Continuation of the explanation of the author's statement: "And every sacrificial animal or feeding is for the poor of the Haram, and the expiation for the sin of wearing perfume, and the wearing of sewn garments, and the like, and the blood of being prevented, where its cause is found"

The Shaykh :"And the blood of being prevented" where its cause is found. The blood of being prevented; being prevented means being blocked. It refers to the blood that becomes obligatory due to being prevented, which is mentioned in the saying of Allah the Exalted: And the author's statement "the blood of being prevented": the al- here is for mental reference, meaning whatever constitutes being prevented allows a person to exit his state of consecration from his pilgrimage. According to the well-known view in the school of thought, this is only the blockade by an enemy. It was said that the intended meaning of being blocked is anything that prevents a person from completing his pilgrimage, such as an enemy or others, like the loss of provisions, illness, or breaking, such as a pilgrim breaking a bone, and the like. This second opinion is the most correct, and it will come, if Allah wills, in the section on missing the pilgrimage and being prevented.
He said: "where its cause is found". "Where" is a circumstantial phrase of place, meaning it is where the cause is found, whether in the state of ihram or in the state of being free from it. So if, for example, a person entered the state of ihram from al-Qarn al-Manazil and committed a prohibited act in al-Shara'i, and al-Shara'i is before the boundaries of the Haram, it is permissible for him to perform the expiation in that very place in al-Shara'i. Likewise, if he entered the state of ihram from al-Hudaybiyyah and committed a prohibited act on his way to Makkah before reaching the boundaries of the Haram, it is permissible for him to perform the expiation in the place where he committed the prohibited act, and it is permissible for him to transfer it to the Haram, because what is permissible in the state of being free from ihram is permissible in the state of ihram. However, committing a prohibited act is an exception, because what is permissible in the state of being free from ihram is permissible in the state of ihram. Yes, committing a prohibited act is an exception. The exception is the penalty for hunting, because the penalty for hunting must be performed in the Haram, by the saying of Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He: until He said: So what is the exception from committing a prohibited act? Hunting, because its penalty must be in the Haram. Is the intended meaning in the Haram both slaughtering and distributing, or distributing only? The first answer is both slaughtering and distributing. So what is obligatory in the Haram must be slaughtered in the Haram, and what is obligatory to be distributed from it must be distributed in the Haram. Based on this, if a person slaughters the sacrificial animal of tamattu' at 'Arafah and distributes it in Mina or in Makkah, it does not suffice for him. Why? Because he differed in the place of slaughter, and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: And this is a difference. Yes, if he slaughtered it in Mina and distributed it in 'Arafah, al-Ta'if, al-Shara'i, and the like, it does not suffice, because it must be for the poor of the Haram. Some scholars held that if a person slaughters outside the Haram and distributes it in the Haram, it suffices for him, because the intended purpose is to benefit the poor of the Haram, and that has been achieved. This is a view of the Shafi'i school, and it is not appropriate to issue a fatwa based on it, except in cases of dire necessity, such as if people did this while ignorant of the ruling, and then they came to ask after the time for slaughter had passed, or if they were poor. In that case, it may be permissible for a person to issue a fatwa based on this view.