takes account of the highest category of fast-breaking, whereas Mālik considers fast-breaking without qualification. Their disagreement therefore concerns someone who breaks his fast by swallowing a pebble, a date stone or something similar. There is also a report from Ahmad that someone who breaks his fast through cupping must offer expiation, as with other acts that invalidate the fast. Through acts of intercourse—as for eating, drinking and similar acts, no expiation is due for these.

They then disagreed over whether this requires the breaking of a valid fast. Al-Shāfiʿī and others stipulate this condition. Thus, if someone eats and then has intercourse, begins the day without intending to fast and then has intercourse, or has intercourse, offers expiation and then has intercourse again, no expiation is due from him, because he did not have intercourse during a valid fast.

Ahmad, according to the apparent position of his school, and others maintain that expiation is indeed obligatory in these and similar cases. This is because the person was obliged to abstain during Ramadan, so his fast is invalid, resembling an invalid state of ihrām. Just as someone in ihrām for Hajj who invalidates his ihrām must continue in it, refraining from the acts it prohibits, and incurs the same consequences for committing any of them as he would in a valid state of ihrām, so too must someone obliged to fast Ramadan continue to abstain, even though his fast has been invalidated by eating, intercourse or the absence of an intention. He remains obliged to refrain from the acts prohibited during fasting. If he commits any of them, he incurs the same consequences as during a fast