Continuation of the explanation of the author's statement: "Without intercourse, hunting, clipping nails, or shaving"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : And no one ever collects their nails in order to sell them, for they have no value. So where is the destruction that he mentions? And even if it were destruction, it is permissible destruction, indeed prescribed, were it not for the state of ihram. The same applies to the head; he said: "And shaving is the same, exactly the same." The cause for the obligation of the expiation in general is that it is destruction. Destruction of what?
The questioner : Of hair.
The Shaykh : Hair has no value at all. If people wanted to benefit from hair, they have the hair of sheep and camels and others. Yes, perhaps if a person had a lot of long hair, it might have a value, and a woman who has no hair might buy it to make a wig. But even so, this is not permissible. However, we say that it may have a price, and yet we do not agree that it is destruction, because it is destruction of something that has no value. This makes clear the weakness of this opinion. The greatest of the acts of destruction, and it is clear destruction, is: hunting. And yet Allah the Exalted qualified the obligation of the penalty in it with intention, which is the basis of all destruction. So we return a second time and say: The doer of the prohibited acts, if Allah wills, according to the stronger opinion, is divided into an exhaustive classification. The doer of all the prohibited acts is not free from three cases. And by the prohibited acts here, we mean the prohibited acts that carry an expiation. As for what does not carry an expiation, such as contracting marriage, it does not fall into this classification. The doer of the prohibited acts is in three categories:
The first category: that he does it without an excuse and without a need, without a legal excuse such as ignorance, forgetfulness, or coercion, and without a need. In this case, he is sinful, and he is obligated to pay what is entailed by the prohibited act he committed. Is that clear? What is the first category? That he does it without an excuse and without a need. In this case, he is sinful and is obligated to pay what is entailed by the prohibited act he committed. If it was hunting, it is the penalty; and if it was intercourse during Hajj before the first release, it is a camel in any case, as mentioned previously.
The second category: that he does it intentionally out of a need. In this case, he is not sinful, but he is obligated to pay what is entailed by the prohibited act he committed, but he is not sinful. Why is he not sinful? Because of the need. Among such needs is shaving the hair of the head to ward off harm, as Allah the Exalted specified in the Qur'an:[Al-Baqarah 2:196] Similarly, if a person needs to wear sewn clothing, he wears the sewn clothing and he owes the expiation. How does one need to wear sewn clothing?
The questioner : An itch.
The Shaykh : For an itch, one wears a silk cloak or a lower garment. For severe cold, a lower garment is not sufficient; one must have a shirt, one must have trousers, one must have a coat. This means it is rare in Makkah, but it may happen. And from the needs is the need of the soldiers for their official uniforms, a need that concerns the interests of all the pilgrims. Is that not so? Why? Because if a soldier came without the official uniform, the people would not obey him; they would not obey him and the situation would become chaotic. But if he is in the official uniform, he has authority. But do we say that he owes the expiation or not? That is, regarding the permissibility of the clothing, there is no problem, if Allah wills, that it is permissible due to the need or dire necessity for it. But does he owe the expiation? The most cautious view, and it was said that he definitely owes the expiation. There is no third opinion that he does not owe the expiation. Zaki says it is out of caution, and caution is of the same kind as the two opinions. Well, in any case, we may say that he does not owe the expiation because he is occupied with the interests of the pilgrims. And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) waived the overnight stay for the shepherds and the water carriers. The overnight stay at Muzdalifah is one of the obligatory acts of Hajj, and he waived it for them for the benefit of the pilgrims. He granted a dispensation for al-Abbas to stay overnight in Makkah for the purpose of providing water to the pilgrims. Providing water to the pilgrims is a lesser need than maintaining security. So it is possible that the expiation is not obligatory for them, especially since there is no text specifying the obligation of the expiation for wearing sewn clothing. There is no text specifying the obligation of the expiation for wearing sewn clothing. So we now have: First, the lack of certainty regarding the obligation of the expiation for wearing sewn clothing.
And second, the analogy to the waiver of the obligatory act for one who is occupied with the benefit of the pilgrims. But if we say, as the brother Zaki said, that he pays the expiation out of caution, and the expiation is easy. How much? Feeding six poor people, half a sa' for each poor person. It is easy. The apparent view now, and praise be to Allah, is that it does not burden the person. Is that clear? This is the second category. The second category: if he does it intentionally out of a need, he does not sin, but what is entailed by the prohibited act he committed is entailed upon him.
The third category: that he is excused by ignorance, forgetfulness, or coercion. According to the madhhab, as you saw, they differentiate between the prohibited acts. Some of them do not have their expiation waived by forgetfulness, ignorance, and coercion, and some do. The correct view is that all of them are waived, and that the one excused by ignorance, forgetfulness, or coercion has nothing entailed upon him for his action, absolutely. Not in intercourse, not in hunting, not in clipping nails, not in wearing sewn clothing, in anything. And we mentioned at the beginning of the lesson the evidence from the Qur'an, the Sunnah, and reasoning, and there is no need to repeat it because it is clear.
The questioner : Of hair.
The Shaykh : Hair has no value at all. If people wanted to benefit from hair, they have the hair of sheep and camels and others. Yes, perhaps if a person had a lot of long hair, it might have a value, and a woman who has no hair might buy it to make a wig. But even so, this is not permissible. However, we say that it may have a price, and yet we do not agree that it is destruction, because it is destruction of something that has no value. This makes clear the weakness of this opinion. The greatest of the acts of destruction, and it is clear destruction, is: hunting. And yet Allah the Exalted qualified the obligation of the penalty in it with intention, which is the basis of all destruction. So we return a second time and say: The doer of the prohibited acts, if Allah wills, according to the stronger opinion, is divided into an exhaustive classification. The doer of all the prohibited acts is not free from three cases. And by the prohibited acts here, we mean the prohibited acts that carry an expiation. As for what does not carry an expiation, such as contracting marriage, it does not fall into this classification. The doer of the prohibited acts is in three categories:
The first category: that he does it without an excuse and without a need, without a legal excuse such as ignorance, forgetfulness, or coercion, and without a need. In this case, he is sinful, and he is obligated to pay what is entailed by the prohibited act he committed. Is that clear? What is the first category? That he does it without an excuse and without a need. In this case, he is sinful and is obligated to pay what is entailed by the prohibited act he committed. If it was hunting, it is the penalty; and if it was intercourse during Hajj before the first release, it is a camel in any case, as mentioned previously.
The second category: that he does it intentionally out of a need. In this case, he is not sinful, but he is obligated to pay what is entailed by the prohibited act he committed, but he is not sinful. Why is he not sinful? Because of the need. Among such needs is shaving the hair of the head to ward off harm, as Allah the Exalted specified in the Qur'an:
And whoever among you is ill or has an ailment of the head [making shaving necessary must offer] a ransom of fasting [three days] or charity or sacrifice
فمن كان منكم مريضاً أو به أذى من رأسه ففدية من صيام أو صدقة أو نسكThe questioner : An itch.
The Shaykh : For an itch, one wears a silk cloak or a lower garment. For severe cold, a lower garment is not sufficient; one must have a shirt, one must have trousers, one must have a coat. This means it is rare in Makkah, but it may happen. And from the needs is the need of the soldiers for their official uniforms, a need that concerns the interests of all the pilgrims. Is that not so? Why? Because if a soldier came without the official uniform, the people would not obey him; they would not obey him and the situation would become chaotic. But if he is in the official uniform, he has authority. But do we say that he owes the expiation or not? That is, regarding the permissibility of the clothing, there is no problem, if Allah wills, that it is permissible due to the need or dire necessity for it. But does he owe the expiation? The most cautious view, and it was said that he definitely owes the expiation. There is no third opinion that he does not owe the expiation. Zaki says it is out of caution, and caution is of the same kind as the two opinions. Well, in any case, we may say that he does not owe the expiation because he is occupied with the interests of the pilgrims. And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) waived the overnight stay for the shepherds and the water carriers. The overnight stay at Muzdalifah is one of the obligatory acts of Hajj, and he waived it for them for the benefit of the pilgrims. He granted a dispensation for al-Abbas to stay overnight in Makkah for the purpose of providing water to the pilgrims. Providing water to the pilgrims is a lesser need than maintaining security. So it is possible that the expiation is not obligatory for them, especially since there is no text specifying the obligation of the expiation for wearing sewn clothing. There is no text specifying the obligation of the expiation for wearing sewn clothing. So we now have: First, the lack of certainty regarding the obligation of the expiation for wearing sewn clothing.
And second, the analogy to the waiver of the obligatory act for one who is occupied with the benefit of the pilgrims. But if we say, as the brother Zaki said, that he pays the expiation out of caution, and the expiation is easy. How much? Feeding six poor people, half a sa' for each poor person. It is easy. The apparent view now, and praise be to Allah, is that it does not burden the person. Is that clear? This is the second category. The second category: if he does it intentionally out of a need, he does not sin, but what is entailed by the prohibited act he committed is entailed upon him.
The third category: that he is excused by ignorance, forgetfulness, or coercion. According to the madhhab, as you saw, they differentiate between the prohibited acts. Some of them do not have their expiation waived by forgetfulness, ignorance, and coercion, and some do. The correct view is that all of them are waived, and that the one excused by ignorance, forgetfulness, or coercion has nothing entailed upon him for his action, absolutely. Not in intercourse, not in hunting, not in clipping nails, not in wearing sewn clothing, in anything. And we mentioned at the beginning of the lesson the evidence from the Qur'an, the Sunnah, and reasoning, and there is no need to repeat it because it is clear.