Explanation: ((And [they shall not] the sacrificial animals, nor the garlands, nor [they shall not prevent] those who intend the Sacred House))

The Shaykh : All right, he said: The sacrificial animals are what is sent to the Sacred Precinct, whether food or animals. The garlands are specific to animals; they used to put garlands on the sacrificial animals, making a necklace out of old, worn-out sandals, the ears of the sacrificial animals, or something similar, so that whoever saw it would know it was a sacrificial animal and not release it. Releasing the sacrificial animal happens in two ways: either by preventing it from reaching the House, or by renouncing it, such that a person puts the garland on it and then changes his mind. This is not permissible and cannot be done. Or by preventing them from the House, as Allah the Exalted said: meaning those who intend it, Is the favor worldly or hereafter? His saying: The favor here includes both worldly and hereafter favor, due to Allah’s saying: meaning provision and earnings. From the state of consecration (ihram), then hunt. This is in contrast to His saying: meaning when the state of consecration is lifted and you have exited it, then hunt. The command here is for permissibility, and it is said to be for lifting the prohibition. The difference between them is clear. If we say it is for permissibility, it means the ruling has changed from the previous ruling due to abrogation. If the previous ruling before abrogation was, for example, recommended, it becomes permissible here because when abrogation came, the previous ruling was finally removed. So when the abrogation is removed, a new ruling emerges, which is permissibility. And some scholars said that the command after the prohibition is for lifting the prohibition. On this view, the previous ruling before the prohibition returns: if it was recommended, it is recommended; if it was permissible, it is permissible; and even if it was disliked, it is disliked. So the difference is clear, or is it not clear? It is not clear. All right, we now have This is an abrogation of His saying: Abrogation means there is a previous ruling and a ruling established by the abrogated text and a ruling established by the abrogating text. The prohibition of hunting during the state of consecration is a new ruling that came upon its permissibility before the state of consecration. Is this clear? This person has not entered the state of consecration, so it is permissible for him to hunt. He enters the state of consecration, and he is prevented from hunting. Is that right or not? He is prevented from hunting. All right, after that, it was said to him: when you exit the state of consecration, hunt. Do we say that the command here is for permissibility or for lifting the prohibition? Some scholars say it is for permissibility, and some say it is for lifting the prohibition. Those who said it is for permissibility said that because when Allah prohibited hunting during the state of consecration, it became an abrogating ruling that removed the previous one. Then when He said: it became a ruling that only lifted the prohibition. This prohibition has lifted the previous ruling, so the established ruling now is only permissibility. If we say that the command after the prohibition is for lifting the prohibition, we ask: what was the ruling on hunting before entering the state of consecration? If they say it was a recommended practice, then His saying "and hunt" becomes a recommended practice, because it lifted the prevention and the ruling returned to the first one. And the apparent view is that the command here is for permissibility, because hunting in its original state is not commanded. Even if we say that the command after the prohibition is for lifting the prohibition, hunting was not commanded unless causes arise that necessitate it, such as if a person was hungry and needed to hunt to eat. This is a different matter.