fifteen ṣāʿs. Yet the mere fact that the farq held fifteen ṣāʿs gives only a weak indication of how much must be given to each needy person; it simply shows that the substitute for fasting in this expiation amounts to that total.

The sixth issue—namely, whether the expiation is repeated when the deliberate breaking of the fast is repeated—is as follows. The jurists unanimously agree that if a man has intercourse on one day of Ramadan, makes the expiation, and then has intercourse on another day, he must offer a new expiation. They likewise concur that if he has intercourse several times in the same day, only one expiation is due.

They disagreed, however, about a man who has intercourse on one day of Ramadan and, before offering the expiation, does so again on a second day. Mālik, al-Shāfiʿī, and a group of scholars hold that an expiation is required for each day, whereas Abū Ḥanīfah and his colleagues say that a single expiation suffices so long as he has not yet performed the first one.

The cause of their disagreement is whether expiations should be analogized to the ḥudūd-penalties. Those who draw the analogy maintain that one expiation covers many acts, just as a fornicator receives a single flogging even if he has committed fornication a thousand times, provided he has not yet been punished for any of them. Those who reject the analogy treat each day’s breach of the fast as a separate offense, and therefore impose a separate expiation for each day.

They add that the difference between the two is that expiation has a devotional aspect, whereas the ḥudūd are purely deterrent.

The seventh issue concerns a man who was insolvent when expiation became due: must he feed the poor if he later becomes solvent? Al-Awzāʿī says that nothing further is required of him if he was destitute at the time; al-Shāfiʿī wavered between the two positions.

The root of their disagreement is that the revealed texts are silent on the matter. One may analogize it to debts, in which case the obligation revives when the person gains wealth; or one may argue that, had later feeding been obligatory, the Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him—would have stated so explicitly.

These, then, are the rulings that apply to one who deliberately breaks the fast in Ramadan by an act unanimously acknowledged to invalidate the fast.

As for breaking the fast by an act over which there is disagreement, some of those who deem it invalidating require both making up the day and expiation, while others require only the makeup. Such acts include cupping, self-induced vomiting, swallowing a pebble, and the traveler’s breaking the fast on the first day of his journey according to the view that doing so is not permitted. Mālik obligates both makeup and expiation in all of these cases, whereas the other jurists of the major cities—and the majority of Mālik’s own companions—disagree with him.

Those who obligate both makeup and expiation for self-induced vomiting—Abū Thawr, al-Awzāʿī, and others who consider vomiting to invalidate the fast—ultimately require only the makeup. And the view that imposes both makeup and expiation in the case of cupping