصحيح أنه مسافر حتى لو أقام الشهر كله يجوز له الفطر. وقوله: «أفطر ولا كفارة» هذا جواب الشرط وهو يشمل الصور الثلاث: ١ ـ إذا جامع دون الفرج فأنزل. ٢ ـ إذا كانت المرأة معذورة.