If he does not find it, then fasting for three days, and it is better that the last of them be the Day of 'Arafah, and seven days when he returns to his family

The Shaykh : He says: "If he does not find it" meaning the non-existence of the sacrificial animal, and the non-existence of the sacrificial animal has two forms:
The first form is that the sacrificial animal is not available, such that nothing from the livestock is found in the markets.
The second form is that the livestock are available, but he does not have the price for them. In both cases, it is true that he is one who does not find it. And Allah the Exalted says: But what is considered regarding its existence or non-existence? Is the consideration the time of his entering into the state of ihram for 'Umrah, such that if he had dirhams with him at the time of his entering into ihram for 'Umrah to buy it with, and then they were stolen, is he considered to have found it? Or is the consideration his entering into ihram for Hajj? Or is the consideration the dawn of the Day of Sacrifice? Or is the consideration the time when slaughter becomes permissible, meaning after the sun has risen the height of a spear? There are various opinions on all of this. If we say that the consideration is the dawn of the Day of Sacrifice, which is the school of the Hanbalis, then a person might be one who does not find it at the time of his entering into ihram for 'Umrah, or he might have some of it and thought that the price of the sacrificial animal was high, but then he acquired something afterwards, either by earning it, or it was given to him, or his deceased left him an inheritance, or something similar. We say in this case that he acts according to his predominant suspicion. If it is predominant in his suspicion at the time of his entering into ihram for 'Umrah that he will not find the sacrificial animal, then it is ruled that he did not find it, even if it is possible that he will find it on the Day of Sacrifice, because even if the sacrificial animal itself is not found, it might be brought in during the days of the festival. The important question is: when is the consideration for its existence or non-existence? According to the school, it is the dawn of the Day of Sacrifice, and there are opinions on this, but this is the well-known view. "If he does not find it, then fasting for three days" The apparent meaning of the words of the author (may Allah have mercy on him) is that if he does not have the price, he is one who does not find it, even if he finds someone to lend it to him. And there is no doubt that if his non-existence is due to inability, then the sacrificial animal is not obligatory upon him, even if he finds someone to lend it to him. But if his non-existence of the price of the sacrificial animal is not due to inability, but he is wealthy, except that his expenses were stolen from him, and he can easily say to one of his companions or to others: "O so-and-so, lend me," and he can easily be lent whenever he asks, do we say to such a person that it is not obligatory? The apparent meaning of the author's words is that it is not obligatory, even if he is wealthy, but there is something in the mind about this. Because we say that the one who does not find it and finds someone to lend it to him, either his non-existence is due to his poverty, in which case there is no doubt that he is not required to borrow, and we actually forbid him from borrowing. Or his non-existence is due to the lack of money in his hand, but he is wealthy in his country. The jurists (may Allah have mercy on them) see that both forms are the same. And I have a concern about the second form, because such a man cannot be said to be one who did not find it, and it is the norm that such a man will borrow with ease and find someone to lend to him and not turn him away. Because the wealthy, especially in Mecca during the heat, especially if the days are long, would like to spend a lot of money rather than fast for even one day due to its hardship on them. He said: "Then fasting for three days in Hajj, and it is better that the last of them be the Day of 'Arafah" The Day of 'Arafah, what is the grammatical case of "Day"? It is the predicate of "being" (kun), because "being" is the verbal noun of "was" (kana), and the verbs that negate the subject negate themselves and their derivatives. He says: It is better that the last of them be the Day of 'Arafah. So he fasts the seventh, eighth, and ninth days so that the last of them is the Day of 'Arafah. They said: And in this case, it is recommended that he enters into ihram for Hajj on the seventh day, so he enters into ihram on the seventh day so that his fasting for the three days is within the Hajj itself. This is what they said. And there is a concern about this from two aspects: from the aspect of advancing the ihram for Hajj, and from the aspect of the last of them being the Day of 'Arafah. As for the first, advancing the ihram for Hajj before the eighth day is contrary to the guidance of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). And what appears from the state of the Companions who performed Tamattu' is that they were poor. This is what appears, because they did not bring the sacrificial animal. If they had wealth, they would have brought the sacrificial animal as the wealthy did. And if they were poor, their obligation is fasting. And we know, or it is predominant in our observation, that the Companions who exited the state of ihram did not enter into ihram except on the eighth day. So how do we say he enters into ihram on the seventh day? Then, according to this opinion, we say: He enters into ihram before the dawn of the seventh day in order for the fasting to cover all three days, so that the fasting of the three days is all within the Hajj. And there is a concern about this. The third issue is that the last of them being the Day of 'Arafah is also a concern. This is because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and brought a cup and drank from it in front of the people on the morning of the Day of 'Arafah to let them know that he was breaking his fast. And fasting on the Day of 'Arafah necessitates that a person be sluggish, lazy, and tired at the end of the day, which is the best day, so he does not have the energy for the supplication, which is best at the end of the day. So here, if he fasts, he wastes a great purpose on the Day of 'Arafah, which is the energy for supplication at the end of the day. So the correct view is contrary to what the companions held in this issue from two aspects. The first aspect is advancing the ihram for Hajj, and the correct view is that he does not enter into ihram except on the second day. The second aspect is that he fasts on the Day of 'Arafah, for this is contrary to the guidance of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). So when does he fast them? We say that the beginning of fasting them is from his entering into ihram for 'Umrah. From the time he enters into ihram for 'Umrah, it is permissible for him to fast them. If someone says: How is it permissible for him to fast them from the time of his entering into ihram for 'Umrah, while Allah the Exalted says We say it is permissible due to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): And on this basis, he may begin fasting them from the time he enters into ihram for 'Umrah until the last of them is the last day of the days of Tashreeq. And what appears to me from the hadith of Ibn 'Umar and 'A'ishah (may Allah be pleased with them) is that the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) used to fast them on the days of Tashreeq, due to the saying of 'A'ishah and Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with them): "No permission was given to fast on the days of Tashreeq except for one who does not find the sacrificial animal" So the apparent meaning of this text or this report is that the Companions used to fast them on the days of Tashreeq. And fasting them on the days of Tashreeq is fasting them on the days of Hajj, because the days of Tashreeq are days of Hajj in which the stoning of the pillars takes place on the eleventh and twelfth, and likewise the thirteenth. So if someone went to the view that it is better to fast the three days on the days of Tashreeq, it would be closer to the truth. Is it required that they be consecutive? We say that if he begins them on the first day of the days of Tashreeq, it is necessary that they be consecutive, because it is not possible for him to fast them on the days of Hajj except consecutively, because only three days of Hajj remain for him, and it is not permissible to delay them beyond the days of Tashreeq. But if he fasts them before the days of Tashreeq, it is permissible for him to fast them separately or consecutively. This is based on the general principle of usul al-fiqh and hadith, which is: "That the obligatory is to generalize what Allah and His Messenger generalized, and to restrict what Allah and His Messenger restricted" So Allah the Exalted generalized: three days in Hajj and seven when you return, and did not restrict them to being consecutive. And if Allah did not restrict them, then restricting them is a tightening upon Allah's servants in the Shari'ah of Allah. And if it is not our right to generalize what Allah restricted, then it is not our right to restrict what Allah generalized. Rather, restricting what Allah generalized is more severe than generalizing what Allah restricted, because restricting what Allah generalized is contrary to the spirit of the Islamic religion, which is facilitation and easing. For the unrestricted is easier than the restricted. And on this basis, we say it is permissible to fast the three days consecutively or separately, as long as their consecutiveness is not a necessity of fasting them in Hajj. When is their consecutiveness a necessity of fasting them in Hajj? If he fasts them on the days of Tashreeq, then here they must be consecutive. The analogy for this is making up Ramadan. It is permissible to make up Ramadan consecutively or separately, is it not? But if the amount remaining of Sha'ban is equal to what he owes from Ramadan, then consecutiveness is necessary, because it is not possible to delay them until after the second Ramadan. Did you understand? Good.
If it is brought to us in the context of the expiation for an oath, then Allah said: Then you say that consecutiveness is necessary in it, even though the verse contains a generalization. The answer is that Ibn Mas'ud recited:
He said: "and seven when he returns to his family". When he returns to his family, meaning to his country, as is the case with the verse: However, the verse did not restrict this to returning to the family, but the exegetes interpreted it as such: when you return to your families, as the hadiths indicate that the meaning is returning to the family. Nevertheless, the scholars said: if he fasts them after completing all the rites of Hajj, there is no harm, because it is now permissible for him to return to his family, so it is permissible for him to fast them.
Then the author (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "The one who is prevented (muharr)".
How many times have we passed through the expiation and the penalty? We have passed through the prohibitions of ihram in full, in detail, previously, that they are four categories: the hady of Tamattu' and Qiran. So the obligatory is whatever is easy of the hady. If he does not find it, then fasting three days in Hajj and seven when you return. Okay, is the obligatory hady in Tamattu' and Qiran a hady of compensation or a hady of gratitude?

The questioner : It is gratitude.

The Shaykh : It is gratitude, and therefore it is not obligatory to give it in charity, but rather he eats, gives as a gift, and gives in charity.
The third type: the blood obligatory due to being prevented (ihisar).