Clarifying the weakness of the narration (The error and forgetfulness have been lifted from my Ummah...) and the authentic one (The error, forgetfulness, and what they were forced to do have been set aside from my Ummah...).

AndThe Shaykh : The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) affirmed this in the authentic hadith: The well-known narration in some books of jurisprudence, "lifted," is the weaker position. The established narration is: Therefore, if a person neglects one of the rites of Hajj due to forgetfulness, we say that accountability for the forgetful person has been lifted. However, if he is a lazy worker who neglects caring for the performance of the rites of Hajj as he was commanded by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to perform the rites of Hajj, as he was commanded in the Farewell Pilgrimage in his famous hadith: In applying this hadith, it is obligatory for every pilgrim to direct his attention with all his energy and effort to perform his Hajj as close as possible to the Hajj of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). It is self-evident that we must acknowledge that no matter how hard we try to follow the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in all his acts of worship, in his prayer, and in his Hajj, we will not be able to match his prayer; but the matter is as it was said:
"So imitate them, even if you are not like them, *** For imitating the noble ones is success." So it is only required of us to strive to make our Hajj like the Hajj of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and to barely approximate it and draw near to it. If a person intentionally neglects one of the rites of Hajj, the mufti must point out to him that he is sinful and must not be satisfied with saying that a sacrificial animal is required of him. For people today, especially the wealthy whom Allah has made wealth easy for, it is easy for them to offer a sacrificial animal. But the important thing is to direct the attention of this intentional wrongdoer to the fact that he is sinful and that he has opposed the command of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). After that, if he believes that a sacrificial animal is required for his sin, answer that; otherwise, do not. What I want to point out is that it is obligatory for the authorities to always emphasize whether he is sinful or not, so that he does not fall into such a sin a second time on the pretext that his expiation is known, as the common people in some Arab countries say, "You know his blood money, so kill him." You know what his blood money is, so kill him; what matters to you is that you can pay his blood money. This is an encouragement of crime. So our saying "a sacrificial animal is required of you" means that, as time passes, no matter what violation he commits, as long as the sacrificial animal expiates that violation, [it is not enough]. No, we should point out that he is sinful if he was intentional, or that he is not sinful if he was not intentional...