Why do some scholars insist on the obligation of fasting two consecutive months as expiation for intercourse during the daytime in Ramadan, and do not move to the option of giving charity, even though the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, used to choose what was easier?

Accusing someone who issues a fatwa (definition) based on textual evidence of extremism is incorrect. One must be careful not to disparage scholars. The mere fact that a fatwa does not align with one's desires is not proof of rigidity; rather, the questioner himself might be lenient. The reference point for شرعي rulings must be the evidence from the Qur’an and Sunnah (definition).

Citing the ease of religion to justify following concessions (rukhs) and abandoning clear texts is a grave error. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, commanded that the religion be taken with strength, yet he never chose between two matters except that he chose the easier of them, "as long as it was not a sin."

The expiation for intercourse during a Ramadan (definition) day is sequential, which is the opinion of the majority: freeing a slave, and if unable, then fasting for two consecutive months, and if unable, then feeding sixty poor people. If he is unable to do any of these, then there is nothing upon him until he is able, and this is part of the ease of Sharia (definition). Whoever engages in intercourse and is able to free a slave is not permitted to fast, and whoever engages in intercourse and is able to fast is not permitted to feed.

It is necessary to recognize the stature of scholars, to understand that شرعي rulings are not based on whims but are derived from texts, and that the rulings of the Sharia are easy and free from hardship.