Continuation of the explanation of the author's statement: "If slavery, insanity, and childhood are removed during Hajj at 'Arafah, or during 'Umrah before its tawaf, then the obligatory act is valid"

The Shaykh : The author (may Allah have mercy on him) says: "If slavery, insanity, and childhood are removed during Hajj at 'Arafah" and so on. If slavery is removed during Hajj at 'Arafah, the obligatory act is valid. The meaning of the removal of slavery is that the slave is freed. If his master frees him during Hajj at 'Arafah, his Hajj is valid as an obligatory act, even though at the time of his entering the state of ihram for Hajj, Hajj was a voluntary act for him, because Hajj is not obligatory upon a slave, as we have previously mentioned the scholarly disagreement on this. The author's statement "the obligatory act is valid", if we take the apparent meaning of his words, implies that it becomes obligatory from the very beginning of the ihram. Based on this, one might pose a riddle to us: an act of worship whose beginning is voluntary but which becomes obligatory without the intention of obligation being made at the beginning, and this is the case here. It was also said that it does not become obligatory until the time of manumission. Based on this, the beginning of this act of worship is voluntary and its end is obligatory. This is not strange in Hajj, because Hajj differs from other acts of worship in the issue of intention in several matters, as will be mentioned: if a person arrives in Makkah as a mufrid (performing Hajj alone) or a qarin (combining Hajj and 'Umrah), and he performs tawaf and sa'y, he will perform tawaf for arrival, and the tawaf of arrival is a recommended practice (sunnah), and he will perform sa'y for Hajj. After that, he has the option to change this intention to 'Umrah so that he becomes a mutamatti' (one who combines 'Umrah and Hajj with a break between them). You will find that the tawaf, which was initially a recommended practice, has now become obligatory, indeed a pillar, and the one that was for arrival has now become for 'Umrah, and the sa'y, which was for Hajj, has now become for 'Umrah. Thus, Hajj has aspects in which it differs from other acts of worship. So, if slavery is removed at 'Arafah, his Hajj becomes obligatory. If insanity is removed at 'Arafah, his Hajj becomes obligatory. If someone asks how it is possible for insanity to be removed at 'Arafah, and whether the contract of ihram is valid for an insane person? The answer to this is that some scholars have said that it is permissible for a guardian to enter ihram on behalf of an insane person, just as he enters ihram on behalf of a child. A young child does not have the ability to distinguish, and an insane person does not have reason. If it is permissible to enter ihram on behalf of a child who does not have the ability to distinguish, then it is permissible to enter ihram on behalf of an insane person. Based on this opinion, there is no difficulty, why? Because his guardian will enter ihram on his behalf while he is insane, and he will remain in the state of ihram. If he regains his sanity at 'Arafah, it is valid to say that his insanity was removed at 'Arafah while he was in the state of ihram. Or we can say that if we hold that the ihram of an insane person is not valid by himself or by his guardian, then the author's statement is understood to refer to a case where insanity befalls him after he has entered ihram. If insanity befalls him after entering ihram, that means he entered ihram while sane, then became insane, and then his insanity was removed at 'Arafah. Another difficulty arises with this view: does not insanity invalidate the ihram? The answer is no, insanity does not invalidate the ihram; rather, he remains in his state of ihram.