And the best of the types of Hajj is tamattu'

The Shaykh : The author said, “And the best of the types of Hajj is tamattu'”. His statement that “the best of the types of Hajj” indicates to us, may Allah have mercy on him, that there are multiple types of Hajj, because “anasaak” is a plural, and the minimum for a plural is three. So here there are three types: tamattu', ifrad, and qiran. This is because a person either enters the state of ihram for 'Umrah alone, or for Hajj alone, or for both; there is no fourth division. If he enters ihram for 'Umrah alone, it is tamattu', but with the conditions that will be mentioned. If he enters ihram for Hajj alone, he is a mufrid. If he does both together, he is a qarin. However, we will mention the conditions. But I say that the reason the types of Hajj are limited to these three is this: either he enters ihram for one, 'Umrah or Hajj, or he combines them. These are the types of Hajj. And what indicates this, meaning the variety of the types of Hajj into three types, is the hadith of 'Aishah in Muslim. She said, “We performed Hajj with the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and some of us entered ihram for Hajj, and some of us entered ihram for 'Umrah, and the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) entered ihram for Hajj”. Then she specified her statement “for Hajj” to mean that he entered ihram for Hajj in terms of the actions, not in terms of the rulings, because he was a qarin. It was said that he entered ihram for Hajj first and then added 'Umrah to it. We will mention this, if Allah wills, in the description of qiran, and whether it is valid to add 'Umrah to Hajj or not. He said, “The best of the types of Hajj is tamattu'.” What is the evidence? The evidence for this is that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered his companions, when they had completed the tawaf and sa'y, to break their state of ihram and make it an 'Umrah, except for those who had brought sacrificial animals. And those who brought sacrificial animals in that Hajj were few. This is the evidence. And the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) made it a strict obligation in that matter; he ordered his companions when they completed the sa'y, saying, “Whoever has not brought a sacrificial animal, let him make it an 'Umrah.” And he said, And he said, And the companions consulted him about it and said, “O Messenger of Allah, how can we make it an 'Umrah when we have already declared our intention for Hajj?” Meaning they had responded to the call for Hajj. He said, Until they raised with him an issue he was shy to discuss, but what was in their hearts compelled them to raise it. They said, “O Messenger of Allah, we will go out to Mina, and one of us is dripping with semen”. Meaning from intercourse with their wives, because they would be breaking their state of ihram completely. But the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) refused to do anything other than make it a strict obligation on them to make it an 'Umrah, so they made it an 'Umrah. Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, used this hadith as evidence that tamattu' is the best, except for the one who brought a sacrificial animal, for whom it is not possible to perform tamattu', because the one who brings a sacrificial animal does not break his state of ihram until the Day of Sacrifice. And in that case, tamattu' becomes difficult. And the author’s statement, “The best of the types of Hajj is tamattu'”, indicates to us by the word “best” that what is other than it is permissible. It is permissible to do other than tamattu', and tamattu' is not obligatory. This is the opinion of the majority of scholars that tamattu' is not obligatory. And some scholars held the view that tamattu' is obligatory, and that if a person performs tawaf and sa'y for Hajj, he must break his state of ihram whether he wants to or not, if he has not brought a sacrificial animal. This is the opinion of Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him). He held that if a person does not bring a sacrificial animal and enters ihram for Hajj in the months of Hajj, his Hajj is not valid; he must break his state of ihram so that it becomes an 'Umrah and he becomes a mutamatti'. And he cited as evidence the command of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and his strict obligation on the people, and his anger when they hesitated and started consulting him. He was angry. And Ibn al-Qayyim, may Allah have mercy on him, leaned toward this view. In *Zad al-Ma'ad*, he leaned toward this opinion that tamattu' is obligatory for the one who has not brought a sacrificial animal. He mentioned the opinion of his Shaykh, may Allah have mercy on him, and said, “I lean more toward the statement of Ibn 'Abbas than toward the statement of our Shaykh”. So he differed with his Shaykh in this issue and leaned toward the opinion of Ibn 'Abbas. And Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) would debate on this issue, debating it until he would say, “I say to you, the Messenger of Allah said, and you say, Abu Bakr and 'Umar said. It is likely that stones will fall from the sky upon you”. Because Abu Bakr and 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) held that ifrad is better than tamattu'. And Shaykh al-Islam chose, in the story of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) ordering the companions to make it an 'Umrah, and his anger and strict obligation, that this obligation is specific to the companions (may Allah be pleased with them). As for those after them, the situation differs according to the person’s condition. We do not say that tamattu' is absolutely the best, nor ifrad, nor qiran. Listen, Shaykh al-Islam, may Allah have mercy on him, says that it is obligatory on the companions whom the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) addressed to make it an 'Umrah, but not for those after them. And he has a textual and theoretical evidence. As for the textual, meaning the narrated evidence, it is that Abu Dharr was asked about tamattu', whether it is general or specific to the companions. He said, “Rather, it is specific to us”. And his statement, may Allah be pleased with him, is understood to mean that the obligation is specific to them. Otherwise, Abu Dharr could not say, “Specific to us”. And the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) was asked by Suraqah ibn Malik ibn Ju'asham, “O Messenger of Allah, is this for our time or forever?” He said, The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said this. So if the intention is obligation, the specificity of the ruling to the companions has a basis. But if the intention is, or if the meaning is, canceling the Hajj absolutely, then it is not correct. This is what kind of evidence? It is a narrated, textual evidence for Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah. The theoretical evidence is that the companions were addressed directly by the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), and this is the first time that breaking the state of ihram from Hajj occurred in the months of Hajj. If the companions had not implemented it, this would have been a stain of shame on the Ummah, and it would be said, if the companions refused the direct command of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), then we are even more so. Then, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) wanted to establish this ruling, and establishing by action is stronger than establishing by what? By speech. So if he was alone in the action, the matter remains as it was originally, which is that it is the best. Or it differs, as Shaykh al-Islam said, according to the person’s condition. And what he said, may Allah have mercy on him, is very sound: that the obligation of canceling the Hajj in that year in which the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) confronted them is true. But after that, it is not true. And I think it is not hidden that if the matter were obligatory on Abu Bakr and 'Umar, and considering who they were in terms of their closeness to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and their understanding of his speech, it is known that the one who is closest to a person is the most knowledgeable of his speech and his intention. So the correct view is what Shaykh al-Islam, may Allah have mercy on him, held regarding the obligation of tamattu' and its absence: that it is obligatory on the companions as you have learned, but for others, the school of thought is that tamattu' is absolutely the best. Absolutely, even for the one who brought a sacrificial animal, tamattu' is better for him. Even for the one who brought a sacrificial animal, tamattu' is more preferable for him according to the school of thought. But how does he perform it when he is not allowed to shave except on the Day of Sacrifice? They said that if he performs tawaf and sa'y, he does not break his state of ihram; he intends that the 'Umrah has ended, but he does not break his state of ihram by shaving. So when it is the eighth of Dhul-Hijjah, he enters ihram for Hajj. And this is undoubtedly a very weak opinion, and I have not seen the Sunnah come with such a thing. So the correct view is that the one who brought a sacrificial animal cannot perform tamattu'. He cannot, because he cannot break his state of ihram, and tamattu' requires breaking the state of ihram. Shaykh al-Islam says, “We do not say that tamattu' is absolutely the best, nor that qiran is absolutely the best, nor that ifrad is absolutely the best. He says that for the one who brought a sacrificial animal, the best for him is qiran, because tamattu' is difficult for him”. Is that correct or not? He cannot perform tamattu'. How can he perform tamattu' when he has not broken his state of ihram? The one who brought a sacrificial animal does not break his state of ihram until the Day of Sacrifice. So when does he perform tamattu'? And because this, meaning qiran with bringing a sacrificial animal, was the action of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), it is in accordance with the action of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). So qiran is therefore the best. The third meaning is that it combines Hajj and 'Umrah; it combines two types of Hajj, even though if he had performed ifrad and he had brought a sacrificial animal, it would be valid. But qiran is better for these three reasons. Then he says, “If he had performed 'Umrah before the months of Hajj and did not bring a sacrificial animal, the best for him is ifrad”. Whether he performed 'Umrah before the months of Hajj and remained in Makkah until he performed Hajj, or he performed 'Umrah before the months of Hajj and returned to his country and then returned to Makkah, the best is ifrad. He even said, “This is without dispute”. That the best is ifrad, because he performs the 'Umrah in a separate journey and the Hajj in a separate journey. Give me your opinion on the issue now. This issue has two forms. The first form is that he performed 'Umrah before the months of Hajj and remained in Makkah until he performed Hajj. So there is no doubt that ifrad is better for him, meaning he cannot perform tamattu'. Tamattu' requires performing 'Umrah from the miqat. And here in Makkah, he does not have an 'Umrah from the miqat. So we say this form is clear from the words of Shaykh al-Islam, and perhaps his statement in it is correct. The second form is that he performs 'Umrah before the months of Hajj, then returns to his country, then returns to Makkah. He says the best is that he does not enter ihram for 'Umrah, but enters ihram as a mufrid. And he says that this is without dispute. If the consensus is valid, we are not allowed to contradict it. If the consensus is not valid, it is said that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered his companions in the Farewell Pilgrimage to make it an 'Umrah, except for those who brought sacrificial animals, and he did not say, “And whoever among you performed 'Umrah before the months of Hajj, let him remain in his state of ihram.” Even though it appears that there were among the companions those who performed 'Umrah before the months of Hajj. So this issue is difficult for me from the words of Shaykh al-Islam. And what is difficult for me is not that he held this view, because he is known, may Allah have mercy on him, for the strength of his deduction, understanding, and intellect. But what is difficult for me is his statement that this is without dispute.