Third: If a marriage contract is concluded while in ihram, and then, after leaving ihram, the man consummates the marriage with his wife and she bears him children, a new contract must be concluded. His initial intercourse is regarded as intercourse under a mistaken assumption of validity, and his children are legitimate children; that is, they are legally ascribed to him, just as they are ascribed to him by divine decree.

There is no expiation, and reconciliation is valid, …

His statement, “There is no expiation,” means that no expiation is required.

The evidence is the absence of evidence; that is, there is no proof establishing that an expiation is obligatory. The default is freedom from liability and non-obligation.

Some scholars said that expiation is required, by analogy with wearing clothing, because the enjoyment a person derives from marriage is greater than that derived from clothing.

The correct view is that no expiation is required. Rather, the person incurs sin, and the marriage contract is invalid.

If someone were to ask: If you apply this principle, then say that no expiation is due for wearing perfume or clothing either, since there is no evidence that an expiation is due for them. The evidence only mentions shaving the head and the compensation for hunting game.

Where is the proof that expiation is obligatory for wearing a shirt, trousers, hooded cloaks, turbans, or leather socks, when the only evidence concerning them is a prohibition?

The answer is that they say: The proof is analogy, because, in their view, the effective cause for prohibiting shaving the head is personal comfort, and a person derives comfort from clothing.

Issue: If someone asks: What if he concludes the contract without knowing that concluding a marriage contract while in ihram is prohibited?

The answer is that he incurs no sin, as will come, Allah willing; but the contract is invalid, because contracts are judged according to the actual state of affairs.