Continuation of the explanation of the author's statement: "It is recommended to say, 'O Allah, I intend to perform such-and-such a ritual, so make it easy for me. And if something prevents me, then my place of exiting the state of consecration is where I am prevented.'"

The Shaykh : If someone were to say, "Accidents are numerous nowadays. Accidents are frequent; collisions often occur, and crowds often form in which people die. Does this not make the condition prescribed?" We say, "No, because if you counted the pilgrims and counted the accidents that occur, you would find the ratio to be very small and insignificant compared to the large number of vehicles and the large number of pilgrims. In the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), accidents occurred. At 'Arafah, the camel of one of the companions was cut loose and he fell from it and died. Was this a car accident or a camel accident? It was a camel accident, but it resembles a car accident. So, accidents existed in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), and yet he did not order his companions to make a general condition."
The summary of the second issue is that it is recommended to make the condition for one who fears an obstacle that would prevent him from completing the ritual. As for when things are normal, the Sunnah is not to make the condition, and with this, the evidence is reconciled. If someone were to ask, "What is the benefit of this condition?" We say, "Some scholars have claimed that it has no benefit and is merely a phrase used for worship alone. This opinion is undoubtedly very weak. The correct view is that it has a benefit, and its benefit is that if an obstacle is found, he exits his state of consecration for free. The meaning of 'for free' is without a sacrificial animal, because one who is prevented from completing the ritual is required to offer a sacrifice, as Allah the Exalted said: If he had made the condition and found something preventing him from completing the ritual, we say he exits without anything, for free. But if he did not make the condition, he does not exit. He does not exit unless he is prevented by an enemy, according to the opinion of many scholars. If he is prevented by illness, an accident, the loss of his funds, or something similar, he remains in a state of consecration and does not exit. But if he misses standing at 'Arafah, he may exit by performing 'Umrah, and then perform Hajj the following year. So, the benefit of this condition is that if an obstacle is found that prevents him from completing the ritual, he exits and nothing is required of him; he returns to his country. Now, there are two phrases here. The first phrase is to say, 'If something prevents me, then my place of exiting the state of consecration is where I am prevented.' 'My place of exiting' means the place of my exiting the ritual or the time of my exiting the ritual. The second phrase is to say, 'If something prevents me, then I have the option to exit.' Is there a difference between them? Yes, there is a difference. If he says, 'My place of exiting is where I am prevented,' he exits as soon as the obstacle exists, because he tied the exit to his condition; so if the condition is found, the conditioned thing is found. But if he says, 'If something prevents me, then I have the option to exit,' then if the obstacle is found, he has the choice: if he wishes, he exits, and if he wishes, he continues. If it is asked, "Is there fear that a pregnant woman fears post-natal bleeding, or a woman in a state of purity fears menstruation?"

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Post-natal bleeding, yes, without a doubt, because if a woman gives birth, she is unable to perform the ritual. Also, the duration of post-natal bleeding is usually long. But we say that even if it is menstruation, if her family or companions do not stay with her until she becomes pure, then if she expects menstruation to occur, she makes the condition, do you understand? Now, if a woman did not think about menstruation, menstruation did not cross her mind, but she has laziness or illness and fears that she will not complete the ritual because of this illness, and she says, 'If something prevents me, then my place of exiting the state of consecration is where I am prevented,' and then menstruation comes to her, but it did not cross her mind, do we say that her situation specifies the intention, or do we say that the generality includes menstruation?
The attendees: ...

The Shaykh : She is now ill, so she said, 'If something prevents me, then my place of exiting the state of consecration is where I am prevented,' meaning she intended the illness, which did not cross her mind, but she is able to continue. The illness became lighter for her or disappeared, but menstruation occurred. Do we say that the implication of her situation specifies the generality, or do we take the generality of the wording? In my view, both possibilities are possible. But whoever says that the generality is taken, saying 'something prevented me' is an indefinite noun in the context of a condition, so it is general, and he says this is one of the preventers. The preventers are multiple; at that moment, the illness may be in her heart, and another preventer may occur, such as menstruation, fear, loss of funds, the death of the mahram, or something similar. In any case, I hope there is no harm in taking the generality. Otherwise, the situation may specify the generality. Now, if someone were to ask... I say, what do we say about a person who made the condition without the possibility of an obstacle, according to the opinion that it is not recommended to make the condition unless one fears an obstacle? Does this condition benefit him?
The attendees: ...

The Shaykh : There are two opinions on this. Some of you said it benefits him, and some of you said it does not benefit him. The one who says it benefits him says that although this was revealed for a cause, the consideration is its generality. The one who says it does not benefit him says that this is a condition that is not prescribed, and what is not prescribed is not followed, so it does not benefit. In my view, this is closer: if we say that it is not recommended to make the condition, then it is not prescribed, and what is not prescribed is not followed, so nothing results from it. And if we say that a ruling results from it while it is not prescribed, there is a type of contradiction with the rulings of the Shari'ah. The correct view in my opinion, and the stronger possibility in my view—I have not reviewed whether there are other opinions in this matter—but the stronger possibility in my view is that he does not benefit from this condition unless it is prescribed. But according to the one who says it is prescribed absolutely, does he benefit or not? Yes, he benefits according to the one who says it is prescribed absolutely.