instruct him to do so, this indicates that making up the fast would no longer be accepted from him. This also indicates that he had deliberately broken his fast, rather than acting forgetfully or out of ignorance.

Concerning someone who has intercourse forgetfully, there are three opinions within the school of Ahmad and among other scholars. Three positions are also reported from Ahmad:

The first: he is required neither to make up the fast nor to offer expiation. This is the position of al-Shāfi‘ī, Abū Hanīfah, and the majority of scholars.

The second: he must make up the fast but need not offer expiation. This is Mālik’s position.

The third: he must do both. This is the well-known position reported from Ahmad.

The first opinion is stronger, as has been explained at length elsewhere. The evidence of the Quran and Sunnah establishes that Allah does not hold a person accountable for a prohibited act committed by mistake or forgetfully. Such a person is therefore in the same position as someone who did not commit it, and incurs no sin. Someone who incurs no sin is neither disobedient nor guilty of committing what he was forbidden to do. He has therefore done what he was commanded to do and has not done what he was forbidden to do. Such conduct does not invalidate his worship. Worship is invalidated only when a person fails to do what he was commanded to do or does what he was forbidden to do.

The consistent implication of this principle is that Hajj is not invalidated by any prohibited act committed forgetfully or by mistake, whether intercourse or anything else. This is the stronger of al-Shāfi‘ī’s two opinions.