The discussion extends to one who breaks the fast by intercourse, to one who breaks it by something other than intercourse, to one who does so on the basis of an act about which there is unanimous agreement, and to one who does so through a matter that is disputed—whether with a plausible legal pretext (shubha) or without one. Each of these situations may further occur through forgetfulness, through deliberate intent, by free choice, or under coercion.

As for the person who deliberately has intercourse during Ramadan, the majority of jurists maintain that he must both make up the fast and offer the expiation mentioned in the ḥadīth, relying on the report from Abū Hurayrah:

“A man came to the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, and said, ‘I have perished, O Messenger of Allah!’ He asked, ‘What has brought about your ruin?’ The man replied, ‘I had intercourse with my wife in Ramadan.’ He said, ‘Can you find a slave to set free?’ He answered, ‘No.’ He said, ‘Are you able to fast two consecutive months?’ He replied, ‘No.’ He said, ‘Can you feed sixty poor people?’ He said, ‘No.’ The man then sat down. Presently a large basket of dates was brought to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, who said, ‘Give this in charity.’ The man said, ‘Is there anyone poorer than we are? By Allah, there is no household between these two lava fields that is more in need of it than ours.’ The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, laughed until his canines showed and then said, ‘Go and feed it to your family.’”

On the basis of this narration the jurists disagreed over several points:

1. Does deliberately breaking the fast by eating or drinking incur the same requirement to make up the day and pay the expiation as breaking it by intercourse, or not?
2. If someone has intercourse forgetfully, what is required of him?
3. What is incumbent upon the woman if she was a willing participant?
4. Is the expiation obligatory in the stated sequence, or may one choose among its forms?
5. What quantity must be given to each poor person when the expiation is performed by feeding?
6. Does the expiation repeat with every act of intercourse, or not?
7. If feeding the poor becomes obligatory while the offender is unable to afford it, must he do so later if he becomes solvent?

A minority held that the person who breaks the fast deliberately by intercourse is liable only for making up the day, either because the ḥadīth never reached them or because they considered the Prophet’s instruction therein to be non-binding. For, they argue, had it been obligatory then, when the man was unable to free a slave or feed the poor, he would necessarily have been ordered to fast—and that is what the apparent wording of the ḥadīth requires so long as he is physically able. Likewise, had it been a strict obligation, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, would have informed him that once he recovered his health he would have to fast if illness had prevented him.

Another fringe view stated that only the expiation is due, since the ḥadīth makes no mention of making up the day. They argue that the Qur’ānic command to make up missed fasts applies solely to those whose breaking of the fast is permitted, or to those for whom fasting is forbidden in the first place, according to the difference of opinion set out earlier. As for one who deliberately breaks the fast, there is no explicit text obligating him to make it up. Hence the controversy over making up a deliberately missed fast parallels the dispute over making up a deliberately missed prayer after its time has elapsed, though both debates are considered anomalous.

The well-known disagreement, then, concerns the issues that we have just enumerated.