Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (6/407)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

Although this view has some basis in reasoning and some strength, it should not be given as a legal verdict; for if such a verdict were issued, people would violate the sanctity of the entire month. However, if a mufti who considers the view that the expiation is not repeated to be preponderant sees a benefit in it, there is no harm in issuing such a verdict privately, as some scholars do with matters on which they give private rulings, such as a triple divorce.

The second issue: if he has intercourse twice on the same day, then, if he makes expiation for the first act, he must make another expiation for the second. But if he has not made expiation for the first, one expiation suffices for both. This is because the cause entailing expiation and the act that brings it about are one, and the day is one; therefore, the expiation is not repeated.

According to the view of the three Imams—and it is also one view within the Hanbali school—no expiation is required for the second act. This is because his fast was invalidated by the first intercourse, so in reality he is no longer fasting, even though he is still required to abstain. Yet this abstention does not count as a valid fast, so expiation is not required of him, since expiation becomes obligatory when one invalidates a valid fast. This view, too, has a basis in reasoning.

For example, a man has intercourse early in the day, fifteen minutes after sunrise, then makes expiation by freeing a slave, and then has intercourse again after noon. According to the school, a second expiation is required of him, because he made expiation for the first act. At this point, although he is not fasting in the legal sense, he is nevertheless required to abstain. According to the second view, however, no expiation is required, because the intercourse did not occur during a valid fast; rather, it occurred only during a period of abstention. Upon considering the matter, one finds that the second view is stronger: after he has invalidated his fast, no further expiation is required of him, because he is no longer fasting. As for abstention, he is still required to abstain, because whoever breaks his fast without a valid excuse is forbidden to continue breaking his fast.

وهذا القول وإن كان له حظ من النظر والقوة، لكن لا تنبغي الفتيا به؛ لأنه لو أفتي به لانتهك الناس حرمات الشهر كله، لكن لو رأى المفتي الذي ترجح عنده عدم تكرر الكفارة مصلحة في ذلك، فلا بأس أن يفتي به سراً، كما يصنع بعض العلماء فيما يفتون به سراً كالطلاق الثلاث. المسألة الثانية: إذا جامع في يوم واحد مرتين، فإن كفر عن الأول لزمه كفارة عن الثاني، وإن لم يكفر عن الأول أجزأه كفارة واحدة؛ وذلك لأن الموجَب والموجِب واحد، واليوم واحد، فلا تتكرر الكفارة. ومذهب الأئمة الثلاثة وهو قول في المذهب لا يلزمه عن الثاني كفارة؛ لأن يومه فسد بالجماع الأول، فهو في الحقيقة غير صائم، وإن كان يلزمه الإمساك، لكن ليس هذا الإمساك مجزئاً عن صوم، فلا تلزمه الكفارة؛ لأن الكفارة تلزم إذا أفسد صوماً صحيحاً، وهذا القول له وجه من النظر أيضاً. مثاله: رجل جامع في أول النهار بعد طلوع الشمس بربع ساعة، ثم كفر بعتق رقبة، ثم جامع بعد الظهر، فعلى المذهب يلزمه كفارة ثانية؛ لأنه كفر عن الأولى، وهو الآن وإن كان ليس صائماً صوماً شرعياً لكنه يلزمه الإمساك، وعلى القول الثاني لا تلزمه الكفارة؛ لأن الجماع لم يرد على صوم صحيح، وإنما ورد على إمساك فقط، وإذا تأملت المسألة وجدت أن القول الثاني أرجح وأنه لا يلزمه بعد أن أفسد صومه كفارة؛ لأنه ليس صائماً الآن، أما الإمساك فيلزمه الإمساك؛ لأن كل من أفطر لغير عذر حرم عليه أن يستمر في فطره.