a sacrificial camel, making up the pilgrimage, the invalidation of the rite, continuing with it, and sin.

They reasoned that coercion into intercourse is impossible, because intercourse cannot occur without an erection, and there can be no erection under coercion. But this reasoning is unsound. As for the claim that there can be no erection under coercion, it may simply be denied. If his wife, who is young and attractive to him, were to force him, saying, “Either you do it, or I will kill you,” he would face two options: either he leaves her and allows her to carry out her threat, or he has intercourse with her in that situation. Once he approaches her, whatever the circumstances may be, he will have an erection. Thus, the assertion that intercourse cannot take place under coercion is incorrect.

Intercourse can undoubtedly take place under coercion; yet they maintain that the expiation is not waived in such a case.

His statement, “and hunting,” means that forgetfulness is not accepted as an excuse for killing game. The same applies to ignorance and coercion. (1) They say: because it constitutes damage, and liability for damage applies equally whether it is deliberate or otherwise.

We say: Glory be to Allah! The One who judges concerning His servants and between them says: “Whoever among you kills it deliberately must make compensation equivalent to what he killed of grazing livestock.” [al-Ma'idah 5:95] Yet we say: whoever kills it, deliberately or otherwise, must make compensation equivalent to what he killed of grazing livestock. This is impossible!

Moreover, “deliberately” is a description relevant to the ruling, and therefore it must be taken into consideration. When the descriptions upon which rulings are made contingent are shown to be relevant to those rulings, they become effective legal causes: the ruling exists when they exist and ceases when they cease. Otherwise, the description would serve no purpose.