The same applies in the case of a woman who becomes pure from menstruation during the day: according to the school, she is required to abstain. Thus, if her husband—who is permitted to break his fast—has intercourse with her, expiation is due from her.

The second view is that they are not required to abstain, because this day is not inviolable in their case: at its beginning, they were breaking the fast with the permission of the Sacred Law. Nor, in our view, is there any fast that becomes obligatory during the day, except when legally valid testimony establishing the beginning of the month is given; that is a different matter. Accordingly, expiation is not due from them if intercourse takes place.

This is the stronger view. Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, may Allah be pleased with him, said: “Whoever breaks his fast at the beginning of the day should break it at its end.” (1) That is, whoever is permitted to break his fast at the beginning of the day is likewise permitted to break it at the end.

Note: The apparent meaning of his statement, “one who is required to abstain if he has intercourse,” includes the case of one who has intercourse at the beginning of the day before the commencement of the month has been established, and then its commencement is established afterwards. He is then required to abstain and to offer expiation. The correct view, however, is that expiation is not due from him, because he was unaware.

Issue: Whoever invalidates his fast by eating or drinking must abstain for the rest of the day and make it up, while being sinful. If he then has intercourse with his wife, expiation is due from him, because his eating and drinking were unlawful for him.

His statement: “If someone has intercourse while healthy, then falls ill, becomes insane, or travels, the expiation is not waived.”