The Distinguished Jurists Primer by Ibn Rushd

This covers the identification of the acts of this worship (hajj), namely its basic elements, as well as the discussion of acts to be avoided during the period of its performance. This worship, as we have said, is of two types: hajj and ^umra. Hajj itself is of three types: ifrdd, tamattuy and qirdn. All these consist of determined acts (to be performed) at determined locations and at determined times. Some of these are obligatory, while some are not, along with things to be avoided during these acts, each one of which has determined ahkam (to be applied) either at the time of a breach or on the occurrence of an obstacle.

This category is, therefore, divided first into a discussion of the acts (to be performed) and a discussion of the things to be avoided. The third category will include the discussion of the.ahkdm.

We begin, then, with the acts (of this worship). Some of these acts are stipulated for these four kinds of rites, that is, for the three types of hajj and for <umra while some are specific to individual y types. We begin the discussion with the acts common to them and will then move to what is specific to the individual types. We say: The first of the acts in hajj and <umra is the act known as the ihram.

The first condition for the ihram1* is that of location and time. The locations are what are called the mawaqit of hajj. We will begin the discussion with these. The jurist generally agree that the mawdqtt are where the ihram (intention to start the hajj as well as wearing the hajj attire) is to be formulated. For the people of Medina the location is Dhu al-Hulayfa, for the people of Syria it is al-Juhfa, for the people of Najd it is Qam, and for the people of Yemen it is Yalamlam, because all this is established from the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) in the tradition of Ibn TJmar and others. They disagreed about the miqdt for the people of Iraq. The majority of the jurists of the provinces maintain that the miqdt for them is Dhat Irq. Al-ShaficT and al-Thawri said that if they adopt the ihram at al- c AqTq it would be preferable. They disagreed as to who had determined this location for them. A group of jurists said that it was TJmar ibn al-Khattab. Another group of jurists said that, in fact, it was the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) himself who determined the location for the people of Iraq to be Dhat <Irq or al-cAqTq. This has been related in traditions from Jabir, Ibn Abbas, and <A*isha. The majority of the jurists maintain that the person who misses these points, though he has in mind, to go through the ihram and does so after crossing them is liable for atonement by slaughtering (of an animal) (dam). Some of these jurists said that if he returns to the miqdt and performs the ihram there the liability for atonement is dropped. Al-ShafiT is one of these jurists. Some of them said that the liability for atonement is not dropped even if he returns. This was Malik’s opinion. One group said that there is no atonement for him. Another group said that if he does not return to the miqdt his hajj becomes invalid and that he should return and begin the rites of the ^umra. This is discussed fully in the chapter dealing with the ahkam.

The majority of the jurists maintain that the person whose residence is nearer (Mecca) than the miqdt, the miqdt for his ihram is his residence. They disagreed whether there is greater merit for the pilgrims to begin' the process of ihram from their residences or from the miqdt if their residences are nearer to Mecca than the miqdt. A group of jurists said that it is better for such a person to start from his residence, and that to start from the miqdt in their case is an exemption. This was the opinion of al-ShafiT, Abu HanTfa, al-ThawrT, and a group of jurists. Malik, Ishaq, and Ahmad said that to start from the the mawaqit is better. The reliance of these jurists is on the preceding traditions and (on the argument) that it is a sunna established by the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) and is therefore better. The reliance of the other group is on the argument that the Companions—Ibn cAbbas, Ibn TJmar, Ibn Mas ud, and others—started c the process of the ihram from the miqdt. They said that they (the Companions) knew better the sunna of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him). The principles of the Zahirites imply that it is not permitted to commence the ihram from any place other than the miqdt, unless an authentic consensus indicates the contrary.

They disagreed about the person who does not commence the ihram from the miqdt assigned to his region and starts instead from another miqdt, like a resident of Medina relinquishing Dhu al-Hulayfa and starting from al-Juhfa. A group of jurists said that he is liable for atonement by slaughtering an animal (dam). Those who held this opinion are Malik and some of his disciples. Abu HanTfa said that there is no liability for him. The reason for the disagreement is whether it is one of the rites the relinquishment of which makes a person liable for atonement by slaughtering an animal (dam).

There is no disagreement that it is binding upon a person who passes by these locations, when he intends to perform the hajj or the himra, to commence the ihram there. In the case of persons who do not intend to perform these rites, but pass by the locations, a group of jurists said that it is binding on them to adopt the ihram, except those who do so very frequently, like woodcutters and other similar people. This was Malik’s opinion. Another group of jurists said that this is not binding on any person except those who intend to perform the hajj or the ^umra. All this is in the case of persons who are not residents of Mecca.

The residents of Mecca adopt the ihram from their residences, in case of the hajj. In the case of the ^umra, they go outside the boundaries of the Haram (hill), and that is necessary. With respect to the time when the residents of Mecca are to adopt the ihram, it is said that they do so when they sight the new moon (of Dhu al-Hijja), and it is said when the pilgrims start moving toward Mina (on the eighth of Dhu al-Hijja). This is the (discussion of the) miqat with reference to location, which is stipulated for the different types of this worship.

The miqat of time is also determined for the the three types of hajj. It is the period comprising Shawwal, Dhu al-Qa^a, and the first nine days of Dhu al- Hijja, by agreement. Malik said that it is a total of three months. AI-ShaficT said that it consists of the two first months and the first nine days of Dhu al- Hijja. Abu HanTfa said that it is the two months plus the first ten days of Dhu al-Hijja. x The evidence for Malik’s opinion is the generality of the words of the Exalted, “The pilgrimage is (in) the well-known months”,247 implying that this applies to all the days of Dhu al-Hijja as it does to all the days of Shawwal and Dhu al-QaMa. The evidence of the second group is the termination of the ritual state of ihram before the completion of the third month by the completion of all its obligatory acts. The implication of the dispute is the (permissibility of) delaying of the of the tawaf al-ifada (the obligatory final circumambulation of the Ka'ba) till the end of the month.

Malik disapproves a person’s commencing the ihram before the months of hajj, but such commencing of the ihram is valid in his view. Other jurists maintain that the ihram of this person is not valid. Al-ShafiT said that his ihram is to be converted to the ihram for 'umra. Those who held this to be similar to the time for prayer said that it is not effective before time. Those who relied upon the general implication of the words of the Exalted, “Complete the performance of the pilgrimage and the himra for Allah”,248 said that whenever he starts the ihram it takes effect, for he is commanded to complete (the pilgrimage). Perhaps, they held hajj in this context to be similar to himra and held the miqat of time to be similar to those of ^umra. Al- Shafi Fs c opinion is based upon the argument that whoever undertakes an act of worship in a time that pertains to an identical worship the worship is converted to the identical form, like one fasting after a vow during Ramadan. There is disagreement over this principle in the School (Malik’s).

The jurists agreed that himra is permissible at any time of the year, as in the days of jahiliyya it was not performed during the days of hajj (but during the rest of the year), which is the meaning of the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), "*Umra stands merged in the hajj up to the Day of Judgment”. Abu Hanifa said that it is permitted throughout the year, except on the day of ^Arafa, the day of sacrifice, and the days of tashriq when it is considered disapproved.

They disagreed about its repetition in a single year. Malik considered one ^umra as desirable every year but disapproved the performance of two or three in one year. Al-Shafi T and Abu Hanifa held that there is no abomination in this.

c This, then, is the discussion of the conditions of the ihram pertaining to time and location. It is necessary after this to move to the discussion of the ihram, but before that it is essential to talk about the things to be avoided by the person in the ritual state of the ihram. Thereafter, we will talk about the specific acts of the person in a ritual state of the ihram until he is released from it and these are all the acts that are to be observed or are to be shunned relinquishments of hajj. We shall then take up the ahkam of vitiation due to the commission of a prohibited act or the relinquishment and abuse of a required act. We, therefore, begin with the relinquishments.

These are ordinarily permissible acts that are not permitted to a person in the ritual state of ihram. The source for this topic is what is established through the tradition of Malik from Nafi< from <Abd Allah ibn ‘Umar “that a man asked the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), ‘What kind of clothes does a person in a ritual state of ihram wear?’ The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, ‘You should neither wear shirts, nor turbans, nor trousers, nor hooded cloaks, nor shoes, unless a person does not find sandals for then he may wear shoes after cutting them below the ankles. And do not wear any clothing which has been touched (dyed) by saffron or wars (yellow dye)’”. the ritual state of ihrdm should not wear a shirt or any other thing mentioned in this tradition nor anything that is similar, that is, stitched: clothing. This is specific for men, that is, wearing stitched clothing, and there is no harm if a woman wears a shirt, coat, trousers, shoes, and a head-cover.

They differed about the person who does not find anything other than trousers. Is he to wear them? Malik and Abu Hamfa held that he is not permitted to wear trousers and if he does so he atones for it. Al-ShaficT, al- ThawrT, Ahmad. Abu Thawr, and Dawud said that there is no liability upon him if he cannot find a loin-cloth. The reliance in Malik’s opinion is upon the apparent meaning of the preceding tradition of Ibn Umar. He said that had there been some exemption in this the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and* blessings be upon him) would have expressed it as he did in the case of shoes. The reliance of the other group is upon the tradition of cAmr ibn Dinar from Jabir and Ibn Abbas, who said, “I heard the Messenger c of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) saying, ‘Trousers are for the person who does not find a loin-cloth and shoes for one who cannot find sandals’”.

The majority of the jurists permit the wearing of shoes that have been cut down for a person who cannot find sandals. Ahmad said that it is permitted to a person who cannot find sandals to wear shoes that have not been cut, and this by relying upon the unqualified implication in the tradition of Ibn c Abbas. cAta> said that in cutting them down there is waste and Allah does not like waste. They differed about the person who wears cut down shoes when sandals are available. Malik said that he has to make atonement, and this was also the opinion of Abu Thawr. Abu Hamfa said that there is no atonement for him. Both views are related from al-ShafiT, and we shall mention this in the discussion of the ahkam.

The jurists agreed unanimously that the person in the state of ihrdm is not to wear clothing that is dyed with wars or saffron, because of the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) in the tradition of Ibn Umar, “And do not wear any clothing which has been touched [dyed] by saffron or wars [yellow dye]”. They disagreed about clothing dyed with safflower. Malik said that there is no harm in that as it is not a perfume. Abu HanTfa and al-ThawrT said that it is a perfume and there is ransom (fidya) for using it. The evidence for Abu HanTfa is what Malik has recorded from C A1T “that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited the wearing of qassly (a silk striped garment) and a garment dyed with safflower”.

They agreed that the ihrdm of a woman pertains to her face. She is to cover her head and hair and that she should let her head covering hang a little in front of her face so that she is veiled from the view of men; in accordance with what is related from A isha, who said, “We were accompanying the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) and were in the ritual state of ihrdm. When a rider would pass by us we would pull down our head-garments.a little in front of our faces from over the head, and when the rider had passed we would lift it”. There is no narration about the covering of their faces, except what has been related by Malik from Fatima bint al- Mundhir, who said, “We used to veil our faces while wearing the ihrdm along with Asma daughter of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq”.

They disagreed about the covering of the face by a man in a state of ihrdm after they agreed unanimously that he is not to cover his head. Malik has related from Ibn TJmar that the part of the head above the chin is not to be covered by a man in the state of ihrdm. This was the opinion of Malik. It is also narrated from him that if he does this and does not uncover it up to its proper place he is to pay ransom; Al-ShaficT, al-ThawrT, Ahmad, Abu Dawud, and Abu Thawr said that a person wearing the ihrdm may cover his face up to the eyebrows. This is related from the Companions: from TJthman, Zayd ibn Thabit, Jabir, Ibn Abbas, and Sa<d ibn AbT Waqqas.

c They disagreed about the wearing of gloves by a woman. Malik said that if a woman wears gloves she is liable for ransom. Al-Thawri made an exemption in this, which is related from cA5isha. The evidence for Malik is what has been related by Abu Dawud from Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) “that he proscribed the wearing of veils and gloves”. Some of the narrators report it with the chain stopping at Ibn TJmar, and some narrators report it with a complete chain, that is narrate it from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him).

These are their well-known agreements and disagreements over (the pilgrim’s) clothing. The basis of all this is their dispute over the analogies constructed for the unexpressed cases from those that are expressly mentioned, their dispute over the possible interpretations of the text, and whether or not such text is authentic.

The second item in the things to be avoided is perfume. The jurists agreed that all kinds of perfume are to be avoided during hajj and <umra by the pilgrim so long as he is in a state of ihrdm. They disagreed about its permissibility for the muhrim at the time when he is about to form the niyya the ihrdm, so that its effect may remain after he has entered into the state of ihram. Some jurists disapproved of it, while others permitted it. Included in those who disapproved it is Malik, who related it from TJmar ibn al-Khattab. It is also the opinion of TJthman, Ibn TJmar, and a group of the Tabicun. Those who permitted it include Abu HanTfa, al-ShaficT, al-ThawrT, Ahmad, and Dawud. The evidence for Malik, by way of transmission, is the tradition of Safwan ibn Ya4a that has been recorded in the Sahihayn, and it includes the words, “A man came to the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) donning a tunic and wearing perfume. He said, ‘O Messenger of Allah, what do you think about a man in a state of ihrdm for the himra who wears, a tunic and has applied perfume?’ It was then that a revelation was sent down to ' the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), and when he had recovered he said, ‘Where is the questioner who asked about the <wnra a short while ago?’ The man was found and brought to him. The Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, ‘As for the perfume that you have on, wash it away from yourself three times. The tunic you should take off, and then do for the ^umra what you do for your haff”. I have summarized the tradition and have mentioned its essential meaning.

The reliance of the other group is on what is related by Malik from c A’isha, who said, “I used to apply perfume to the head of the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) for his ihrdm before he had started the process of the ihrdm, and also when he was not in a state of ihrdm and was about to perform the circumambulation of the House”. The first group relied on the tradition related from cA*isha, who having heard about the rejection by Ibn cUmar of the use of perfume prior to the ihrdm said, “May Allah have mercy on the father of cAbd al-Rahman, I perfumed the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) and he visited his wives and then arose in the morning in a state of ihrdm”. They responded arguing that if he visited his wives, then, he must have taken a bath (afterwards), and only the smell of perfume remained upon him; not its substance. As a consensus occurred (they added) that all things not permitted to the muhrim initially, like the wearing of clothing and killing of game, are not permitted to him during the state of ihrdm, it becomes necessary that the hukm of its continuity be the same, that is, it should be true for perfume. The reason for disagreement, therefore, stems from the conflict of traditions on the topic.

The third thing to be avoided is sexual intercourse. This is so as the Muslim jurists agreed that sexual intercourse with women is prohibited to the person performing the pilgrimage from the time that he assumes the state of ihrdm, because of the words of the Exalted, “There is (to be) no lewdness nor abuse nor angry conversation on the pilgrimage”.249

The fourth thing prohibited is the removal of dirt, cutting hair, and killing lice, but they agreed that it is permitted for the person to wash his head because of a major impurity. They disagreed about the disapproval of washing his head due to a reason other than a major impurity. The majority said that there is no harm if he washes his head. Malik upheld the disapproval and his reliance is on the fact that ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Umar did not wash his head while he was a muhrim, except after a- nocturnal emission. The reliance of the majority is on what is related by Malik from ‘Abd Allah ibn Jubayr “that Ibn ‘Abbas and al-Miswar ibn Makhrama disputed at al-Abwa* (the washing of the head by a muhrim). ‘Abd Allah said that a muhrim may wash his head, while al-Miswar ibn Makhrama said that a muhrim is not to wash his head. He said, ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abbas sent me to Abu Ayyub al-Ansarl. I found him (he said) bathing between two props curtained with a cloth. I greeted him. He said, ‘Who is that?’ I said, ‘‘Abd Allah ibn Jubayr. ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abbas sent me to you to ask you how the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) used to wash his head when he was in the state of ihrdm\ Abu Ayyub then slapped on the cloth till I could see his head. He said to the person who was pouring water on him to pour it over his head. The person poured it over his head and he moved his head with his hands, taking them forwards and backwards. He then said, ‘This is how I saw the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) doing it’ ”. ‘Umar also used to wash his head when he was in a state of ihram and said, “It will only make it (hair) more ruffled”. It is recorded by Malik in al-Muwatta?. Malik interpreted the tradition of Abu Ayyub al-AnsarT to apply to (a bath because of a) major impurity. The evidence for him is their consensus that the muhrim is prohibited from killing lice, trimming hair, or removal of tafath, which is dirt, and the person who washes his head does all or some of these things. They agreed about the prohibition of the muhrim washing his head with marsh’ mallow. Malik and Abu HanTfa said that if he does this he has to pay ransom. Abu Thawr said that he is under no liability.

They disagreed about entering a public bath. Malik disapproved this and held that whoever does this has to pay ransom. Abu HanTfa, al-Shafi‘T, al- Thawri, and Dawud said that there is no harm in this. It is related through two channels from Ibn ‘Abbas that he entered the public bath when he was in a state of ihram. It is better to disapprove entry into the bath as the muhrim is prohibited from removing dirt.

The fifth thing that is prohibited is hunting. This is also agreed upon because of the words of the Exalted, “To hunt on land is forbidden you as long as ye are on pilgrimage”,250 and His words, “Kill no wild game while ye are on the .pilgrimage”.251 They agreed that the person in a state of ihram is not permitted to hunt nor to eat what he has hunted. They disagreed about whether it is permitted to the muhrim to eat game when someone not in the state of ihram hunts it. There are thre opinions. According to one opinion it is permitted for him to eat it without restriction. This was expressed by Abu HanTfa, and it is also the opinion of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab and al-Zubayr. One group said that it is prohibited for him under all circumstances. This is the opinion of Ibn ‘Abbas, ‘All, and Ibn ‘Umar, and it was also the opinion of al-Thawri. Malik said that as long as it has not been hunted for a muhrim or for those in ihrdm generally it is permissible for him, but if it has been hunted for a muhrim it is prohibited for each muhrim.

The reason for disagreement emanates from the conflict of traditions about this. One of these is a tradition recorded by Malik from Abu Qatada “that he was with the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) when they were on one of the ways leading to Mecca when Abu Qatada stayed behind with some of the Prophet’s Companions who were in a state of ihrdm, while he was not. He noticed a wild ass and mounting on his horse asked his company to hand him his whip. They refused to do this so he asked them for his spear, which they also refused. He, then, took it himself and charging the wild ass killed it. Some of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) ate of it while others did not. When they caught up with the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) they asked him about it and he said, ‘It was food that Allah fed you with’”. Implying the same is the tradition of Talha ibn ‘Ubayd Allah that is recorded by al-NasaT that ‘Abd al-Rahman al-TamTmT said, “We were with Talha ibn ‘Ubayd Allah and in a state of ihrdm. A gazelle was brought as a gift for him when he was sleeping. Some of us ate of it and when Talha woke up he approved of eating, and said, ‘We ate it along with the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him)’ ”. The second tradition is from Ibn ‘Abbas and has also been recorded by Malik that “a wild ass was brought for the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) at al- Abwa” or at Waddan. He returned it to the person and said, ‘We would not wish to decline it, it is only that we are in a state of ihrdm* There is another reason for the disagreement and that is whether the proscription is linked to eating the game itself, as distinct from whether the muhrim killed it or it was killed for him, or to the act of killing by the muhrim, or to a combination of both. Those who relied upon the tradition of Abu Qatada said that the proscription is related to eating along with the act of killing. Those who acted upon the tradition of Ibn ‘Abbas said that the proscription is related to each individual action. Those who adopted the method of preference in these traditions either acted upon the tradition of Abu Qatada or on the tradition of Ibri ‘Abbas. Those who reconciled the traditions upheld the third opinion. They said that reconciliation is better and they supported this with the tradition related from Jabir from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) that he said, “Game from the land is permitted to you when you are in a state of ihram as long as you have not hunted it and it has not been hunted for you”.

They disagreed about the case of the person under duress whether he is to consume carrion or is to hunt in the state of ihram, Malik, Abu Hanifa, al- ThawrT, Zufar, and a group of jurists said that if he is under duress he may eat carrion or swine flesh without hunting. Abu Yusuf said that he is to hunt and eat, and he is obliged to make reparation. The first view is better for the blocking of the means (to seek an unlawful end), while the view of Abu Yusuf reflects a better analogy, because this (carrion) is prohibited for itself and hunting is (temporarily) prohibited for some reason, and what is prohibited temporarily for a reason is lesser in gravity than what is perpetually prohibited in itself.

The Muslim jurists agreed that these five things are prohibitions of the ihram, but they differed about the marriage of the muhrim. Malik, al-ShaficT, al-Layth, and al-AwzaT said that a muhrim is not to marry nor give someone away in marriage. If he does that the marriage is void. This is also the opinion of TJmar, ^IT ibn Abl Talib, Ibn TJmar, and Zayd ibn Thabit. Abu Hanifa and al-Thawrl said there is no harm if the muhrim marries himself or gives someone away in marriage.

The reason for their disagreement arises from the conflict of traditions on the subject. One of these is related as a tradition from TJthman ibn cAffan, who said, “The muhrim is not to marry nor give someone away in marriage, nor is he to make a marriage proposal”. The tradition that opposes this is from Ibn Abbas c “that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) married Maymuna when he was in a state of ihram”. It is recorded by the compilers of the authentic traditions, except that it has been opposed by. a number of traditions from Maymuna (herself), who said “that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) married her when he was not in the state of ihram”. It has been related from her through various channels from Abu Rafic, from Sulayman ibn Yassar, who was her mawla (client), and from Zayd ibn al-Asamm. It is possible to reconcile the traditions by interpreting one to imply disapproval and the other to indicate permissibility. ..

These are the well-known issues about what is prohibited to the muhrim. As to when he is to be released from the status of ihram, when the proscribed acts become permissible again, we shall mention it when discussing the acts of hajj. The state of ihram for the person performing the <umra ceases after he has made the tawdf and the sa*y, and had his head shaved. They differed about the termination of this state for those performing hajj, as will be coming up later. And now, as we have discussed the things to be avoided by the muhrim, we move to a discussion of his acts.

The persons in the ritual state of ihrdm either perform the <umra separately and the hajj separately (mufrid) or they combine the hajj and the <umra. He who intends to do both may begin with the hajj, in which case he is called a mufrid, or with the himra, in which case he is a mutamatti\ or he may combine both, and then he is known as a qdrin. It is necessary, initially, to separate the three types of these rites and then to discuss what the tnuhritn does in each .one of these, and discuss what is specific to each of these types, if there is something specific to them. We shall do the same thing after discussing the ihrdm with the acts of hajj.

We say: ifrad (the method by which the pilgrim begins with hajj) is the type stripped of the characteristics of tamattu^ and'qirdn. It is, therefore, necessary that we first begin with a description of tamattu^ and then follow it up with the description of qiran.

We say: The jurists agreed that this is the kind of rite that is implied in the words of the Exalted, “Then whosoever enjoyed freedom from the restriction of the ihrdm by commencing with the ^umra before the hajj, (shall give) such gifts as can be had with ease”. This means that the pilgrim pronounces the talbiya for the himra from the appointed locations during the-months of hajj. This is the case if his residence is beyond the Haram (otherwise he does so from his residence). He moves from there until he reaches the House (the Sacred Mosque) and makes the circuits around' the Ka^ba, performs the say, and then has his hair shaved (or shortened) within these months. He is then no longer in the state of ihrdm though he is in Mecca. He will begin his hajj in the very same year and in these appointed-1 months without going back to his homeland, except what is related from akHasan. He said that he is to be considered a mutamatti*- even if he goes back to his homeland without performing he. hajj, that is, he is liable for the sacrifice of the mutamatti^ that is mentioned in the words of the Exalted, “such blood sacrifice as can be had with ease”.252 * 254 He (ai-Hasan) used to maintain that a ^umra during the days of hajj amounts to tamattifi. Tawus maintained that the person who performs ^umra before the months of hajj and then stays on (in Mecca) till the hajj and performs it in the same year is also to be considered a mutamatti\ The jurists agreed that a person who is not residing (permanently) in the (vicinity of) al-Masjid al-Haram is eligible for being a mutamattP. They disagreed about the resident of Mecca whether he is eligible for tamattu*-. Those who maintained that he is eligible agreed that there is no (obligation of) atonement , because of the words of the Exalted, “That is for him whose folk are not present in the vicinity of al-Masjid al-Haram” They disagreed as to who is resident in al-Masjid al-Hardm. Malik said that they are the residents of the town of Mecca and those of Dhu Tuwa, as well as others whose residence is as far from Mecca as Dhu Tuwa. Abu Harnfa said that they are the persons who live withing the mawdqit and within Mecca. Al-ShaficT said, at Egypt, that these are the persons who live up to a distance of two nights travel from Mecca, and this is the maximum distance of the mawaqit. The Zahirites said that they are those who live within the boundaries of the Haram, while al- Thawri said that they are the residents of Mecca alone.

Abu HanTfa said that tamattu^ does not apply to the persons present at al- Masjid al-Haram. Malik considered this to be disapproved. The reason for their disagreement stems from their dispute over the minimum and maximum implication of “those present at al-Masjid al-Hardm”, therefore, there is no doubt that the.residents of Mecca are among “those present at al-Masjid al- Hardm”, just as there is no doubt that those living outside the mawdqit are not among them.

This then is the well-known form of the method known as tamattifi. The meaning of tamattu^ is that the pilgrim benefited from the removal of the prohibitions of ihrdm between the two rites and by the elimination of the need for making another journey for the hajj.

There are two other kinds of tamattifi over which the jurists disagreed. The first is the conversion of hajj into <umra, which is the changing of the intention of the ihrdm for hajj into to one for ^umra. The majority of the jurists from the first generation, as well as the jurists of the provinces, disapprove of this. Ibn cAbbas held this to be permissible, and it was also upheld by Ahmad and Dawud, and they all agreed that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) ordered his Companions injthe year he went for hajj to convert their hajj into <umra, and this is according to the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “If I were to start off again, I would not drive the sacrificial animals, and I would change it to ^umra”. Moreover, he directed those of his Companions who had not brought sacrificial animals to convert their declared intention of hajj into that for ^umra. This is what the Zahirites relied upon. The majority maintained that this is specific to the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him). They also argued for this on the basis of what is related from RabFa ibn AbT cAbd al-Rahman from al-Harith ibn Bilal ibn al- Harith al-MadanT from his father, who said, “I said, ‘O Messenger of Allah, Is the cancellation for us specifically, or for those who come after us?’ He said, ‘It is specific to us’”. This has not reached the required level of authenticity for the Zahirites insofar as it is opposed by the earlier practice. It is related from TJmar that he said, “I have forbidden two kinds of mufa that existed in the days of the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), and I will award punishment for them; namely, the mufa with women and the mu fa of hajj”. It is related from cUthman that he said, “The mu fa of hajj was for us and is not for you”. Abu Dharr said: “It was not proper for anyone after us to pronounce the talbiya for hajj and then convert it to hirnra”. All of this conforms with the words of the Exalted, “Perform the pilgrimage and the <-umra for Allah”,256 The Zahirites maintain that the principle is to act upon? the practice of the Companions until an evidence from the Qurian or the authentic sunna indicates that it has been restricted. The reason for the disagreement stems from whether the practice of the Companions is to be construed as implying a general or a specific rule.

The second kind of tamattif is the one that was explained by Ibn al-Zubayr to the effect that the tamattu^ mentioned by Allah is where one is overwhelmed by a disease or besieged by the enemy.257 This happens when a person departs for the pilgrimage but is hampered by a disease or an incident because of which he is prevented from completing hajj until the days of hajj have passed. He, therefore, goes up to the House, makes the circumambula- tion, performs the sa*y between al-Safa and al-Marwa. and then removes his ihrdm. After this, he can enjoy what was prohibited by the ihrdm until the next hajj season when he performs the hajj and makes the sacrifice. Accordingly, the well-known form of tamatttf is not upheld by consensus. Tawus also deviated (from the majority view) and said that if a resident of Mecca performs tamattu^ from another town he is liable for the sacrifice.

The jurists disagreed about the case of a person who commences his ^umra before the months of hajj and then carries it forward to the months of hajj performing the hajj thereafter in the same year. Malik said that his ^umra pertains to the month in which he completed it. If he does this in the months of hajj he is considered a mutamattP, but if he does it before the months of hajj he is not a mutamatti^. Almost the same opinion as his was expressed by Abu HanTfa, al-Shafi T, and al-Thawri, c except that al-Thawri stipulated that his entire circumambulation should occur during Shawwal, and that was upheld by al-Shafi T. Abu HanTfa c said that if he performs three circuits in Ramadan and four in Shawwal he is to be considered a mutamatti\ but if the matter is the other way round he is not a mutamattf, I mean, if he performs four circuits in Ramadan and four in Shawwal. Abu Thawr said that if he commences the ^umra before the months of hajj he is not to be considered a mutamattfi irrespective of his having performed the circuits during the months of hajj or before that.

The reason for the disagreement stems from the question of whether he becomes a mutamattF by pronouncing the talbiya for himra during the months of hajj alone or by the performance of the circumambulation along with it. Further, if it is with the occurrence of the circumambulation, then, is it through the complete circuits or through most of them? Thus, Abu Thawr says that he doe's not become a mutamattF except with the ihrdm of ^mra during the hajj months, as the <umra is constituted by its ihrdm. Al-ShaficT said that the circuits are the. major element of the <umray arid it is, therefore, necessary that he should become a mutamattii because of them. The majority of the jurists thus maintain that one who has performed part of it during the hajj months is the same as one who has performed it entirely in these months.

The conditions of tamattu\ in Malik’s view, are six. The first is that he should perform the hajj and <umra in a single month. The second is that this should occur in the same year. The third is that he perform part of the ^umra in the hajj months. The fourth is that he should perform the <umra before hajj. The fifth is that he should commence the hajj after completing the himra and after his release from its ihrdm. The sixth is that his place of residence should be other than Mecca.

This, then, is the form of tamattu^ with the well-known disagreement over it as well as the agreement.

Qirdn is the pronouncing of the ihrdm (intention) for performing the hajj and the <umra together, or it is the pronouncing of the ihrdm for the htmra during the hajj months and then commencing with the hajj before his release258 from the ihrdm. The disciples of Malik differed about the time when the pilgrim can do this (i.e. combining hajj with Hcmra). It is said that he has a right to do this as long as he has not commenced the circumambulation (of the ^umra), not even a single circuit. It is also said that as long as he has not completed the circuits and bowed (offered the post-taw^f sunna prayer) after that. It is considered disapproved after the circumambulation and even before the Hd tawdf prayer, but if he does so it becomes binding upon him. It is also said that he has a right to do this as. long as some part of the himra is still left, either the circuits or the safy. They agreed, however, that if he pronounces -the ihrdm (intention) of hajj and none of the acts of the ^umra is left, except the clipping of the hair, he cannot be considered a qarin.

The qarin on whom the same sacrifice as the mutamattiPs is binding is not one of those who are permanently resident in the vicinity of al-Masjid al- Haram. Ibn al-Majishun, one of the disciples of Malik, said that a qarin, even on* who is a resident of Mecca, is in his view under an obligation for the sacrifice.

Ifrdd is a kind (of hajj) that is devoid of these attributes and is performed by one who? is neither a mutamattfi nor a qarin, and, he begins by pronouncing the ihrdm (the intention) of hajj alone.

The jurists disagreed over which form is better: ifrdd, qiran, or tamattuP The reason for their disagreement arises from their dispute over the form of hajj performed by the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him). It is related about him that he performed it as a mufrid, as a mutamattiS, and as a qarin. Malik chose ifrdd, and for this he relied upon what is related from <A>isha that she said, “We accompanied the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) on the Farewell Pilgrimage and with us were those who began with the ^umra, those who combined hajj and <umra, and the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) started with hajj”. This tradition has been related from ‘A^sha through many channels. Abu TJmar ibn (Abd al-Barr said: “Ifrdd as performed by the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) was reported by Jabir ibn cAbd Allah through various channels that are mutawdtir and authentic”. This (the greater merit of ifrdd) was also the opinion of Abu Bakr, TJmar, TJthman, c A*isha, and Jabir.

Those who maintained that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) performed it as a mutamatt? argued on the basis of what is related by al- Layth from TJqayl from Ibn Shihab from Salim from Ibn TJmar, who said, “The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) performed tamattuS during the Farewell Pilgrimage by commencing with the ^umra and [later] moving on to hajj. He drove the sacrificial animals with him from Dhu al-Hulayfa”. This was the view of cAbd Allah ibn TJmar, Ibn cAbbas, Ibn al-Zubayr, and the report from A>isha varies between ifrdd and tamattifi. Those who maintain that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) performed as qdrin rely on a large number of traditions, including the tradition of Ibn ‘Abbas from ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, who said, “I heard the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) saying when he was at the valley of al-‘AqTq, ‘The previous night a revelation came to me from my Lord instructing me: “Proclaim the ihram in this blessed valley, and let the himra be included in the hajj” ’ It has been recorded by al-BukharT. There is also the tradition of Marwan ibn al-Hakam, who said, “I witnessed ‘Uthman and ‘AIT, when ‘Uthman was prohibiting the mut'-a or to combine the two {hajj and ^umra). When ‘AIT saw this he pronounced the. talbiya for both: labbayk for the himra and hajj. He said, ‘I was not about to give up the sunna of the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) for anyone’s opinion’”. It has been recorded by al-BukharT. Moreover, in the tradition of Anas, which has also been recorded by al-BukharT, he also said, “I heard the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) saying: labbayk, ^umra and hajj\ And in the tradition of Malik from Ibn Shihab from °Urwa from ‘A’isha, she said, “We accompanied the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) on the Farewell Pilgrimage and we pronounced the talbiya for the himra. The Messenger of Allah then said, ‘The person who has his sacrificial animal with him should pronounce the talbiya for hajj with the hirnra, and he will not be released from the ihram until he has completed both’”. They argued saying that it is known that he (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) had the sacrificial animals with him, and it is unlikely that he should order the person who had his sacrificial animal to perform qirdn, and then not perform qirdn himself when he had the sacrificial animals. In another tradition of Malik also from Nafi‘ from Ibn ‘Umar from Hafsa.from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), he said, “I have garlanded my sacrificial animal and matted my hair, so I will not take off my ihram until I sacrifice my animal”. Ahmad said: “I have no doubt that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) was a qdrin, but tamattuS is dearer to me. He argued for choosing tamattu^ on the basis of the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), ‘If I were to start off again, I would not drive the sacrificial animals, and I would change it to hirnra’”.

Those who maintained that ifrad is better argued by way of reason that tamattu' and qirdn are prescribed as exemptions, because of which atonement (a blood sacrifice) has been made obligatory in them.

We have now discussed the obligation of this rite, on whom it is obligatory, what are the conditions of its obligation, when it becomes obligatory, for what time, and from which location. After this we discussed what the muhrim is to avoid followed by the different forms of this rite that become obligatory. It is necessary that we now discuss the first act of the pilgrim or of one performing the <umra, and that is the ihram.

The majority of the jurists agreed that bathing is a sunna for commencing with the ihram, and it is one of the acts of the muhrim, so much so that Ibn Nawaz said: Bathing for the ihram has greater significance, for Malik, than bathing for the Friday prayer. The Zahirites said that it is obligatory. Abu Hanlfa and alT ThawrT said that performing the ablution is sufficient.

The evidence of the Zahirites is the mursal report by Malik in the tradition of Asma* bint TJmays “that she gave birth to Muhammad ibn Abf Bakr at al- Bayda*. Abu Bakr mentioned this to the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), who said, ‘Tell her to bathe and then wear the ihram* The command in their view implies an obligation. The reliance of the majority is upon the principle that the original rule is freedom from liability until an obligation is established by an irrefutable command.

Further, cAbd Allah ibn <Umar used to bathe for his ihram before commencing it, and for entering Mecca, and on the evening prior to the his stationing at Arafa. Malik held these three baths to be the acts of the muhrim.

c They agreed that (the ritual state of) ihram cannot be assumed without forming an intention. They disagreed on whether the intention is enough without the pronouncement of the talbiya. Malik and al-ShaficT said that intention without the talbiya is sufficient. Abu Hanifa said that talbiya in hajj is like the initial takbir in prayers, except that any words used as a substitute for the talbiya are sufficient, just as all words used in the place of the takbir on the commencement of prayer are enough, when they indicate exaltedness.

The jurists agreed that, the words of the talbiya of the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) were “labbayk Allahumma labbayk, labbayka Id sharika laka labbayk, inna >l-hamda wa 'n-nfmata laka wa mulk, Id sharika lak (At Your command, O Allah, at Your, command; at Your command, You have no partner, at Your command; all praise and grace are Yours, and Yours the dominion; You have no partner). It is the narration of Malik from Nafi< from Ibn TJmar from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) and it. carries the highest degree of authenticity. They disagreed on whether the.talbiya has to be in these words. The Zahirites said that it. is obligatory that it be said in these words. There is no disagreement among the majority of the jurists about the desirability of these words, but they differed about the additions to them or about substitutions. The Zahirites also considered the raising of the voice with the talbiya as obligatory, which is desirable according to the majority, because of what is related by Malik “that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, ‘Jibril came to me and directed me to order my companions and those who are with me that they should raise their voices with the talbiya and in forming the intention’”. The jurists agreed that (the manner of) a woman’s talbiya, as related by abu TJmar, is that she should be able to hear herself pronouncing it.

Malik said that the muhrim is not to raise his voice in congregational mosques, and it is enough to let the person, next to him hear him, except for al-Masjid al-Haram and the mosque at Mina, for he is to raise his voice there. The majority considered the raising of voice desirable on encountering a company and on approaching elevated places. Abu Hazim said: The voices of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) became hoarse by the time they reached al-Rawha?.

Malik did not hold talbiya to be an element (rukn) of hajj, and held the person who neglects it is to be liable for atonement by slaughtering a sacrificial animal. The other jurists besides him considered it to be a rukn. The evidence of those who deemed it obligatory is that if the acts of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) occur as an elaboration of an obligatory act they are to be construed as implying an obligation until another evidence indicates the contrary. And this is so because of the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “Acquire your rites from me (my actions)”. This is the tradition relied upon by those who consider the words of the talbiya to be obligatory. Those who do not consider the words to be obligatory relied upon what is related of the tradition of Jabir, who said, “the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) pronounced the talbiya”. After this he repeated the words that are in the tradition of Ibn TJmar and said, “The people used to add words labbayka dhd >l-ma*fij2*9 and similar phrases. The Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) listened to them and did not say anything”. Further, it is related from Ibn TJmar that he used to add to the talbiya, which is also related from TJmar ibn al-Khattab, Anas, and others.

The jurists considered it desirable that the muhrim begin reciting the talbiya after the prayer (two ra&as of ihram) that he should observe. Malik used to consider it desirable that it follow the supererogatory prayers, because of his mursal report from Hisham ibn TJrwa from his father “that the Messenger of Allah,(God’s peace and blessings be upon him) used to observe two ra&as at the mosque at Dhu al-Hulayfa, and when his mount rose he pronounced the talbiya”. The traditions differ about the location from where the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) commenced the ihrdm with the implication in the traditions that he did so from the area around Dhu al- Hulayfa, but a group said that he did so from the mosque at Dhu al-Hulayfa after praying in it. Another group said that he adopted the ihrdm when he approached al-Bayda*. Yet another group said that he pronounced the ihram and talbiya when his mount rose up with him. Ibn ‘Abbas was asked about their disagreement over this and he said: “Each has related not his (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) first talbiya but the one he heard for the first time. The people used to arrive with some following the others and because of that there is no conflict, and the talbiya follows the prayer”.

The jurists agreed that adopting the ihram (intention) is not binding upon a resident of Mecca until he departs for Mina to perform the acts of hajj. Their reliance is upon what is related by Malik on the authority of Ibnjurayj; who said to ‘Abd ‘Allah ibn ‘Umar, “I have seen you doing four things here that I have not seen anyone else doing”. He mentioned one of these saying, “I have seen you when you were at Mecca delaying the ihrdm until the day of tarwiya (the eighth day of Dhu al-Hijja), when the other people did so on sighting the moon”. Ibn ‘Umar replied saying, “As to the assumption of the ihrdm. I have not seen the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) commencing it until his mount rose up with him”. He meant thereby until the commencement of the acts of hajj (on the day of tarwiya). Malik has related from ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab that he used to direct the residents of Mecca to begin the ihram on sighting the moon. There is no disagreement that when the resident of Mecca is performing the pilgrimage he is only to pronounce the ihram from within Mecca, but if he is performing the ^umra they agreed that it is binding upon him to move to the outskirts of the Haram and form the ihram (intention), and traverse the external area and the Haram as the others pilgrims do, I mean, because they go to Arafa. which is c outside the boundary of the Haram. They agreed, generally, that this is the sunna for one performing the <umra. They disagreed on when he does not do so. A group of jurists said that his performance is to be considered valid, but he has to make atonement by sacrificing an animal. This was upheld by Abu HanTfa and Ibn al-Qasim. Another group said that this is not sufficient for him. This was the opinion of al-Thawri and Ashhab.

With respect to the time when the muhrim stops pronouncing the talbiya. it is related by Malik from ‘All ibn AbT Talib (God be pleased with him) that he stopped pronouncing the talbiya when the sun went down on the day of c arafa, and Malik said that this is the practice still followed by the learned in our land. Ibn Shihab has said that the Imams Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, and ‘All used to stop pronouncing the talbiya after the declining of the sun on the day of <Arafa. Abu TJmar ibn cAbd al-Barr has said that reports from U’thman and 'A’isha differ about this. The majority of the jurists of the provinces, the traditionists, Abu Hanifa, al-ShaficT, al-Thawri, Ahmad, Ishaq, Abu Thawr, Dawud, Ibn AbT Layla, Abu TJbayd, al-Tabari, and al-Hasan ibn Yahya maintain that the muhrim is not to stop reciting the talbiya until he throws pebbles at the first pillar at Mina (Jamrat al-^Aqaba), because of what is established that “the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) continued to pronounce the talbiya until he threw pebbles at the Jamrat al-^Aqaba”. They disagreed about the exact time when he is to discontinue it. A group of jurists said that this is when he has finished throwing the pebbles and this is because of what is related from Ibn < Abbas that al-Fadl ibn c Abbas, who was riding behind the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) on his riding beast, when he was pronouncing the talbiya while throwing the pebbles at the Jamrat al-^Aqaba and he stopped when he had cast the last pebble. A group of jurists said that he is to stop when he throws the first pebble and this is related from Ibn Mascud. There are other opinions besides these that have been related about the termination of the talbiya, but these two opinions are better known.

They disagreed about when to stop the talbiya during himra. Malik said that he is to stop pronouncing it upon reaching the Haram. This was also upheld by Abu Hanifa. Al-ShafiT said that he does this on commencing the circumambulation. Malik followed Ibn TJmar and TJrwa in this, while the reliance of al-ShafiT is upon the argument that the meaning of talbiya is a response for returning to the circumambulation of the House, so it should not be stopped until the act is commenced. The reason for the disagreement stems from the conflict of analogy with the practice of some of the Companions.

The majority of the jurists agree about the conversion of hajj into Htmra, but they disagree about the conversion of himra into hajj. Abu Thawr said that hajj cannot be converted into ^umra nor can <umra be converted into hajj, just as one prayer cannot be converted into another.

These are the acts of the muhrim insofar as he is a muhrim, and it is the first act of hajj. The act that follows this is the circumambulation upon entry into Mecca. We, therefore, move to the circumambulation.

This discussion is about the circumambulation of the House, its description, its conditions, the hukm of its obligation or recommendation, and about the number of the circuits.

The majority agree unanimously that the form of the circumambulation, whether obligatory or recommended, is that the worshipper begins at al-hajar al-aswad (the Black Stone). If he is able to kiss the stone he should do so, or touch it with his hand if possible and then kiss it. He then turns, with the House on his left, and he walks around it. He makes seven circuits, adopting the ramal (rythmic trot while shrugging the shoulders; marking time but moving ahead) for the first three circuits. He then walks in the remaining four circuits. This is for the circumambulation of greeting (tawdf al-quditm) on entering Mecca and it is for those performing hajj or himra (as well as those who are simply visiting the House of Allah) to the exclusion of the mutamattf. There is no ramal for women. The worshipper is to make a salutation to al- rukn al-yamdnt. which is the corner (of the House) before al-rukn al-aswad (the corner with the Black Stone) (by raising both hands toward it), because this has been established as an act of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him).

They disagreed about the hukm of ramal in the first three circuits for the person coming into Mecca, whether this is a sunna or an act of merit. Ibn c Abbas said that it is a sunna. and this was the opinion of al-ShaficT, Abu HanTfa, Ishaq, Ahmad, and Abu Thawr. The opinions of Malik and those of his disciples vary on the point. The difference between the two opinions is that * I those who deem it to be a sunna made its relinquishment liable to atonement (dam). while those who did not consider it a sunna did not impose any duty. Those who did not consider ramal to be a sunna argued on the basis of the tradition of Ibn al-Tufayl from Ibn <Abbas that he said, “I said , to Ibn Abbas c that some people are under the impression that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) adopted ramal when he made the circumambulation of the House, and that this is a sunna. He said, ‘They spoke in truth and they lied’. I said, ‘What was the truth and what was the lie?’ He said, ‘They were truthful about the ramal adopted by the Messenger of Allah when he circumambulated the House, and they lied about saying it is a sunna.

The Quraysh, during the time of Hudaybiya, while they were stationed on the Qu'ayqiyan (mountain) watching the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) and his Companions, said, ‘He and his companions are emaciated’. When this was communicated to the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) he said to his Companions, ‘Adopt the ramal and let them see that you have strength’. The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) adopted the ramal from the Black Stone to al-rukn al-yamani. but when he was concealed from their view he walked”. The evidence of the majority is based upon the tradition of Jabir “that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) adopted the ramal in the (first) three circuits during the Farewell Pilgrimage and walked in (the remaining) four”. It is an authentic tradition related by Malik and others. The majority maintained that the versions related by Abu al-Tufayl from Ibn 'Abbas have varied; thus it is related from him “that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) adopted the ramal from the Black Stone up to the Black Stone”, which is different from the first narration. Ramal is obligatory in accordance with the principles of the Zahirites, because of the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “Acquire your rites from me”, and that was their opinion or it is the opinion of some of them now, as far as I know.

They agreed that there is no ramal for the person who begins the ihram of hajj from Mecca, other than its residents, and these are the persons who are performing tamattu\ as they have already performed ramal when they entered Mecca and performed the initial circumambulation. They disagreed about the residents of Mecca whether they are to adopt ramal if they perform hajj. Al- Shafi'T said that in each (session of) circumambulation made before the day of ^ara/a, and which is followed by the c there is ramal. Malik considered sa y, this desirable, while Ibn 'Umar did not consider them to be subject to ramal when they made the circumambulation, in accordance with the report from him by Malik.

The reason for the disagreement arises from the question of whether ramal was adopted for an underlying reason or whether it pertains to the traveller. The background for this is that when the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) performed the ramal he had travelled to Mecca.

They agreed that one of the sunan of the circumambulation is the salutation of the two corners, the corner of the Black Stone and al-rukn al-yamani, and that this is for men and not the women. They disagreed on whether the salutation was to be made on all corners. The majority maintained that the salutation is made at only two corners, because of the tradition of Ibn 'Umar “that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) did not make the salutation except at two comers”. Those who upfield the salutation at all corners argued on the basis of what is related by Jabir, who said, “When we circumambulated we made the salutation at all corners”. Some of the predecessors deemed it necessary to make the salutation at two corners, except for the odd-numbered circuits.

They agreed, likewise, that the kissing of the Black Stone in particular wras one of the practices of the circumambulation, and if the worshipper was not able to reach it he was to kiss his hand. This is based upon the tradition of 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, which has been related by Malik, rthat he said, “You are a stone, and if I had not seen the Messenger of Allah kissing you I would not kiss you”. He then kissed it.

They agreed that one of the sunan of the circumambulation is the observance of two rakfas of prayer after the completion of the circuits. The majority maintain that the worshipper observes them at the end of each week if he performs the circumambulation (a number of times) for more than a (period of one) week. Some of .the predecessors permitted that he should not make a distinction on the basis of weeks and he should not separate them by praying and then he should observe two rak^as for every week. This is related from <A*isha that she did not separate three weeks and then observe six rak^as. The evidence for the majority is “that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) made the circumambulation of the House in seven circuits and then observed two behind the station [of Ibrahim], and then said, ‘Acquire your rites from me’ Those who permitted the combining (of the rak*as) said that the object is the observance of two rak^as every week, and circumambulation has no fixed time nor rak^as after it that have been established as a practice; therefore, it is permissible to combine more than two rak^as for more than two weeks. Those who considered it desirable to distinguish between (a block of) three weeks did so as the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) observed the rak'as after an odd number of circumambulations. Thus the person who has performed the circuits for a number of weeks that are not odd and then observes the rak^as is not doing so after an odd-numbered circumambulation.

Its conditions include the delineation of its boundary. The majority of the jurists maintain that the hijr (northern wall) is part of the House, and whoever circumambulates the House is bound to include the hijr in it, and that it is a condition for the tawaf al-ifdda (the post-cArafat circumambulation, after throwing the pebbles). Abu Harnfa and his disciples said that it is a sunna. The evidence of the majority is what is related by Malik from cA>isha that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Were it not for the fact that disbelief is a recent memory of your people I would have demolished the Ka^a and erected it on the foundations laid -by Ibrahim”. They had left seven dhirfr of the hijr due to shortage of funds and wood. This was the opinion of Ibn cAbbas. He argued relying on the words of the Exalted, “And go around the ancient House”,260 and said that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) made the circumambulation beyond the hijr. The evidence for Abu HanTfa is the apparent meaning of the verse.

They disagreed about the time of its permissibility holding three opinions. The first is the permissibility of circumambulation after the morning prayer and after and its prohibition at the time of sunrise and sunset. This is the opinion of TJmar ibn al-Khattab and Abu SacTd al-Khudri. This was upheld by Malik, his disciples, and a group of jurists. The second opinion is about its abomination after the morning prayer and W, and its prohibition at sunrise and sunset. This was the opinion of SacTd ibn Jubayr, Mujahid and a group. The third opinion permits it at all times. This was upheld by al-ShaficT and a group of jurists.

The roots of their disagreement can be found in the prohibition or permissibility of prayer during these times. The traditions are unanimous about the prohibition of prayer at sunrise and sunset. Whether circumambula­ tion is linked to prayer for this purpose is a matter of dispute. The evidence relied upon by the Shaficites is the tradition of Jubayr ibn Mutfim that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “O sons of cAbd Manaf—or he said O sons of cAbd al-Muttalib-^if you come to supervise anything from this affair do not prevent anyone circumambulating this House from praying at any hour of the day or night”. It is related by al-ShaficT and others from Ibn TJyayna with its chain reaching up to Jubayr ibn Mut im.

c They disagreed about the permissibility of circumambulation without purification after their agreement that purification is a sunna for it. Malik and al-ShafiT said that it is not valid to circumambulate without purification, whether it is done intentionally or due to forgetfulness. Abu HanTfa said that this is valid and he considered its repetition desirable. He also held the person liable for atonement (dam). Abu Thawr said that if he performs the circumambulation without ablution his act is to be considered valid if he was not aware of it, but it is not valid if he did know. Al-ShaficT stipulates the purification of the dress of the person making the circumambulation, as he does for one praying.

The reliance of those who stipulate purification for circumambulation is upon the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) to a menstruating woman, who was Asma bint TJmays, “Do what the pilgrims are doing but do not make the circumambulation of the House”. This is an authentic tradition. They also argue on the basis of the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “Circumambulation is prayer, except that Allah has permitted speech in it, so do not utter anything but what is good”. The reliance of those who permitted circumambulation without purification is upon the consensus of the jurists about the permissibility of sa(y between al-Safa and al-Marwa without purification. They argue that purity from menstruation is stipulated for a type of worship, and it does not follow that purity from hadath would also be stipulated. Fasting is a good example (purity from menstruation is a condition for fasting, but purity from jandba is not).

The jurists agreed that circumambulation is of three types: the circumambula- tion of greeting (tawaf al-qudum) on arrival in Mecca, tawaf al-ijdda after throwing pebbles at the first pillar (Jamrat al-^Aqaba) on the day of sacrifice, and the farewell circumambulation (before departure from Mecca). They agreed that the obligatory circumambulation among these, without which the hajj is lost, is the tawaf al-ijada, and that is the one intended in the words of the Exalted, “Then let them make an end of their unkemptness and pay their vows and go around the ancient House”.261 Further, no atonement is acceptable in its place. The majority also maintain that the initial circumambulation is not a valid substitute for the tawaf al-ifdda if the pilgrim forgets the latter, because of its being before the day of sacrifice. One group, from among the disciples of Malik, maintained that the initial circumambula­ tion is a valid substitute for the tawaf al-ifada, and it appears that they considered the obligation to be for only one type of circumambulation. The majority of the jurists maintain, however, that the farewell circumambulation is a valid substitute for the tawaf al-ifada, if the pilgrim has not performed the latter, as the former is a circumambulation performed during the period of the obligatory circumambulation, which is the tawaf al-ifdda, as against the initial circumambulation that is performed before the time of the tawaf al-ifada.

They agreed, according to what has been related from Abu TJmar ibn c Abd al-Barr, that the initial and the farewell circumambulation are part of the sunan for the pilgrim, except for the person who fears losing the hajj (due to shortage of time), for in his case the tawaf al-ifada is sufficient. A group of the jurists considered it desirable for a person faced with such a situation to adopt the ramal in the first three circuits of the tawaf al-ifada, in accordance with the practice in the initial circumambulation.

They agreed that a resident of Mecca is only obliged to perform the tawaf al-ifada, just as they agreed that for the person performing the himra the only obligation is for the initial circumambulation. They also agreed that the person who has benefited from the performance of the himra (in the tamattu* form of hajj) before beginning the hajj is under the obligation to perform two circumambulations, one for the <umra and another for hajj on the day of sacrifice, in accordance with the well-known tradition of cA5isha. The person performing hajj as a mufrid is obliged for only one circumambulation, as we have said, on the day of the sacrifice. They disagreed about the qarin. Malik, al-Shafi T, Ahmad, c and Abu Thawr maintained that one circumambulation and one saty are sufficient for the qarin, which was also the opinion of <Abd Allah ibn TJmar and Jabir. Their reliance for this is on the tradition of <A*isha that has preceded. Al-Thawri, al-AwzacT, Abu HanTfa, and Ibn AbT Layla maintain that the qarin is under an obligation of performing two circumambulations and two satys. They related this from Ibn Masffid, as they are two rites with each having a condition, if performed separately, that the circumambulation be performed with the sa<y\ thus, it is necessary that it be the same when they are performed together.

This, then, is the discussion about the obligation of this act, its description, conditions, types, time, and description of the time period. The act of hajj that follows this, I mean the initial circumambulation, is the saty between al-Safa and al-Marwa. It is the third act in the state of ihrdm and we now move to it.

The discussion of the saty covers its hukm, its description, conditions, and its order.

Malik and al-ShafiT said that it is obligatory by its hukm, and if the pilgrim does not perform it, hajj would (still) be obligatory upon him in the next season. This was also the opinion of Ahmad and Ishaq. The Kufis said that it is a sunna, and if he returns to his homeland without performing it he is liable to atonement by slaughtering an animal. Some of the jurists said that it is voluntary and there is no obligation upon the person who relinquishes it.

The reliance of those who made it obligatory is upon the report “that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) used to perform the sa<y and say, ‘Perform the safy for Allah has prescribed the saty for you’”. This tradition has been related by al-ShafiT from cAbd Allah ibn al- Mu’mil. Further, the principle is that the acts of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) in this worship are to be construed as conveying obligation, except those excluded by a transmitted evidence, consensus, or analogy in the view of those who uphold analogy to be a valid principle. Those who did not consider it obligatory relied on the words of the Exalted, “Lo! (the mountains) as-Safa and al-Marwa are among the indications of Allah. It is therefore no sin for him who is on pilgrimage to the House (of God) or visiteth it, to go around them”. They said that the meaning here is that he may “not go round them”, which is the (variant) reading of Ibn Mascud, just as the words of the Exalted, “Allah expoundeth unto you, so that ye err (not)”,262 263 mean “lest ye err”. They also considered the tradition of Ibn al-Mu’mil to be weak. ‘A’isha said that the verse is to be understood in its obvious meaning, and it was revealed in the case of the Ansar who shunned running between al- Safa and al-Marwa in the way they used to during the period of the jahiliyya as it served as a place for the slaughtering of animals for the polytheists. It is also said that they used not to run between al-Safa and al-Marwa out of veneration for some of the idols (Manat). They inquired about this, and the verse was revealed validating their hesitation.

The majority decided that it is one of the acts of the hajj, because it is described as an act of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) by way of tawdtur in these traditions, I mean the linking of with circumambulation.

In describing it, the majority of the jurists maintained that a sunna of the saty between al-Safa and al-Marwa is that the worshipper having ascended al-Safa is to go down its slope after completing the supplication. He is then to walk at his normal pace till he reaches the bottom of the masil (valley, bed of the stream).264 He is (now) to adopt the ramal through it until he traverses it getting closer to al-Marwa from where he moves at his normal gait till he arrives at al-Marwa. He ascends it until he can see the House, then he makes a supplication and pronounces the takbir in a manner similar to what he said at al-Safa. If he stops at the base of al-Marwa (and does not climb it) it is considered valid in their collective view. He then descends from al-Marwa and proceeds at. his normal pace until he reaches the bottom of the valley. When he reaches it he is to adopt the ramal until he crosses over to the side of al-Safa. He is to do this seven times, beginning at al-Safa and ending at al-Marwa. If he begins at al-Marwa before going to al-Safa, that journey is annulled, because of the saying of the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “We begin with that with which Allah began, so we begin with al- Safa”, and by this he meant the words of the Exalted, “Lol (the mountains) as- Safa and al-Marwa are among the indications of Allah. It is therefore no sin for him who is on pilgrimage to the House (of God) or visiteth it, to go around them”.265 cAta> said that if he does not know and begins at al-Marwa, his act is to be considered as valid.

They agreed unanimously that there is no determined opinion about the time for the sa^y, as it is a case of supplication. It is established in the tradition of Jabir “that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), when he stood at al-Safa, pronounced the takbir three times and said, ‘There is no god but Allah alone, and He has no partner, His is the dominion and for Him is all praise, and He has power over all things’. He did this three times, and he made a supplication at al-Marwa and did the same thing”.

They agreed that one of its conditions is purity from menstruation, as is the case with the circumambulation, because of the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) in the tradition of cA*isha, “Do what all the pilgrims do, but do not circumambulate the House and do not perform the saty between al-Safa and al-Marwa”. Yahya was alone in relating this addition from Malik as compared to the others who have related this tradition from him. There is no dispute among them that ablution is not one of its conditions, except for al-Hasan as he held it to be similar to the circumambulation.

The jurists agreed that in the order of performance the sa<y comes after the circumambulation, and that the person who performs the sa y circuiting the House is to go back and perform the circumambulation even if he has moved out of Mecca. If he did not realize this, in the case of the <umra or the hajj, until he has cohabited with women, he is under the obligation for hajj in the next season and for the sacrifice or for <umra (as the case may be). Al-Thawri said that if he does this he is not liable for anything. Abu Hanifa said that if he leaves Mecca he is not obliged to return, but he is liable for atonement. This was the discussion of the hukm of sa'y, its description, well-known conditions, and the order (of performance).

The act of the pilgrim that follows this act (wty) is moving out on the Day of Tarwiya (eighth of Dhu al-Hijja) to Mina and staying there the eve of cArafa. They agreed that the imam leads the people in prayer on the eighth of Dhu al- Hijja at Mina, and zuhr and (asr and maghrib and <ish& are curtailed over there. They agreed, however, that this act is not a condition for the validity of hajj for the person who is short of time. When the sun rises on the Day of c Arafa (ninth Dhu al-Hijja) the imam walks with the people from Mina up to <Arafa, and they take up station there.

The discussion of this act includes the identification of its hukm, its description, and its conditions. The jurists agreed about the hukm of stopping at cArafa that it is one of the essential elements (arkan) of hajj. In the opinion of the majority of the jurists the person who misses this is under an obligation to perform hajj in the next season and to make the sacrifice, because of the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “The hajj is c Arafa”.

Its description is that the imam leads the people in prayer at cArafa on the Day of cArafa (ninth Dhu al-Hijja) before the declining of the sun. If the sun has declined he is to address the people and then combine zuhr and <asr in the first timing of zwAr, and thereafter they stay stationed there until the sun goes down.

They agreed upon this as this is the description that is agreed upon unanimously in the acts of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him). There is no dispute among them that the establishing of the hajj (leading the prayer) is the right of the sultan with the highest authority, or of a person whom the sultan has appointed, and also that the people are to pray behind him whether he is pious, sinful, or and innovator. The sunna for this is that he should come to the mosque at cArafa on the Day of cArafa along with the people. When the sun has declined he should address the people, as we have said, and he should combine the zuhr and <asr prayers.They disagreed about the time for the call to the prayer by the mu>adhdhin for the zuhr and <asr prayers. Malik said that the imam is to address the people and when the major part of his sermon is over the mifadhdhin should make the call for prayer while he (the imam) is addressing the people. Al- ShafFT said that he is to make the call when the imam begins the second sermon. Abu HanTfa said that when the imam ascends the pulpit he should order the mu*adhdhin to make the call, who is to make the call as is the case in the Friday congregational prayer. When the mtfadhdhin has finished making the call the imam is to begin his sermon, after which he is to descend and the mu>adhdhin will announce the iqama (the call for the commencement of prayer). This was also the opinion of Abu Thawr, who held it to be similar to the Friday prayer. Ibn al-Mundhir has related from Malik that he said: “The call for prayer is to be made after the imam sits down for the sermon. The words in the tradition of Jabir are ‘that when the sun had declined the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) ordered al-Qasw? to be brought and riding on it he reached the middle of the valley and addressed the people. Bilal then made the call for prayer. After this he stood up and prayed zuhr. He then rose up and prayed <asr without anything intervening between the two prayers. He then returned to where he was stationed’”.

They disagreed whether these two prayers are to be combined with two calls for prayer and two calls for commencement, or with one call for prayer and two calls for commencement. Malik said that they are to be combined with two calls for prayer and two calls for the commencement. Al-ShaficT, Abu Hamfa, al-Thawn, Abu Thawr, and a group of jurists said that they are to be combined with one call for prayer and two calls for commencement. An opinion like theirs has also been related from Malik. It is also related from Ahmad that they are to be combined with two calls for commencement. The evidence for al-ShafiT is the lengthy tradition of Jabir about the description of the hajj of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), in which he says, “He observed zuhr and W with one call for prayer and with two calls for commencement”, as we have said. The opinion of Malik has been related from Ibn Mas ud, and hie c evidence is the principle that each prayer is to be individually preceded by a call for prayer and a call for commencement. There is no dispute among the learned that if the imam does not deliver the sermon the prayer is valid, as against the Friday prayer. They also agreed that the recitation in this prayer is inaudible, and the prayer is curtailed if the imam has travelled (to this place). They disagreed when the imam is a resident of Mecca, whether he is to curtail -the prayer on the eighth of Dhu al-Hijja at Mina, at Arafa on the Day of Arafa, and at Muzdalifa on the eve of the day c c of sacrifice, if he is a resident of one of these places. Malik, al-AwzaT, and a group of jurists said the sunna for occasions is curtailment whether or not he is a resident. Al-Thawri, Abu HanTfa, al-Shafi‘T, Abu Thawr, and Dawud said that it is not permitted to curtail the prayer if he is a resident of one these places. The evidence for Malik is that no one has related that some person completed his prayer while praying with the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), after he had made the salutation. The argument of the other group is the retention of the well-known principle that curtailment of prayer is not permitted to anyone other than a traveller, unless another evidence restricts it.

The jurists disagreed about the obligation of Friday prayer at Mina and at < Ar a fa. Malik said that the Friday congregational prayer is not obligatory at ‘Arafa nor at Mina, except during the days of hajj, neither for the residents of Mecca nor for others, unless the imam himself is a resident of ‘Arafa. Al- Shafi T held the c same opinion, except that he stipulated for the obligation of the Friday congregational prayer that there be present at least forty men, in accordance with his opinion about the stipulation of this number for Friday. Abu HanTfa said that if the leader of the hajj is a person whose prayer cannot be curtailed at Mina or at ‘Arafa, he is to lead them in the Friday prayer if this happens by chance. Ahmad said that if it is the governor of Mecca he is to lead the assembly. This was also the opinion of Abu Thawr.

The (first) condition for it is the assumption of the station1 at ‘Arafa after the prayer, and there is no disagreement among the jurists “that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), after he had observed zuhr and 'asr at ‘Arafa, arose and stopped close to the mountain making supplications to Allah, the Exalted. All those who were with him also stayed up to sunset. When the setting of the sun was ascertained and it became obvious to him he proceeded toward Muzdalifa”. There is no dispute among them that this is the sunna of the stationing at ‘Arafa. They agreed that the person who stops at ‘Arafa prior to the declining of the sun and moves from there before the declining of the sun, his stationing there is of no account. If he does not return and stop there till after the declining of the sun or on this night before the rise of the dawn, his hajj is lost. It is related from ‘Abd Allah ibn Ma‘mar al-DayE, who said, “I heard the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) saying, ‘The hajj is ‘Arafat, thus he who makes it to ‘Arafa before the rise of the dawn has made it’”. It is a tradition which is related by this person alone from among the Companions, except that it is agreed upon.

They disagreed about the person who stays at ‘Arafa after the declining of the sun and then leaves before sunset. Malik said that he is liable for hajj in the next season, unless he returns before dawn. If, however, he leaves before the imam, but after sunset, his act is considered to be valid. On the whole, the condition for,the validity of stationing, in his view, is that he should stay the night. The majority of the jurists said that the person who stays on at *Arafa till after the declining of the sun his hajj is complete, even if he leaves before sunset, except they differed about the obligation of atonement for him. The reliance of the majority is on the tradition of TJrwa ibn Mudarris, which is agreed upon for its authenticity, that he said, “I went up to the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) at Muzdalifa (Jam*) and said to him, ‘Have I completed the hajj? He replied, ‘The person who observes this prayer with us and stops at this station and he arose and moved before this from *Arafat, by night or by day, has completed his hajj and has done away with the dirt on his body’ They agreed that the meaning of his words, “by day”, in this, tradition imply that it is after the declining of the sun. Those who stipulated the night argued on the basis of his (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) being stationed at *Arafa when the sun was setting, but the majority may reply that his being stationed at *Arafa up to sunset has been indicated by the tradition of TJrwa ibn Mudarris to the effect that it is better if the person has a choice.

It is related from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) through different channels that he said, “All of *Arafa is a station, but keep away from the middle of Tirana. All Muzdalifa is a station, except the middle of Muhassir. All of Mina is the place of sacrifice. The road to Mecca is a place of sacrifice and a stop for the night”. The jurists differed about the person who moves from *Arafa and stays (again) at *Arafa. It is said that his hajj is complete, but he is liable for atonement. This was Malik’s opinion, while al- ShafiT said that there is no hajj for him. The reliance of those who nullify his hajj is the proscription laid down about this in a tradition. The reliance of those who do not invalidate it is the principle that staying at any place in c Arafa is permitted, unless the contrary is indicated by an evidence. They said that the proscription is not laid down in the tradition in a manner that makes its evidence binding and the giving up of the principle necessary.

This, then, is the discussion about the sunan of the day of *Arafa. The act, from among the acts of hajj, that follows the stationing at *Arafa is the movement toward Muzdalifa after sunset and what is done there.

A general discussion of this too is covered by the identification of its hukm, description, and time.

The existence of this act as one of the constituent elements of hajj is based on the words of the Exalted, “But, when ye press on in the multitude from hath guided you, although before this you were astray”. They agreed that the person who after stationing at ‘Arafa spends the eve of the day of sacrifice at Muzdalifa, combining the maghrib and <ish$ prayers that night with the imam, and stays up to the morning light, his hajj is complete. They also argued that this was the description of the act of the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him). They disagreed, however, as to whether staying at Muzdalifa till after the morning prayers and spending the night there is a sunna of hajj or one of its obligations. Al-Awza‘1 and a group of the Tabi‘un said that it is an obligation of hajj, and the person who misses this is under an obligation to perform hajj in the next season and along with the sacrifice. The jurists of the provinces maintain that it is not an obligation of hajj, and the person who misses the stay at Muzdalifa during the night is liable for atonement by sacrifice. Al-Shafi T said that c the person who spends the first half of the night there and then leaves not spending the whole night is liable to atonement.

The reliance of the majority is upon the authentic tradition from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) that he sent the weak members of his family during the night and they did not stay to witness the morning there with him. The reliance of the first group is on the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) in the tradition of TJrwa ibn Mudarris, which is agreed upon (by al-BukharT and Muslim) for its authenticity, that “the person who observes this prayer with us”, that is, the morning prayer at Muzdalifa, “and stops at this station and he arose and moved before this from ‘Arafat, by night or by day, has completed his hajj and has done away with the dirt on his body”. They also rely on the words of the Exalted, “But, when ye press on in the multitude from ‘Arafat, remember Allah by the sacred monument. Remember Him as He hath guided you, although before this you were astray”.266 267 The other group argue that the Muslim jurists agreed unanimously on relinquishing the adoption of all .that is in this tradition. Thus, most of them maintain that the person who stops at Muzdalifa during the night and leaves before the morning prayer his hajj is complete, and so also the person who stays the night there and kept on sleeping without praying. They also agreed that the person who stays at Muzdalifa without engaging in the remembrance of Allah his hajj is complete. Their reliance upon the verse is also weak in the light of its apparent meaning.

Muzdalifa and Jam‘ are the two names for this place and the sunna of hajj for it, as we have said, is that the person spend the night there combining maghrib and 'isha? in the early part of the time for 'isha*, and then stay up to the morning there

The act that follows it (the stay at Muzdalifa) is the throwing of pebbles at the pillars (pWr), because the Muslim jurists agreed that “the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) stopped at al-mashfar al-haram, which is Muzdalifa, till after he had observed the morning prayer. He then departed from there before sunrise toward Mina. It was on this day, which was the day of sacrifice, that he threw stones at the Jamrat al-^Aqaba after sunrise”. The Muslim jurists also agreed that the person who throws stones at it on this day at this time, that is, after sunrise up to the declining of the sun, has thrown them during the prescribed time. They agreed that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) did not throw pebbles at the other jamarat besides it on the day of the sacrifice.

They disagreed about the case of the person who throws pebbles at the Jamrat al-'Aqaba before sunrise. Malik said: “No report has reached us that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) made an exemption for anyone to throw the pebbles before sunrise, and this is not permitted. If he throws the pebbles before dawn he is to repeat the act”. This was also the opinion of Abu Hamfa, Sufyan, and Ahmad. Al-Shafi T said there € is no harm in this, although it is desirable that he do it after sunrise.

The evidence of those who prohibited this is the act of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) along with his saying, “Acquire your rites from me”. Further, it is related from Ibn cAbbas “that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) sent the weak among his family members (from Muzdalifa) and said, ‘Do not throw pebbles at the jamra until the sun rises’”. The reliance of those who permitted stoning before dawn is the tradition about Umm Salama, which has been recorded by Abu Dawud and others, “that cA5isha said, ‘The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) sent Umm Salama on the day of sacrifice and she threw pebbles before dawn, after which she hastened on and performed the tawdf al- ifada'. This was a day when the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) was with her”. There is also the tradition of Asma5 that she threw pebbles at the jamra during the night and said: “We used to do this during the days of the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him)”.

The jurists agreed that the desirable time for throwing pebbles at the Jamrat al-^Aqaba is from the rising of the sun up to its decline, but if a pilgrim throws the pebbles before the setting of the sun on the day of sacrifice his act is valid and does not incur a liability (for atonement). Malik, however, said that it is desirable for such a person to atone by sacrifice. They disagreed about the case of a person who does not throw the pebbles till after the setting of the sun, and does it during the night, or on the next day. Malik said that he is liable for atonement by slaughtering an animal. Abu HanTfa said that if fie throws the pebbles during the night he does not incur any liability, but if he delays it till the next day he is liable to atonement by slaughtering an animal. Abu Yusuf, Muhammad, and al-Shafi T said that c there is no liability for him if he delays it till the night or up to .the next day. Their evidence is “that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) made an exemption for those tending the camels to throw the pebbles during the night”, and also the tradition of Ibn cAbbas “that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) was asked by a questioner, ‘O Messenger of Allah, I threw the pebbles after sundown.’ He said to him, ‘No harm done’”. Malik’s reliance is on the argument that this time, which is agreed upon, during which the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) threw the pebbles is the sunna, and the person who violates one of the sunan of hajj is liable for atonement by slaughtering an animal, in accordance with what is related from Ibn cAbbas. This opinion was adopted by the majority.

Malik said that the underlying meaning of the exemption for the persons tending the camels is this that if the day of sacrifice had passed and they had thrown pebbles at the Jamrat al-*Aqaba and then the third day would arrive, which was the first day of departure, the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) made an exemption for them that they may throw pebbles for that day (the second) and for the day following it, and they may depart as they have finished or stay behind with the people till the next day, the day of final departure, and then leave. The meaning of the exemption for the persons tending the animals in the view of a group of jurists is the combining of two days in one, except that combining in Malik’s view is possible for what has become due, like combining in the third day and thus throwing pebbles for the second and the third day, because delayed performance is not possible in his view except for what has become due. Many jurists, however, made an exemption for combining two days into one, whether the day being added to the other has passed or is yet to come, and they did not draw a similarity with qad&.

It is established “that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) threw pebbles during his hajj at the jamra on the day of sacrifice, he then sacrificed a she-camel, then had his head shaved, and thereafter performed the tawaf al-tfada”. The jurists agreed that this was the sunna of hajj. They disagreed over the case of someone who advances an act over the sequence maintained by the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him)

or delays it. Malik said that the person who shaves his head before throwing pebbles at the Jamrat al-'Aqaba is liable for redemption (fidya\ ransom). Al- Shafi T, Ahmad, Dawud, and Abu Thawr < said that there is no liability for him. Their reliance is upon what was related by Malik of the tradition of <Abd Allah ibn TJmar, who said, “The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) stopped for the people at Mina, when they were asking him questions. A man came up and said, ‘O Messenger of Allah, I did not realize it and shaved my head before making the sacrifice’. The Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “‘ake the sacrifice, there is no harm’. Another man then came forward and said, ‘O Messenger of Allah, I did not know and made the sacrifice before throwing the pebbles’. The Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, ‘Throw the pebbles, there is no harm’. Whenever, on this day, the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) was asked about advancing or delaying an act over the sequence he replied, ‘Do it, there is no harm’”. This has ♦ (also) been related on the authority of Ibn cAbbas from, the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him).268 Malik’s reliance is upon the argument that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) laid down the hukm of redemption for a person shaving his head earlier due to a necessity; so how can this be for a person who does it when,there is no necessity, along with the fact that the tradition does not mention the shaving of the head before the throwing of pebbles.

In' Malik’s view,’ the person who shaves his head before slaughtering the animal is under no liability, and also the person who slaughters the animal before throwing the pebbles. Abu Hanifa said that if the person shaves his head or throws the pebbles before he makes the sacrifice, he is liable for atonement by slaughtering an animal, and if he is a qdrin he has to atone twice. Zufar said that he is liable for atoning three times, once for qlrdn, and twice for shaving his head before the sacrifice and before throwing the pebbles.

They agreed unanimously that the person who makes the sacrifice before throwing the pebbles is not liable for anything as that is explicitly mentioned in the text, except for Ibn cAbbas who used to say that the person who advances or delays anything in his hajj has to sacrifice an animal, and the person who advances the tawdf al-ifada over throwing of pebbles and shaving of the head is bound to repeat the circumambulation. Al-ShaficT, and thoseb who followed him, said that he is not obliged to repeat it. Al-Awzaci said that if he performs the tawdf al-ijada before throwing pebbles at the Jamrat al <Aqaba and then has intercourse with his wife he is to atone by sacrificing an animal.

They agreed that the total number of pebbles that the pilgrim is to throw is seventy including seven at the Jamrat alAAqaba on the day of sacrifice. The pilgrim is to throw these pebbles at the Jamrat al-^Aqaba, from whichever spot is convenient, striking the lower part, the upper, and the middle, and there is freedom in this. The place of choice for the position taken is the middle of the valley in accordance with what is laid down in the tradition of Ibn Mas‘ud that he sought the middle of the valley and said: “By Him, besides Whom there is no god, I saw the one to whom the surat al-Baqara was revealed throwing the pebbles in this way”. They agreed that the pilgrim is to throw a pebble again if it does not strike the Jamrat al-^Aqaba. He is to throw pebbles each day during the days of tashriq (11th, 12th, and 13th of Dhu al- Hijja) on all the three jamarat, twenty-one pebbles in all'with seven for each jamra. It is permitted to him to throw the pebbles on two days and leave on the third day, because of the words of the Exalted, “Remember Allah through the appointed days. Then whoso hasteneth (his departure) after two days, it is no sin for him, and whoso delayeth, it is no sin for him”.269

The size of the stones, in their view, is similar to the size of date stones, because of what is related in the traditions of Jabir, Ibn ‘Abbas, and others that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) threw stones at the jimar that were similar in size to date stones.

The surma for the throwing of stones at the jamarat on each day of the days of tashriq, in their view, is that the pilgrim throw stones at the first jamra halting there for a while and and making a supplication. He is to do the same at the second jamra and prolong his stay. He is then to throw stones at the third and is not to stay, because of what is related about this from the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), and “this is what he used to do in his throwing of the pebbles”. It is preferable in their view to pronounce the takbir while throwing pebbles at each jamra, as that is related from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him). They agreed that one sunna for throwing pebbles at the three jamarat during the days of tashriq is that it be undertaken after the declining of the sun. They disagreed when a pilgrim throws the pebbles before the declining of the sun during the days of tashriq. The majority of the jurists maintained that the person who throws the pebbles before the declining of the sun is to repeat the performance after its decline. It is, however, related from Abu Ja‘far Muhammad ibn CA1T that he said, “The throwing of pebbles is undertaken any time from moment of the rising of the sun until it sets”. They agreed unanimously that the person who did not throw pebbles at the jimdr during the days of tashriq up to the time when the sun sets on the last of these days is not permitted to do so after these days. They disagreed about the obligation for this in terms of expiation. Malik said that the person who relinquishes the throwing of pebbles at the jimdr in part or completely or even at one of them, he is liable to atonement by slaughtering an animal. Abu Hamfa said that if he relinquishes this completely he is liable for atonement by slaughtering an animal, but if he misses one pillar or more he is liable to feed needy person with half a sat of wheat for each pillar missed until the amount reaches the sacrifice of an animal. This, however, does not apply to the Jamrat al-^Aqaba and the person who misses it has to sacrifice an animal. Al-Shafi<T said that for each pebble missed he is liable for one mudd of food, for two pebbles it is two mudds, but for three he is liable for sacrificing an animal. Al- ThawrT held the same opinion, except that he imposed the sacrifice of an animal on the fourth pebble. A group of the Tabicun made an exemption for missing one pebble and imposed no penalty for it, and their evidence is the tradition of Sa<d ibn AbT Waqqas, who said, “We accompanied the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) during his hajj, and some of us said, “We threw seven,” while others said, “We threw six”. We did not, however, find fault with each other”. The Zahirites said that there is no atonement in all this.

The majority maintained that the Jamrat al-^Aqaba (throwing pebbles at it) is not an one of the elements (arkdn) of hajj. cAbd al-Malik, one of the disciples of Malik, said that it is an element of hajj.

These, then, are all the acts of hajj from the time of assuming the state of ihrdm up to the time of release from it. Release from the ihram is of two types: major, which is the tawaf al-ifiida, and minor, which is the throwing of stones' at the Jamrat al-^Aqaba. We will mention the disagreement surrounding these in what follows.