Is it obligatory for one who leaves several obligatory acts of Hajj to offer several sacrificial animals, or just one? And does one commit a sin if he intentionally leaves one of the obligatory acts of Hajj?

Al-Huwaini: The question is: If someone leaves several obligatory acts in Hajj, is he required to offer one sacrificial animal or several? For example, if he leaves the overnight stay at Muzdalifah and the overnight stay at Mina, and on the first day he did not stone the Pillar of Aqabah.

The Shaykh : I say that regarding a question like this, I hope that students of knowledge, let alone scholars, would not just circle around the issue of whether a sacrificial animal is obligatory or not. Because they might research a matter that is, at the very least, a subject of scholarly disagreement. So I hope they begin their research with what is not in dispute, which is to ask: Does one commit a sin if he leaves one of the obligatory acts of Hajj, let alone if he leaves several obligatory acts of Hajj? Does he commit a sin or not? It is from here that one should begin in such a matter, not with whether he has to offer a sacrificial animal or not. Because the habit of speaking in the first manner, i.e., asking whether he has to offer a sacrificial animal or not, has accustomed people to being lenient in performing many of the obligatory acts. This is because he feels deep in his heart that he will find an exit from the sin of violating them and leaving the obligatory act by being told, "You have to offer a sacrificial animal." Especially since the imposition of a sacrificial animal—by those who hold this view and expand upon it based on the previously mentioned report from Ibn Abbas—can only be adopted if the leaving of some of the obligatory acts was due to forgetfulness. But if he left them intentionally, I find a very great difference between one who intentionally leaves an obligatory act and thus commits a sin, and one who does not intentionally leave an obligatory act and thus does not commit a sin. The example of these two is like the example of one who swears a grave oath or an erroneous oath, as he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: So the expiation for an oath is only prescribed for such an oath-taker who intended good but erred. As for one who swears falsely, he is as it came in some hadiths: The grave oath has no expiation because the oath-taker has plunged into sin, and he has no exit from it except through sincere repentance. Likewise, those who frequently neglect many of the obligatory acts in Hajj; these people have been surrounded by their sin, and their evil deeds have encompassed them. So it is not appropriate for us to open the door for them by saying to them, "You have to offer an expiation," because the expiation we know is either in the category of thanking Allah (Mighty and Majestic), such as the Hajj of Tamattu'; or it is an expiation for something that a person is compelled to do, such as shaving the head when one finds a necessity for shaving, or the man who is prevented from completing his Hajj or 'Umrah and cannot continue. The expiation for that neglect is to slaughter, to offer a sacrificial animal or a ransom. But to intentionally violate the Shari'ah and thereby commit a sin, and then we provide an exit for him by saying, "You have to offer a sacrificial animal," this is not right, especially since we do not have a text that obligates us to do so. It does not align with the directives of the Shari'ah in urging people to obey Allah and His Messenger. And whatever facilitates the violation of the legal rulings should be put a limit to and not expanded upon. Yes.
Al-Huwaini: Our Shaykh, may Allah honor you, regarding the report of Ibn Abbas: "Whoever leaves a ritual act," is it not the case that the intended meaning of his statement, i.e., "whoever leaves a ritual act," is one who leaves it intentionally? And in this way, it differs from the hadith of the man in the jacket, because he was ignorant of the ruling?

The Shaykh : Those who obligate the offering of sacrificial animals do not distinguish between the intentional and the erroneous. In any case, the report of Ibn Abbas is mawquf (stopping at a Companion), and we have not found anything among the Companions that supports it, so we are free from it.