The ruling on the sacrificial animal for Tamattu' if it is not available and fasting becomes obligatory, then the sacrificial animal is found before beginning the fast: is it obligatory for him to switch to it or not?

The questioner : If a substitute is available for an obligatory act, but access to the original act is difficult at the time the obligation arises, does the obligation attach to the substitute? Does the obligation attach to the substitute in a fixed manner such that one does not return to the original act when it becomes available? This issue has many scenarios, one of which is the sacrificial animal for Tamattu' if it is not available and fasting becomes obligatory upon him, then he finds the sacrificial animal before beginning the fast. Another is the sacrificial animal for Tamattu' if he intends it, and fasting becomes obligatory upon him, then he finds it? The context mentioned earlier, the context is obligatory upon him.

The Shaykh : Yes, that is what matters, come here, my brother. Yes.

The questioner : So, is it obligatory for him to switch or not? It depends on.

The Shaykh : Or not? Or not?

The questioner : Or not? It depends on?

The Shaykh : Or not? Do you say about a dull person?

The questioner : So, is it obligatory for him to switch or not? It depends on whether the consideration in expiations is based on the state at the time of the obligation or the state at the time of the action. There are two narrations on this. If we say it is based on the state at the time of the obligation, then fasting becomes the original act, not a substitute. And on this basis, is performing the original act sufficient for him? And on this basis, is performing the original act, which is the sacrificial animal, sufficient for him? The well-known view is that it is sufficient for him, because it is the original act in general, and only the dispensation was dropped. Al-Qadi reported in his explanation of the school's position from Ibn Hamid that it is not sufficient for him.

The Shaykh : Yes, that is what he said.

The questioner : And among them is the expiation for Zihar.

The Shaykh : The issue is clear in his view. A man who is in a state of... On the morning of the festival day, he has no money.
So he began fasting, and it is obligatory for him to fast for three days, the days of Tashriq: the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth. On the eleventh day, he began fasting, then Allah granted him wealth on the eleventh day, so he can buy a sacrificial animal with it. Is it obligatory for him or not? This is one case. The answer is that it is not obligatory for him, because fasting became obligatory upon him since he was destitute on the day of the festival. But is it sufficient for him to slaughter a sacrificial animal and leave off fasting? No, there is a disagreement on this, there is a disagreement.
If we say it is based on the state at the time of the obligation, then fasting becomes the original act, not a substitute. And on this basis, is performing the original act, which is the sacrificial animal, sufficient for him? The well-known view is that it is sufficient for him, because it is the original act in general, and only the dispensation was dropped. Al-Qari reported in his explanation of the school's position from Abu Hamid that it is not sufficient for him. Do you understand? Yes, indeed. Also, this is the well-known view among us. Which one? The correct view is that it is sufficient for him, because Allah the Exalted only made fasting obligatory as a substitute for the sacrificial animal to make it easier. No, I did not say that. We did not say that, yes? Yes, it should be reviewed.

The questioner : Around you, it depends on your freeing of a slave and the calmness of the sacrificial animal. Yes.

The Shaykh : The state at the time of the obligation, when the cause that necessitates the expiation is found, and the state at the time of the action, if it is the time in which he intends to perform it,

The questioner : Welcome.

The Shaykh : It considers the state at the time of the obligation. It considers the state of existence. Yes, indeed, it is correct that if he returns to the original act, it is decisive in all cases, because it is the original act. But the consideration is the state at the time of the obligation: if the original act is found, it is the obligatory one, and if he does not find it, then its substitute. And what came in the stone before the branches. It is not obligatory for him to switch as long as he was not in possession of it at the time of the obligation; it is not obligatory for him. But if he switches, the correct view is that there is no harm in it.