of an oath’s expiation, the fast prescribed as compensation for harm, the fast required of one performing tamattuʿ who cannot find a sacrificial animal, or a vowed fast. Nor is expiation due if one has intercourse while making up a missed Ramadan fast, or if one has intercourse in Ramadan while travelling. Likewise, expiation is not due for ejaculation caused by kissing, physical contact, or the like, because this is not intercourse.

The author specifically mentioned this issue, despite the basic principle being that no expiation is due—and it has already been discussed—because when jurists negate a ruling whose absence is already known, they intend to point out that there is a contrary view. There are three opinions concerning this issue:

The first view is that breaking the fast through ejaculation is like intercourse, since it is of the same kind. Accordingly, they hold that expiation is due if one breaks his fast through ejaculation resulting from physical contact, kissing, or the like. This is one narration from Imam Ahmad, but it is weak.

The second view is that if a person intends to violate the sanctity of Ramadan, he must make up the fast and offer expiation, because his intention was not merely to break the fast, but to violate its sanctity. This view, too, is weak.

The third view is that expiation is required for eating and drinking when done for nourishment or medication, unlike eating and drinking that is neither for medication nor nourishment: it breaks the fast, but entails no expiation. All of these views are based on opinions that have no basis in either the Quran or the sunnah. The correct view is that expiation is due only for intercourse during the daytime in Ramadan, because expiation has been reported only in this case. The basic principle is freedom from liability and the absence of obligation; thus, we restrict ourselves solely to what the textual evidence establishes.