"And if his wife consents to him, it becomes obligatory upon her"

The Shaykh : He said: "And if his wife consents to him, it becomes obligatory upon her" In one version, it reads "it becomes obligatory upon them" if she consents to him. This means she agreed with him regarding intercourse during Hajj or 'Umrah. "It becomes obligatory upon them" means the sacrificial camel in Hajj and the sheep in 'Umrah. Or "it becomes obligatory upon her" means the ruling becomes obligatory upon her. Pay attention: if she consents to him. And if he forced her, the apparent wording of the author is that if he forced her, it does not become obligatory upon her. But does it become obligatory upon the husband or not? Or is the fidyah (ransom payment) dropped absolutely? Does the husband have to offer expiation for his wife because he forced her, or not? No, there are two opinions in this issue. The madhhab (school of jurisprudence) says no; there is no fidyah for the one who was forced, nor for the one who forced her. This is based on the saying of Allah the Exalted: "There is no blame upon you for what you have erred in, but what your hearts have intended." And His saying: Okay, if he forced her, we say there is no fidyah upon her. Does her Hajj become invalid? No, because she was forced. Okay, in my commentary, there is a necessary completion. He said: The obligatory blood (sacrifice) is for the loss of or leaving off an obligatory act, such as the blood for tamattu' (combining 'Umrah and Hajj with a break between them). What is the loss? The loss is when the dawn of the Day of Sacrifice breaks before one has stood at 'Arafah. So if the pilgrim sees the dawn of the Day of Sacrifice break before he has stood at 'Arafah, his Hajj is lost, and he must offer a blood sacrifice for its loss, if he had not made a condition. Similarly, the obligatory blood for leaving off an obligatory act: if he does not have it, he fasts ten days: three during Hajj and seven when he returns. An example: if he leaves off the stoning of the pillars, we say he must offer what? A blood sacrifice. If he does not have it, he fasts three days during Hajj and seven when he returns. The 'illah (operative cause) is analogy with the blood for tamattu'. But there is a point of consideration here, because there is a great difference between the blood for tamattu' and leaving off an obligatory act. The obligatory blood for leaving off an obligatory act is a blood of compensation for a deficiency, while the obligatory blood for tamattu' and qiran (combining 'Umrah and Hajj in one ihram) is a blood of gratitude for completion. So how do we analogize this to that? Perhaps we do not oppose the obligation of blood for the one who leaves off an obligatory act, meaning we hope to obligate him with blood, because there is no evidence for the obligation of blood for the one who leaves off an obligatory act except the athar (report) of Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him), in which he said: "Whoever forgets something of his ritual or leaves it off, let him shed blood" There is nothing from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) regarding this, not a single letter, that the one who leaves off an obligatory act must offer blood. But the scholars accepted this athar and said: Whoever leaves off something of his ritual, he must offer blood. Although they do not say this is absolute. If we said it was absolute, we would say the one who leaves off the tawaf (circumambulation) must offer blood, the one who leaves off the two rak'ahs behind the Maqam must offer blood, the one who leaves off standing at al-Mash'ar al-Haram must offer blood. But regarding al-Mash'ar al-Haram, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said: So they do not say it is absolute. They restrict it to the one who leaves off something of his obligatory ritual or forgets it, he must offer blood. They said: For this reason, this has the ruling of marfu' (traced to the Prophet). But it can be said that this does not have the ruling of marfu', because the ruling of marfu' is what the Companion said, and there is no room for opinion in it. Here, there may be room for opinion. Perhaps Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) said: If the violation of the ritual by doing a prohibited act necessitates blood, then the violation of the ritual by leaving off a commanded act is the same. So there may be room for opinion in it. In any case, this is not the place to discuss whether blood is obligatory for leaving off an obligatory act or not. But we want to clarify that the author (may Allah have mercy on him) holds that the one who leaves off an obligatory act must offer blood. If he does not find it, he fasts ten days. We say there is no evidence for the obligation of fasting ten days, and that the one who leaves off an obligatory act must offer blood. If he does not find it, he owes nothing.