I say: In this matter the earlier view is the stronger one, and—on the preferred opinion—the “guardian” (walī) is any relative. If a non-relative fasts for the deceased with the guardian’s permission, the fast is valid; if he does so on his own initiative, it is not, according to the sounder view. Should the deceased have owed any prayers or a spiritual retreat (iʿtikāf), neither of these is performed on his behalf and no fidya is due; as for the retreat, there is a dissenting opinion—Allah knows best.
The preponderant position is that a mudd of food is obligatory for anyone who breaks the fast because of old age. With regard to a pregnant or nursing woman: if she breaks the fast out of fear for herself, she must make up the day without fidya; but if the fear is for the child, then fidya is required as well, according to the more apparent view. The soundest position is that the same ruling as for the nursing mother applies to anyone who breaks the fast to rescue a person on the brink of death—not to someone who deliberately eats during Ramadan without intercourse.
Whoever postpones making up Ramadan fasts, though able to do so, until another Ramadan arrives, must, in addition to the make-up, give a mudd for each missed day; the sounder opinion is that the payment repeats with every passing year. If he delays while able and then dies, two mudds are taken from his estate for each day—one for missing the fast and one for the delay. The fidya is distributed to the poor and the destitute; multiple mudds may be given to a single recipient, and the commodity is the same as that used for the zakāt al-fiṭr.
Section
An expiation (kaffāra) becomes obligatory when a day of Ramadan is invalidated by intercourse for which one is culpable because he was required to be fasting. No expiation is due from someone who forgets, from a person who ruins a fast other than that of Ramadan, from one who invalidates it by something other than intercourse, or from a traveler who has intercourse intending to avail himself of the travel concession; according to the sounder view, the same holds when the traveler violates the fast by other means. Likewise, no expiation is due from one who thought it was night and then discovered it was day, from someone who had intercourse after eating forgetfully and assumed that the eating had already broken his fast—even though the stronger opinion is that his fast is indeed invalid—or from one who committed fornication while unaware that he was fasting, or from a traveler who, relying on the concession, broke the fast through fornication.
The expiation is incumbent upon the husband on his own behalf; one view holds that it covers both him and his wife, while another obliges her to offer a separate expiation. It is also required of someone who alone sighted the new moon and then had intercourse that day; whoever has intercourse on two different days owes two expiations. The onset of travel after the act does not remove the obligation, nor does subsequent illness, according to the established view. Together with the expiation, the day that was spoiled must be made up, on the correct opinion.
The expiation consists, in order, of freeing a believing slave; if that is not possible, fasting two consecutive lunar months; and if one is unable, then feeding.