then he must fast two consecutive months; if he is unable to fast, he must feed sixty needy persons, the same expiation prescribed for ẓihār.

If intercourse is repeated within a single month of Ramadan before the expiation is carried out, one expiation covers all occurrences. She, therefore, owes one expiation and her husband owes another, as we have mentioned, and a single expiation suffices for each of them for every time intercourse took place, so long as no expiation was offered between the two acts.

Question: What if the wife was coerced in this situation?

Answer: If she was forced and had absolutely no choice—that is, he compelled her—then no expiation is due from her; the expiation rests upon him alone.

Question: And is ignorance not an excuse in this case?

Answer: As for the claim that she was ignorant, such ignorance is no excuse, for she lives among Muslims and hears that fasting is obligatory and that it has regulations. This is inexcusable ignorance, since she could have asked and learned Allah’s ruling. The ignorance that can be excused applies only to someone who is distant from the Muslims, with no Muslims around him—someone who grew up in a remote desert or in lands far from Muslims and hears nothing of the Book of Allah or the Sunnah of His Messenger.

As for the verse you cited—“Your Lord has prescribed mercy for Himself: whoever among you does evil in ignorance and then repents thereafter and reforms, He is indeed Forgiving, Merciful” (6:54)—the ignorance meant here is not ignorance of the ruling or lack of knowledge of the legal verdict; rather, it is the ignorance inherent in the sin itself, for whoever disobeys Allah, exalted is He, is ignorant.