Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (6/410)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

This is the opposite of the previous issue: that is, he had intercourse while healthy and fasting, then fell ill during the day with an illness that permits him to break the fast. Expiation is therefore due from him, even though he is permitted to break his fast at the end of the day. Yet, at the time of intercourse, he was not among those permitted to break the fast, so expiation became binding upon him.

Likewise, if he has intercourse while sane, then becomes insane during the day, his fast is invalidated by the insanity, yet expiation is due from him, because at the time of intercourse he was subject to the obligation.

Similarly, if he has intercourse at the beginning of the day and then travels during it, he is permitted to break his fast, but expiation is due from him.

If he says, “I was permitted to break my fast at the end of the day, so no expiation is due from me—just as one who was permitted to break his fast at the beginning of the day and had intercourse at its end, concerning whom you held that no expiation is due. What, then, is the difference?”

The answer is that the difference is very clear: when you had intercourse, you were not permitted to break your fast; rather, you were required to fast. The excuse that arose only arose after you had violated the sanctity of the time. Thus, the difference is evident.

Expiation is not due for anything other than intercourse during a Ramadan fast. …

His statement, “Expiation is not due for anything other than intercourse during a Ramadan fast”: the author, may Allah have mercy on him, intended to clarify which fast-breaking acts require expiation. He explained that expiation is not due for anything other than intercourse during a Ramadan fast. Thus, there are two conditions:

First, the act that invalidates the fast must be intercourse. Second, it must occur during a Ramadan fast. We add two further conditions: first, that the fast be observed on time; and second, that the person be among those required to fast.

Therefore, expiation is not due for intercourse during a voluntary fast, or during the fast

هذه عكس المسألة السابقة، أي: أنه جامع وهو معافى صائم، ثم مرض في أثناء النهار بمرض يبيح له الفطر فتلزمه الكفارة، مع أنه في آخر النهار يباح له أن يفطر، لكن هو حين الجماع كان ممن لم يؤذن له بالفطر فلزمته الكفارة. وكذلك أيضاً من جامع وهو عاقل، ثم جن في أثناء النهار، فالصوم يبطل بالجنون وعليه الكفارة؛ لأنه حين الجماع من أهل الوجوب. وكذلك من جامع في أول النهار، ثم سافر في أثنائه، فإنه يباح له الفطر، وتلزمه الكفارة. فإذا قال: قد أذن لي بالفطر آخر النهار فلا كفارة علي، كالذي أذن له بالفطر أول النهار وجامع في آخره ورجحتم أنه لا كفارة عليه فما الفرق؟ فالجواب: أن الفرق ظاهر جداً، فأنت حينما جامعت لم يؤذن لك بالفطر، بل أنت ملزم بالصوم، وما طرأ من العذر فهو طارئ بعد انتهاكك لحرمة الزمن، فظهر الفرق. وَلَا تَجِبُ الكَفَّارَةُ بِغَيْرِ الجِمَاعِ فِي صِيَامِ رَمَضَانَ. ........ قوله: «ولا تجب الكفارة بغير الجماع في صيام رمضان» أراد المؤلف ﵀ أن يبين ما تجب به الكفارة من المفطرات، فبين أنها لا تجب بغير الجماع في صيام رمضان فهذان شرطان: الأول: أن يكون مفسد الصوم جماعاً، والثاني: أن يكون في صيام رمضان، ونزيد شرطين آخرين أحدهما: أن يكون الصيام أداء، والثاني: أن يكون ممن يلزمه الصوم. فلا تجب الكفارة بالجماع في صيام النفل، أو في صيام