And the one who is prevented (from completing the rites) if he does not find a sacrificial animal, fasts ten days and then exits the state of ihram.

The Shaykh : The author said: "And the one who is prevented (from completing the rites) if he does not find a sacrificial animal, fasts ten days" meaning ten days "and then exits the state of ihram". It is strange that the author (may Allah have mercy on him) omitted the mention of the sacrificial animal, even though it is present in the text of the verse. He said: "If he does not find a sacrificial animal," so we understand the obligation of the sacrificial animal from the author's words, not by explicit statement but by implication. Well, this is also a kind of shortcoming. The one who is prevented (from completing the rites) must offer a sacrificial animal. He must offer a sacrificial animal by the text of the Qur'an. Allah the Exalted said: "Were you prevented?" meaning were you prevented from completing the rites of Hajj and 'Umrah? "Then whatever is easy of a sacrificial animal." Is this grammatically connected? It passed by us recently.

The questioner : It is the predicate of the subject.

The Shaykh : No, it is the subject and the predicate is omitted, and the implied meaning is "upon you," meaning if you were prevented, then upon you is whatever is easy of a sacrificial animal. If a person is prevented from entering Makkah, then upon him is whatever is easy of a sacrificial animal. The sacrificial animal, which sacrificial animal? The legally recognized sacrificial animal that must meet three conditions: it must be from livestock, it must have reached the age prescribed by the Shari'ah, and it must be free from defects that prevent it from being valid. He must offer a sacrificial animal by the text of the Qur'an. Where is the sacrificial animal slaughtered and when? At the place of prevention and at the time of prevention, meaning the time and place of prevention. The evidence for this is this verse: The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) brought the sacrificial animals with him during the 'Umrah of Hudaybiyyah, but the polytheists prevented him out of arrogance and the tribal pride of the pre-Islamic age of ignorance from entering Makkah. And by Allah, he was more deserving of it than they were. But they prevented him, even though if a polytheist man had come from the farthest place, and the most distant of the Arabs from Banu Hashim and Quraysh, they would have opened the doors for him. But they prevented Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), except that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) empowered him against them, so he conquered it by force. He conquered Makkah by force with the sword. And if he had not said, "Whoever enters his house is safe, whoever enters the mosque is safe, and whoever enters the house of Abu Sufyan is safe," if not for that, the Companions would have killed them in the markets. So the one who is prevented (from completing the rites) has upon him... Well, and does he have to shave? The apparent meaning of the author's words is that he does not have to shave, but the Sunnah indicates the obligation of shaving, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) ordered them to shave, but they refused, hoping that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) would not carry out the truce that was made between him and Quraysh. And I think you know the truce that was made. Its apparent effect was a grievance for the Muslims, because among the conditions was that if someone came to them as a Muslim, the Muslims were obligated to return him, and if a Muslim went to them, they were not obligated to return him. And this is a condition that is a great grievance for the Muslims. For this reason, those who opposed among the Companions, and among those who stood up for the matter was 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: "O Messenger of Allah, are we not upon the truth and our enemy upon falsehood?" He said: "Yes." He said: "Then why do we give humiliation in our religion?" He said: Look at the trust in Allah the Exalted. I obey Him and He will support me, because Allah has guaranteed support for whoever obeys Him. And this is firmness of resolve and tranquility in this straitened situation. This was the answer of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). So 'Umar went to Abu Bakr to support him against the Messenger, to be with him. But Abu Bakr's answer was like the answer of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), exactly the same, as if the Messenger was hearing Abu Bakr, and he did not know. And from this we know that Abu Bakr was closer to hitting the mark than 'Umar, because he agreed with the Messenger in this. And what happened happened, and the result was that they exited from their 'Umrah instead of "Labbaik Allahumma Labbaik," the talbiyah was cut off. And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered them to shorten their hair, but they refused, in disobedience or in waiting for a change of opinion? The second one, waiting for a change of opinion. So the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) entered upon Umm Salama, and she was a wise woman, and he found him changed. She said: "What has changed you?" He said: "So and so, I ordered them and they did not do it." She said: "Do you want them to do it?" He said: "Yes." She said: "Go out now and call the barber, and do not speak to anyone." So he went out and called the barber, and he shaved his head. So they were almost killing each other over shaving. Subhan Allah, following by action is greater than following by words. They shaved. In this hadith is evidence for the obligation of shaving, even if it is not mentioned in the Qur'an, but the Sunnah brought it, and the Sunnah completes the Qur'an. If the one who is prevented (from completing the rites) does not find a sacrificial animal, what does he do? The author said: He fasts ten days and then exits the state of ihram after ten days. He remains in his state of ihram for ten days until he fasts the ten, and then he exits the state of ihram. What is the evidence? By analogy to what? By analogy to tamattu'. They said: Because this is a relaxation by exiting the state of ihram, so the sacrificial animal became obligatory upon him, just as the relaxation of the one performing tamattu' made the sacrificial animal obligatory upon him. If he does not find it, then upon him is that he fasts. He must fast ten days, just as upon the one performing tamattu'. But this analogy is an analogy with a difference and contrary to the text. An analogy with a difference and contrary to the text. How was it contrary to the text? The two rulings are in one verse: the ruling of prevention and the ruling of tamattu' are in one verse, and the One who revealed the verse is One and knows the rulings (Exalted and Majestic is He). He said regarding tamattu': And He said regarding prevention: He moved to another ruling. If the ruling were one, would Allah the Exalted mention the alternative in tamattu' and not mention the alternative in prevention? Absolutely not possible. So when Allah was silent about fasting in prevention and made it obligatory in tamattu' for the one who does not find it, it indicates that the one who does not find it among those prevented has nothing upon him; he exits the state of ihram without anything. And it is strange, or the jurists (may Allah have mercy on them) sometimes use the texts in a way that leaves a person confused. In the expiation for killing, Allah made what obligatory? Freeing a slave, and He said: He only mentioned two things. And in the expiation for zihar, Allah made freeing a slave obligatory and they did not analogize the expiation for killing to the expiation for zihar, even though they are in two different, distant verses. They did not analogize, and they said: If feeding were obligatory if one could not fast, Allah would have mentioned it, as He mentioned it in the verse of zihar. We also say: If fasting were obligatory for the one who does not find a sacrificial animal in prevention, Allah would have mentioned it. This is the aspect of this ruling being contrary to the text. As for it being contrary to analogy, we say there is a great difference between them. The one performing tamattu' relaxes by exiting the state of ihram from the 'Umrah, but he achieved his purpose with the Hajj. But this one who is prevented is a poor soul who did not achieve his purpose with the Hajj, nor with the 'Umrah. So how can one who achieved his purpose completely be analogized to one who did not achieve even part of his purpose? So in tamattu', the sacrificial animal is obligatory, and if he does not find it, let him fast three days in Hajj and seven when he returns, so that the grace is not lost in vain; either a sacrificial animal or the alternative to the sacrificial animal. So the difference between the two rulings, or between the two situations, becomes clear, and that it is not valid to analogize one to the other. And based on this, we say: The one who is prevented (from completing the rites) is obligated to offer a sacrificial animal if he is able, and if not, nothing is upon him.