What is your opinion of those who objected to your statement that the one who did not perform the Tawaf of Ifadah on the Day of Sacrifice returns to his state of Ihram, claiming that this statement contradicts the spirit of the Shari'ah?

The questioner : The first point is that they objected to the idea that the spirit of the Shari'ah is facilitation, using this to argue that the one who did not perform the Tawaf of Ifadah remains in his Ihram on the first day, regarding the hadith you mentioned.

The Shaykh : How so? The one who did not perform the Tawaf of Ifadah, yes.

The questioner : On that day, meaning the one who has not yet performed it after stoning the pillars...

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : He remains in his Ihram or returns to his Ihram, then...

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : He says this contradicts the spirit of the Shari'ah.

The Shaykh : As Allah wills. If so, then standing in the sun at 'Arafah and Mina also contradicts the spirit of the Shari'ah. Then we ask: what is the spirit of the Shari'ah? "The spirit of the Shari'ah" is an invented term, like the term "direction" (jihat) regarding the Lord of the Worlds (Glorified and Exalted is He). Is it said that Allah has a direction or not? It is not said, because we want to understand what the one who says that Allah has a direction, or that Allah does not have a direction, means. If he means a meaning for which there is an explicit text in the Book of Allah, we say that this invented expression is permissible as long as the intended meaning is known and established in the Book and the Sunnah. But if he intends a meaning that is invented and has no basis in the Shari'ah, we reject both the term and the meaning. So now, when someone says "the spirit of the Shari'ah," we do not say that; we say the text of the Shari'ah is facilitation: . But the truth is that this term, which is established in the Book and the Sunnah, has been exploited. The Book, as you heard, and the hadith: , , and so on. This term has become, due to the expansion of its scope beyond what the Shari'ah supports, a means for people to escape the obligations of the Shari'ah under the pretext of . The religion is easy, but not according to our whims, our opinions, or our desires, but only within the limits of what the pure Shari'ah has brought. In some hadiths, the Messenger (peace be upon him) orders the pilgrim to sacrifice and expose himself to the sun. This is undoubtedly a hardship according to that expression, not a facilitation. And the pilgrim going out with his head uncovered is also, according to that same expression, a hardship, not a facilitation. Therefore, you find people today, government and people alike, proceeding from a single standpoint, wanting to make Hajj a leisure trip, so they do not bear the hardships of travel or the heat of the sun. Therefore, they want to surround the sacred sites of Muzdalifah and 'Arafah with green gardens and the like. This is never among the objectives of Hajj.
In summary: Facilitation is one of the principles of the Shari'ah, but its application is not according to our whims, but by applying the hadiths of our Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Then it is said to this person: You either believe that the hadith which orders the one who did not perform the Tawaf in the evening of the Day of Sacrifice to return to his state of Ihram as he was before is authentic, or you believe it is not authentic. If you believe it is not authentic based on scholarly knowledge, not whimsically or arbitrarily, that is sufficient for you, and you do not need to say, "By Allah, the religion of Allah is easy, and this is a hardship," because this hardship mentioned in the hadith is established, and we are at peace with it. But if he believes the hadith is authentic, how can he contradict it and strike at its core with a principle that is established in the Shari'ah but whose application is not appropriate in this specific case? Because the one who brought the principle also brought this specific case. I think my words are clear.

The questioner : Yes, if Allah wills. They weaken it and also use it as evidence for...

The Shaykh : No, those who weaken it have not followed up on the matter hadithically at all. Do you remember the reason for the weakening?

The questioner : No, I do not remember. Is Muhammad ibn Ishaq in the chain of this hadith?

The Shaykh : Muhammad ibn Ishaq.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Yes, there is.

The questioner : Yes, so this is the reason for the weakening. They say that Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal said about him, "I do not take a hadith from him."

The Shaykh : Fine, and what is the opinion of the other Imams regarding Muhammad ibn Ishaq first, and what is the opinion of this person who cites the statement of Imam Ahmad second? Does he reject every hadith in whose chain Muhammad ibn Ishaq appears because it contains Muhammad ibn Ishaq?

The questioner : If he is the sole narrator, he says yes.

The Shaykh : Who is he?

The questioner : This is what.

The Shaykh : This is the position of the scholars.

The questioner : No, this is the one who spoke and said...

The Shaykh : This has no value because it contradicts the opinion of Imam Ahmad himself and the same Imams who use his hadith as evidence in their disagreements. Do they use his hadith, even if he used the term "he heard" ('an'anah), or is it necessary to have explicit narration (tadlis) as we see with those who condition this? The hadith of Muhammad ibn Ishaq, as Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah says in *I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in* and others: "It is a hadith relied upon by the Imams, but the most discerning among them say that he was a practitioner of tadlis (concealment of a defect in a chain). So if he explicitly narrates it, it is a proof." Therefore, what has been the practice of hadith scholars, both ancient and modern, is to use the hadith of Muhammad ibn Ishaq as evidence. It is not permissible scientifically for a researcher, when facing a hadith of a man about whom there is disagreement and who is not unanimously agreed to be trustworthy, to reject his hadith because of this disagreement. Rather, he must first be objective in his research regarding this hadith which he is currently investigating and verifying. He studies the biography of the narrator, whether it is Muhammad ibn Ishaq or someone else, according to the science of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil (the critique and vindication of narrators). If it is established for him that the man is weak in hadith, he weakens this hadith and others. But his position should not be like one who plays both sides, sometimes authenticating his hadith and sometimes weakening it according to desire and appetite. No, rather he studies this man objectively, completely free from supporting his own ideology or that of another in a specific issue or otherwise. After forming an opinion about this person, he then proceeds within the limits of that opinion to judge his hadiths, either authenticating or weakening them. If he finds a hadith and claims it contains hardship and not facilitation, and says, "This contains Muhammad ibn Ishaq, and so-and-so said about him," but he also said so-and-so said about him, this does not benefit him if he follows the first method of research, which is to study it objectively to form an opinion about it as a principle or rule: is the hadith authentic or weak? After that, if it becomes clear to him that the man is trustworthy, it is not permissible for him to weaken his hadith if it contradicts his madhhab (school of jurisprudence) or his desire or the like. And conversely, if it becomes clear to him that he is weak, he weakens all his hadiths, except if a corroborating narration (shahid) or... or a supporting chain (mutaba'ah) or the like comes to them. As for Muhammad ibn Ishaq here, I am far from recent knowledge of this, but I think he explicitly narrated it, but he is not the sole narrator of the hadith either; he is not the sole narrator. Remember this.

The questioner : ... many, very many routes.

The Shaykh : Yes, so I spoke about him.

The questioner : ... Ibn Kathir with its authenticity.

The Shaykh : Ibn al-Qayim also strengthens it.

The questioner : He says: "Whoever looks at all its routes is certain and decisive about its authenticity."