As for the first issue—namely, whether expiation (kaffārah) is required when one deliberately breaks the fast by eating or drinking—Mālik and his companions, Abū Ḥanīfah and his companions, al-Thawrī, and a number of other jurists maintain that whoever does so must both make up the day (qaḍāʾ) and perform the expiation mentioned in the ḥadīth.

Al-Shāfiʿī, Aḥmad, and the literalists (Ahl al-Ẓāhir) hold that expiation is incurred only when the fast is broken by intercourse.

The reason for their disagreement lies in whether it is permissible to extend the ruling for intercourse to eating and drinking by analogical reasoning (qiyās). Those who see a single common factor—namely, violating the sanctity of the fast—apply the same ruling to all three acts.

Others respond that, although expiation is indeed a penalty for violating the sanctity of the fast, it is more suitably attached to intercourse than to other acts, because a deterrent punishment is generally made severest for the violation to which the self is most strongly drawn and over which it has the greatest sway, even when the transgressions themselves are comparable. The aim is to make people adhere to the Sacred Law and become upright and trustworthy, as the Exalted says:

“Fasting is prescribed for you as it was prescribed for those before you” (al-Baqarah 2:183).

Thus, according to those who allow qiyās, the aggravated expiation is confined to intercourse. As for those who reject analogical reasoning altogether, the matter is clear: they do not extend the ruling for intercourse to eating and drinking.

With regard to Mālik’s report in the Muwaṭṭaʾ that a man broke his fast in Ramadan and the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—ordered him to perform the expiation mentioned in the ḥadīth, it is not, they argue, decisive proof. The narrator’s phrase “he broke his fast” is unspecified, and an unspecified report cannot be treated as general in scope. The narrator simply spoke that way because he believed expiation was owed for the mere fact of breaking the fast; otherwise he would have identified the specific manner in which it had been broken.

The second issue concerns a person who has intercourse while forgetful of his fast. Al-Shāfiʿī and Abū Ḥanīfah say that neither making up the day nor expiation is required. Mālik holds that he must make up the day but owes no expiation. Aḥmad and the literalists maintain that both making up the day and expiation are obligatory.

Their disagreement over making up the fast stems from a clash between the apparent sense of the textual evidence and analogical reasoning. The analogy likens the one who forgets his fast to the one who forgets a prayer; whoever accepts the parallel obliges making up the fast just as the text obliges making up the missed prayer.

The textual evidence whose apparent meaning opposes this analogy is the ḥadīth recorded by al-Bukhārī and Muslim from Abū Hurayrah: the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “If someone forgets he is fasting and eats or drinks, let him complete his fast, for it is only Allah Who has fed him and given him drink.”