Continuation of the mention of the prohibitions of ihram

The Shaykh : But you do not take a single qirsh from him, or do you? That is why, when a common person among the laypeople stumbled and his finger was bruised, but his sandal was safe, he said: "Praise be to Allah, a little, but the sandal is safe." Yes, because wealth is more precious to him than his body. The body walks and is fine, but wealth is a problem. In any case, as long as there is a benefit in this and protection of the prohibitions and instilling awe in the laypeople, it is permissible to say it. And if a person wishes to be cautious for himself and not attribute to Allah what he has not seen to be part of His Shari'ah, let him say, "The scholars said that you must do such and such." I hope that with this phrasing he is safe from blame, because he attributed it to others for the sake of this great benefit. Likewise, it is said regarding the leaving of an obligatory act of Hajj or 'Umrah. The jurists see that it is obligatory for him to sacrifice an animal, and there is no choice in it; there is no option. If he does not find one, he fasts for ten days. We say there is no evidence for this. Then, there is no evidence that if he does not find one, he must fast for ten days. The most that can be said is the hadith of Ibn 'Abbas: Some scholars claim that there is no room for independent legal reasoning in such a statement from Ibn 'Abbas. In my view, there is room for consideration, and there is room for independent legal reasoning in it. It is that Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him and his father) saw that shaving the head, which involves dropping an obligation, has an expiation, but with a choice. So he said: "Therefore, leaving an obligatory act is like doing a prohibited act that involves dropping an obligation, so an animal must be sacrificed." So there is room for opinion in this. And yet, Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him and his father) said: "Something of his ritual," using an indefinite noun in the context of a condition. If we took its generality, we would say a person must sacrifice an animal if he leaves the pointing at the Black Stone, or if he leaves the running in the Sa'y, meaning the Sa'y, or if he leaves the exposing of the shoulder, and the like. I have not known anyone to say that he must sacrifice an animal for this. But as we told you, anything that serves to protect the sacred rites and does not contradict scholarly consensus, but rather agrees with the majority, it is recommended to adopt it, or at least to issue a fatwa based on it. This is part of the policy in the scholar's upbringing of the community. It was reported to me that one of the Tabi'un was asked by his son about a matter, which I have forgotten because I am slow to retain such things, so he issued a fatwa for him. It seemed the son found this difficult, so he said: "If you do not do it, I will issue a fatwa for you based on the opinion of so-and-so." It is stronger than this statement. See how the upbringing works, even though he only issued the fatwa based on the first opinion, which he believed to be correct, but he wanted to compel his son to the second, more difficult opinion if he was not convinced. Perhaps there is a parallel to this in the action of the Commander of the Faithful, 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him). When a man divorced his wife three times, saying "You are divorced three times" or "You are divorced, you are divorced, you are divorced," in the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and the time of Abu Bakr and two years of 'Umar's caliphate, he had the right to take her back. It was a legal right for him to take her back, because she did not become fully divorced from him by this. When the triple divorce became common in the time of 'Umar, he said: "I see that people have become hasty in a matter in which they used to be deliberate. If we were to enforce it upon them" See, he enforced it upon them, preventing the man from a right established by the Prophetic Sunnah, the Sunnah of the early period, and the Sunnah of the 'Umar period, first of all. He prevented him from this established right. Why? So that people would not be bold in divorcing with three. These are matters that the scholar and the mufti should be aware of. And praise be to Allah, Allah the Exalted praised the rabbaniyyun and stated that they are the most deserving of enjoining good and forbidding evil. The scholars said: The rabbaniyyun are those who raise the community with knowledge. This is part of that. Therefore, in my view, making obligatory something that Allah and His Messenger did not make obligatory is not permissible. But if there is a benefit in it, it is permissible to say it, especially if it is the opinion of the majority of the scholars. As for the prohibitions, some of them have passed us in the hadith of Ibn 'Umar: wearing the five things, all of which are among the prohibitions. Perfume, initially, is among the prohibitions. Smelling perfume, we have previously stated that there is no harm in it, and that is the stronger opinion, especially when there is a need, such as a man who wants to buy perfume and stops at the perfumer and starts smelling the bottles to see which is the best. The correct view is that there is no harm in it, because the person in ihram has not been touched by it. Yes, yes, O Salim.

The questioner : May Allah forgive you, O Shaykh. The evidence specifically mentions the head, O Shaykh. He said: "From the head."

The Shaykh : How?

The questioner : I say the evidence for the prohibition, that there is an expiation for it, specifically singles out the head. It is restricted to the head. He said: "From the head." And "from," O Shaykh, implies restriction.

The Shaykh : Do you see that "from" implies restriction? Just tonight.

The questioner : Yes

The Shaykh : Just tonight, "from" implies restriction.

The questioner : No, I say...

The Shaykh : No, that "from" implies restriction, just tonight, this one.

The questioner : Specifically the head, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Yes, the head, correct.

The questioner : ... it specifically singles out the head.

The Shaykh : Correct. Is this a question or a statement?

The questioner : A question, O Shaykh, not a statement.

The Shaykh : I mean, are you stating and confirming what we said, or are you asking?

The questioner : No, I say that what I said first is...

The Shaykh : Fine, praise be to Allah. May Allah reward you with good.

The questioner : Because... it specifically singles out the head. It did not say...

The Shaykh : Perfect. You are right. This is good reasoning. Yes.