The Book of Hajj-08b

The Reciter: Abu al-Rabi' al-Zuhri and Abu Kamil narrated to us, both saying: Hammad narrated to us. And Zuhayr ibn Harb narrated to me, saying: Isma'il narrated to me. Both of them narrated from Ayyub, from Nafi', from Ibn 'Umar, with this story. He did not mention the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) except at the beginning of the hadith: , and he did not mention at the end of the hadith: , as al-Layth mentioned.

The Shaykh : Now, the discussion concerns the one who is prevented (muhsar), and there are issues regarding this:
The first issue: Is being prevented (ihsar) specific to an enemy, or does it include anything that prevents the completion of the rites?
There is a disagreement among the scholars on this. Some said that ihsar is specific to being prevented by an enemy only, because this is what happened to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and his Companions. Also, the context of the verse indicates this, due to the saying of Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He: , and safety is the opposite of fear, so ihsar would be prevention by an enemy only.
And some said that ihsar is general, meaning that a person is prevented from completing the rites, because Allah said: , meaning from completing them. This is restricted, and this is unrestricted. As for His saying: , this is a derivation from some instances of the unrestricted, and this does not necessitate restriction. Like the hadith of Jabir regarding the right of pre-emption: , then he said: . So the beginning of the hadith is general, and the end indicates that the intended meaning is land. The correct view is that the right of pre-emption is established in everything, and that mentioning a restriction for some instances of the general does not intend to restrict the entire generality of the unrestricted.
Also, Allah the Exalted said: , so the unrestricted women here are general, including those whose husbands have the right to take them back (raj'i) and those whose husbands do not have the right to take them back.
But whoever looks at the end of the verse says: He intended by the unrestricted women those in the state of raj'i (where the husband can take them back). However, all or most of the scholars say that the unrestricted women are general, including those in the state of raj'i and others.
And on this basis, he says: is a return to some instances of the unrestricted, so it does not necessitate specification. And this view is the correct one, that ihsar includes prevention by an enemy and others, such as if a person suffers from an illness due to an accident or otherwise, let him exit the state of ihram, because he was prevented from completing the rites. Or if a person loses his maintenance and does not find what to complete the Hajj with from maintenance, then he returns to his family. The important point is that the stronger view is that ihsar is general in everything.
The second issue: What is obligatory if a person is prevented? What Allah, Mighty and Majestic, mentioned is obligatory: . So whoever is able must slaughter the sacrificial animal and exit the state of ihram. And whoever does not find it, according to the school of thought followed by our later jurists, he must fast for ten days, by analogy to the sacrificial animal of tamattu'. And the correct view is that there is no fasting upon him, because many of the poor Companions were present at the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, and yet they were not ordered to fast. If fasting were obligatory, they would have been ordered to do so. Do you understand? So the correct view is: whoever is prevented, the sacrificial animal is obligatory upon him, and if he does not find it, there is nothing upon him, no fasting and no feeding.
The third issue: If a person is prevented, is it obligatory for him to make up the missed act or not? If what he was prevented from is the obligatory part, then it is obligatory for him to make it up by the first address, the address before the making up, meaning: it is not obligatory for him to make it up because he was prevented from something, but it is obligatory for him to make it up because he did not perform the obligatory part. So it is obligatory for him to make it up by the first address, not that it is a making up for what he was prevented from. And if it was a voluntary act, then there is a disagreement among the scholars, and the correct view is that it is not obligatory for him to make it up, due to the generality of the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): , and because this sacrificial animal sufficed him from the obligation, because this sacrificial animal is for exiting the state of ihram and abandoning the rites, so it is not obligatory for him to make it up.
As for naming the 'Umrah of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) which he performed after the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah as "the 'Umrah of the Qada' (making up)," that is not from making up, but from al-muqadadah (settlement), which is reconciliation. For this reason, not all those who performed 'Umrah in Hudaybiyyah performed 'Umrah with the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), but many of them stayed behind. So these are three important issues in the chapter of ihsar:
The first issue: Is prevention specific to prevention by an enemy or general? And the correct view is that it is general.
The second: What is the obligation in ihsar? And if he does not have it, is there a substitute upon him? And the correct view is no.
The third: Is making it up obligatory? And the correct view is that making it up is not obligatory.