Islamic Fiqh > Hajj and umra > The pillars and obligations of hajj > The obligations: Muzdalifa, stoning, shaving
Contents
Updated on 24 September 2026 at 7:46 PM
This chapter gathers the obligations (wajibat) of Hajj and the questions surrounding them, from the sheets of the encyclopedia of fiqh (al-Mawsou'a al-fiqhiyya). Fourteen sheets confront the positions of the four schools (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali) with their evidence: quotations from the imams and their commentators, takhrij of the hadiths in Bukhari and Muslim with their numbers, and classical references in parentheses. The topics run from merely passing by Muzdalifah to the farewell tawaf, taking in the timing of the stoning, shaving or shortening, the nights of Mina and the obligations dependent on other rites.
Imam at-Tahawi (may Allah have mercy on him) reports: "Our companions said: whoever abandons spending the night at Muzdalifah and hastens away by night without an excuse owes a blood expiation (dam); if it is for an excuse, nothing is required of him" ("Mukhtasar Ikhtilaf al-'Ulama", 2/148). Before examining the question, the scholars' views on the length of the obligatory night at Muzdalifah must be recalled; they form four positions.
First view (Malikis): descending at Muzdalifah, for the time it takes to pitch camp, on the night of the sacrifice is obligatory, and spending the night there is a sunna; whoever passes by without stopping owes a dam. Al-Qarafi writes: "Whoever passes by without stopping owes a dam; if he stops and then leaves at the end of the night, in its middle or at its beginning without departing with the imam, that suffices him" ("adh-Dhakhira", 3/263).
Second view (Shafi'is and Hanbalis): one must be present at Muzdalifah after midnight, even for a brief moment; whoever leaves before midnight without returning has abandoned the obligatory night, but if he returns before dawn the night is discharged. Ibn Qudama writes: "Whoever spends the night at Muzdalifah is not permitted to leave before midnight; if he leaves after it, nothing is required of him, and al-Shafi'i said this. Malik said: if he passes by without stopping he owes a dam; if he stops, no dam whatever the time of his departure. Our proof: the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) spent the night there and said: Take your rites from me" ("al-Mughni", 5/33-34).
I was among those whom the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) sent ahead, with the weak members of his family, from Muzdalifah to Mina.Reported by Bukhari (1678) and Muslim (1293), from Ibn Abbas
Leaving after midnight is permitted only by virtue of the reported concessions. Asma reports: she halted at Muzdalifah on the night of the gathering, rose to pray for an hour, then asked her son: "has the moon set?"; he replied: no; she prayed another hour, then asked again; he replied: yes; she said: move on. They moved on and threw the pebbles, then she prayed the dawn prayer at her place of halt and said: "My son, the Messenger of Allah has granted the women permission to leave" (reported by Bukhari (1595) and Muslim (1291), from Abdallah, the freedman of Asma). A'isha reports that the Prophet sent Umm Salamah on the night of the sacrifice; she stoned the jamra before dawn and then departed (weak hadith: reported by Abu Dawud (1942), ad-Daraqutni (2/276) and al-Hakim (1/641)).
Ibn Qudama adds: whoever leaves Muzdalifah before midnight and does not return during the night owes a dam; if he returns, nothing is required of him, like one who leaves Arafah by day. Whoever reaches Muzdalifah only in the second half of the night owes nothing, for he has caught no part of the first half, like one who spent the night at Arafah without the day. It is recommended to imitate the Messenger of Allah by remaining until dawn and then standing until daylight, and there is no harm in sending ahead the weak and the women, as Abd ar-Rahman ibn Awf and A'isha did; Ata', ath-Thawri, ash-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr and the people of opinion said it, and no opponent is known, for it is gentleness toward them, spares them the crush, and imitates the Prophet ("al-Mughni", 5/33-34). An-Nawawi writes: "The sunna according to us is to remain at Muzdalifah until dawn, except the weak, for whom leaving before dawn is recommended; if a capable person leaves before dawn after midnight, it is permitted without a dam: this is our madhhab, and Malik and Ahmad said it" ("al-Majmu'", 8/131). Abu Hanifa, however, holds that leaving before dawn is not permitted and entails the dam.
Third view (Hanafis): the time of the halt lies between dawn on the day of the sacrifice and sunrise; whoever is at Muzdalifah during this period has fulfilled the standing, whether he slept there or not; whoever misses it owes a dam, except for an excuse such as the crush. Al-Kasani writes: "If missing it is due to an excuse, nothing is required, for the Messenger of Allah sent ahead the weak members of his family without ordering them any expiation; if it is due to something else, the dam is owed, for he abandoned an obligation without excuse" ("Bada'i' as-Sana'i'", 3/81, 83). At-Tahawi reports the same from his companions ("Mukhtasar Ikhtilaf al-'Ulama", 2/148).
Fourth view: the night at Muzdalifah is a sunna whose abandonment entails no dam; this is a Shafi'i opinion, and is narrated from Ata' and al-Awza'i: "no dam upon him; it is a place of halt where whoever wishes stops and whoever wishes does not" ("Fath al-Bari", 3/529; "Nayl al-Awtar", 5/141). An-Nawawi sets out the two opinions in "al-Majmu'" (8/115): obligatory, because it is a rite intended at a defined place, like the stoning; or a sunna, like the night spent at Mina on the eve of Arafah.
From these positions four practical consequences follow: for the Malikis, passing without descending entails the dam; for Shafi'is and Hanbalis, passing without remaining the greater part of the night entails the dam; on the fourth view, nothing is required; for the Hanafis, whoever is at Muzdalifah between dawn and sunrise has fulfilled the standing, even without sleeping there.
Finally, the Council of Senior Scholars of Saudi Arabia ruled that the impossibility of entering Muzdalifah until sunrise, because of a traffic jam or the crush, constitutes an excuse: nothing is required. But passing without stopping out of mere haste, contenting oneself with reaching Mina, is not permitted and entails the dam, for it is abandoning an obligation of Hajj ("Fatawa al-Lajna ad-Da'ima", 11/214, 216). Its fatwa no. 2300 confirms: a family that reached Muzdalifah at 2 pm solar time and left without staying more than a quarter of an hour is not blamed if its departure, at 2 am solar time, falls after midnight; the weak and the women are granted this concession as a mercy to them (11/212-213).
The deeds of the Messenger of Allah are carried as obligations, for the texts command imitating him, following him and obeying him, and forbid contradicting him ("Bada'i' as-Sana'i'", 3/84; "al-Majmu'", 8/135; "al-Mughni", 5/39). The days of the stoning are four: the day of the sacrifice, the tenth of Dhul-Hijjah, and the three following days, called the days of Tashriq. On this day of the sacrifice only the stoning of the jamra al-'Aqaba is obligatory, with seven pebbles. This stoning has two times: a time of excellence and a time of permission. The time of excellence is after sunrise: Ibn Abd al-Barr writes that the Muslim scholars are unanimously agreed that the Messenger of Allah stoned it that day only in the forenoon (duha) ("at-Tamhid", 7/268; "al-Mughni", 5/41).
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) stoned on the day of the sacrifice in the forenoon, and stoned after that after the zenith.Reported by Muslim (1299) and by Bukhari in suspended form (1659), from Jabir
Ibn al-Mundhir adds: they agreed that whoever stones the jamarat during the days of Tashriq after the sun declines, that suffices him ("al-Ijma'", 197). The people of knowledge are likewise agreed that stoning the jamra al-'Aqaba before midnight of the night of the sacrifice is in no way valid. As for the time of permission, it is subject to three views.
First view: the stoning begins from midnight; this is the Shafi'i view ("al-Hawi al-Kabir", 4/185; "al-Majmu'", 8/142; "Mughni al-Muhtaj", 1/504) and the Hanbali view ("al-Mughni", 5/41, 73, 81; "ash-Sharh al-Kabir", 2/48; "al-Insaf", 4/37), and that of Ata', Ibn Abi Mulaykah, al-Awza'i, Ikrimah ibn Khalid and ash-Sha'bi ("at-Tamhid", 7/269; "al-Mughni", 5/42). Evidence: the hadith of Asma cited above, one version of which says: "we stoned the jamra by night; she replied: we used to do this at the time of the Messenger of Allah" (reported by Abu Dawud (1943) and Ibn Khuzaymah in his Sahih (2884), a sahih hadith); the hadith of Umm Salamah reported by A'isha: "the Prophet sent Umm Salamah on the night of the sacrifice; she stoned the jamra before dawn and then departed, and that day was the day on which the Messenger of Allah would be" (Abu Dawud (1942); al-Albani weakened it in "Da'if Abi Dawud" (334), but Ibn Kathir describes its chain as good and strong in "al-Bidaya wa an-Nihaya" (5/182), and Ibn Hajar writes in "ad-Daraya" (2/24): "its isnad is sahih"); ash-Shafi'i deduces from it that she stoned about an hour before dawn ("al-Umm", 2/213); the hadith of Saudah, a large and stolid woman, who asked the Messenger of Allah permission to leave by night from Muzdalifah and was granted it, A'isha saying: "would that I had asked as she did" (Bukhari (1596, 1597), Muslim (1290)); the two hadiths of Ibn Abbas sent by night by the Prophet from Muzdalifah (Bukhari (1593, 1594), Muslim (1293)); and the version of Umm Habibah: "we used to leave by night from Muzdalifah" (Muslim (1292)). Their argument: if the Prophet permitted the departure by night, he permitted the stoning by night, that departure being also a time of leaving Muzdalifah.
Second view: the time begins at the rising of dawn on the day of the sacrifice, and nothing before it is valid; this is the Hanafi view ("Bada'i' as-Sana'i'", 3/87, 89, 92; "al-Hujjah", 2/421; "al-Ikhtiyar", 1/175; "Tabyin al-Haqa'iq", 2/31) and the Maliki view ("al-Muwatta'", 1/391; "al-Istidhkar", 4/356; "at-Tamhid", 7/269; "Bidayat al-Mujtahid", 1/474; "tafsir al-Qurtubi", 3/6), and that of Ishaq, Ibn al-Mundhir and Abu Thawr ("at-Tamhid", 7/269; "al-Istidhkar", 4/293), and of Ahmad in one narration ("al-Mughni", 5/41, 73, 81; "al-Insaf", 4/237; "Kashshaf al-Qina'", 2/500). Evidence: the hadith of Ibn Abbas: the Prophet "used to send ahead the weak members of his family at the beginning of the night and order them not to stone the jamra until the sun rose" (reported by Abu Dawud (1941), at-Tirmidhi (893) and an-Nasa'i (3065), a sahih hadith); the hadith of Ibn Abbas: "we stoned with the dawn" (reported by Abu Dawud at-Tayalisi in his Musnad (2729), Ahmad (1/320, 352) and at-Tahawi in "Sharh Ma'ani al-Athar" (2/215), a hadith judged munkar); and the argument that the time of the stoning begins when the time of the standing at Arafah ends, which by consensus ends only at dawn: the stoning and the standing cannot coincide ("al-Mabsut", 4/261; "adh-Dhakhira", 3/285; "al-Muntaqa", 2/22).
Third view: stoning before sunrise is not permitted for the capable, but is permitted before it for the weak; this is the choice of Ibn al-Qayyim ("Zad al-Ma'ad", 2/252), as-San'ani ("Subul as-Salam", 2/208) and ash-Shawkani ("Nayl al-Awtar", 5/146; "as-Sayl al-Jarrar", 2/204). Evidence: the hadith of Jabir reported by Abu az-Zubayr: "I saw the Prophet stoning from his mount on the day of the sacrifice while saying: Take your rites from me, for I do not know whether I will perform Hajj after this Hajj of mine" (Muslim (1297)); an-Nawawi sees in it a great foundation of the rites of Hajj, like the hadith "pray as you have seen me pray" ("Sharh Muslim", 9/45); and the evidences of concession to the weak already cited, among them the hadith of Ibn Umar: the weak members of his family used to halt at al-Mash'ar al-Haram at Muzdalifah by night, remember Allah as long as they wished, and return before the imam stood; some reached Mina for the dawn prayer, others after it; when they arrived they stoned the jamra, and Ibn Umar said: "the Messenger of Allah granted them the concession" (Bukhari (1592), Muslim (1295)). The explicit sense of these hadiths grants permission to the weak, and its inverse sense indicates that no one else was granted a concession: the origin remains the time in which the Prophet stoned, after sunrise.
Ibn al-Qayyim reconciled these hadiths: the children were ordered not to stone until the sun rose, since no excuse covers them in advancing the stoning; those of the women who stoned before dawn did so by excuse and for fear for them of the people's crowding; as for the capable man in good health, it is not permitted to him ("Zad al-Ma'ad", 2/252; "Mansak al-Hajj" of ash-Shinqiti, p. 283).
The scholars differ over the end of the time for stoning the great jamra. According to the Hanafis and the Shafi'is in one view, it extends to the dawn of the next day: whoever delays the stoning until the dawn of the second day stones, and owes a dam for the delay according to Abu Hanifa, but nothing according to Abu Yusuf and Muhammad, for the stoning is time-bound according to Abu Hanifa and is not so according to them ("Bada'i' as-Sana'i'", 3/87, 89, 92; "Mukhtasar Ikhtilaf al-'Ulama", 2/158; "al-Uddah", 3/492; "al-Ikhtiyar", 1/175). Al-Kasani adds: if the sun has set, one stones before the dawn of the second day and it suffices; for ash-Shafi'i there are two views: the time is missed once the sun has set and a fidyah is due, or it is not missed except at the end of the days of Tashriq ("Bada'i' as-Sana'i'", 3/87, 89).
At-Tahawi devotes a chapter to the man who abandons the stoning of the jamra al-'Aqaba on the day of the sacrifice and does it afterward, and reports by his chain from Ibn Abbas the hadith: "The shepherd grazes by day and stones by night". Abu Hanifa deduces from it that night and day are one single time for the stoning: whoever delays until the dawn of the next day stones and owes a dam; Abu Yusuf and Muhammad differ: if he remembers within any of the days of the stoning, he stones and owes nothing; if he remembers after the days of the stoning have passed without having stoned, a dam is due from him. Muhammad argues with the hadith of Abu al-Baddah reported by Asim ibn Adiyy: the Prophet permitted the shepherds to relieve one another, stoning the morning of the day of the sacrifice, leaving a day and a night, then stoning the following day: thus the stoning of the second day was performed on the third without a dam, proof that making up the stoning of the jamra al-'Aqaba within any of the days of Tashriq after abandoning it on the day of the sacrifice is a complete discharge. Their general reasoning: some rites of Hajj, like the sa'y between Safa and Marwah or the tawaf of arrival, have the whole of time as their period and entail nothing once performed; others, like the stoning, have a defined time and entail the dam if missed; now the jamra al-'Aqaba, stoned on the second day by way of makeup, was stoned on a day that is part of its time, otherwise no one would have been ordered to stone it ("Sharh Ma'ani al-Athar", 2/221-222).
Malik fixes the end of the time at the sunset of the day of the sacrifice: stoning afterward by night is dearer to him than shedding blood, but deferring to the days of Tashriq entails a hady. The "al-Mudawwana al-Kubra" transmits his statement: Safiyyah, detained at her niece's, stoned after the sunset of the day of the sacrifice, and nothing has reached us indicating that Ibn Umar blamed her; but Malik holds the dam for whoever misses the stoning until the sun has set. Whoever has left one or two pebbles stones the remainder, without restarting the whole stoning; Ibn al-Qasim reports that Malik varied on this, but he himself prefers the dam; the Maliki madhhab holds the dam as soon as the stoning is deferred to the night ("al-Mudawwana al-Kubra", 2/419-420; "al-Istidhkar", 4/356; "al-Kafi", 1/146; "sharh Ibn Battal", 4/407). Malik adds, for whoever forgets one of the jamarat of the days of Mina: let him stone at whatever hour he remembers, by night or by day, as one makes up a forgotten prayer; if it is after leaving Makkah, a hady is due ("al-Muwatta'", 1/409).
According to the Shafi'is and Hanbalis, the end of the time extends to the end of the days of Tashriq ("al-Majmu'", 8/179; "Asna al-Matalib", 1/495; "Mughni al-Muhtaj", 1/506; "al-Insaf", 4/46). An-Nawawi writes: "If he abandons the stoning of the jamra al-'Aqaba, the most correct view is that he makes it up by night and during the days of Tashriq, observing the order, bringing it before the days of Tashriq, and it is a performance (ada') and not a makeup (qada'): each day is then hastened at the commanded measure in a time of free choice, like the chosen times of prayer" ("al-Iidah", p. 406). Al-Mirdawi specifies: deferring the whole stoning to the last day of Tashriq suffices without dispute and counts as performance on the correct view of the madhhab; deferring it beyond the days of Tashriq, or abandoning the night at Mina, entails a dam ("al-Insaf", 4/46).
The evidences for stoning by night after sunset are five. First evidence: the hadith of Ibn Abbas: "The Prophet was questioned on the day of the sacrifice at Mina and would say: no harm; a man said: I shaved before slaughtering; he said: slaughter, no harm; another said: I stoned after nightfall; he said: no harm" (Bukhari (1648)). Its objectors argue that the questioner meant the afternoon before the night: the mention of the day of the sacrifice proves the question occurred by day, and "al-masa'" in the language denotes what follows the zenith until night. Ibn Hajar writes in "Fath al-Bari" (3/569): "I stoned after nightfall" means after the entry of the evening, a term applied to what follows the decline until the darkness thickens, so the meaning is not fixed; Ibn Manzur notes in "Lisan al-'Arab" that the masa' runs from after midday to the maghrib prayer, some saying until midnight. The objectors conclude that the hadith refers to the end of the day after the decline, not the night, hence no proof of night stoning. The proponents of night stoning answer: the words "no harm" rest on the generality of the wording, not the singularity of the occasion; and the version of an-Nasa'i (3067) says "the days of Mina" in the plural: now the stoning after the decline on those days is known, so that a Companion's question can only refer to the night; and mentioning some instances of a general term does not specify it according to the majority, unlike Abu Thawr.
Second evidence: the hadith of Abu Bakr ibn Nafi' from his father: the niece of Safiyyah bint Abi Ubayd and Safiyyah reached Mina after the sunset of the day of the sacrifice, and Abdallah ibn Umar ordered them to stone then and saw no objection (al-Muwatta' (1/409, no. 921), al-Bayhaqi (5/150)), proof that he knew from the Prophet that night stoning is permitted ("Adwa' al-Bayan", 4/455, 457). Third evidence: Ibn Jurayj reports from Amr: "one who saw one of the wives of the Prophet stone after sunset or before informed me" (Ibn Abi Shaybah, "al-Musannaf", 3/398, no. 15321). Fourth evidence: ath-Thawri reports from Ibn Umar: "if you forget the stoning of the day of the sacrifice until night, stone by night; if on the next day you forget the jamarat until night, do not stone until after the sun declines on the morrow, beginning with the first" (al-Bayhaqi, 5/150). Fifth evidence: the shepherd hadith cited above (at-Tahawi, 2/221; al-Bayhaqi, 5/151). Al-Kasani answers the excuse objection: the shepherds could relieve one another and stone by day; the permission was therefore absolute and entails no dam ("Bada'i' as-Sana'i'", 3/87, 89).
On these two days, stoning the three jamarat in order is obligatory according to the majority, against Abu Hanifa: first the small jamra, beside the mosque of al-Khayf at Mina, then the middle one, then the jamra al-'Aqaba, seven pebbles for each. Ibn Qudama writes: the order among these jamarat is obligatory, as stated above; if he reverses the order, beginning with the jamra al-'Aqaba, then the second then the first, or beginning with the middle one while stoning all three, only the first stoned counts for him, and he repeats the middle and the great: Ahmad stated this explicitly. If he stones the great, then the first, then the middle, he repeats the great alone: Malik and ash-Shafi'i said this. Al-Hasan and Ata' do not require the order, like Abu Hanifa: if he stones in reverse he repeats, otherwise it suffices. Some argue with the hadith: "whoever performs one rite before another, no harm upon him", and with the fact that these rites are repeated in separate places within a single time, none of them dependent on another, like the stoning and the slaughter. Our proof: the Prophet observed the order in stoning and said: Take your rites from me; it is a repeated rite whose order is required, as in the sa'y; their hadith concerns one who brings forward a rite over its own complement, and their analogy collapses before the tawaf and the sa'y ("al-Mughni", 5/76).
Ibn Qudama then describes the rite of the second day: after the decline, seven pebbles at the first jamra while saying the takbir with each pebble, standing and supplicating; then seven at the middle one, with takbir and supplication; then seven at the jamra al-'Aqaba without stopping. The pilgrim's total is seventy pebbles: seven on the day of the sacrifice after sunrise, and twenty-one on each of the three days of Tashriq after the decline. He begins with the jamra farthest from Makkah, beside the mosque of al-Khayf, places it on his left, facing the qiblah; then he advances to a spot not reached by the pebbles and stands long, hands raised, supplicating Allah; then the middle one on his right, still facing the qiblah, with the same standing; then the jamra al-'Aqaba from the bottom of the valley, facing the qiblah, without stopping: this is the view of ash-Shafi'i, and no disagreement is known on the whole, except that Malik denies that it is a place for raising the hands.
Al-Athram reports that he asked Ahmad whether one stands at the two jamarat: "Yes, by my life, firmly, for long, facing the qiblah, stoning from the middle of the valley". Its origin is the hadith of A'ishah: "The Messenger of Allah departed on the last of his days after the midday prayer, returned to Mina, stayed there the nights of the days of Tashriq, stoning after the decline of the sun, seven pebbles for each jamra, takbir with each pebble, standing long in supplication at the first two, stoning the third without stopping" (reported by Abu Dawud). Bukhari reports the same detailed description from Ibn Umar, concluding: "this is how I saw the Messenger of Allah act". Abu Dawud reports that Ibn Umar added to his supplication at Arafah: "and rectify or complete for us our rites". Ibn al-Mundhir reports that Ibn Umar and Ibn Mas'ud used to say while stoning: "O Allah, make it an accepted pilgrimage and a forgiven sin"; Ibn Umar and Ibn Abbas raised their hands while stoning and lengthened the standing. Abd ar-Rahman ibn Yazid reports that Ibn Mas'ud said when he finished: "thus acted the one to whom Surah al-Baqarah was revealed" (al-Athram), and Ata' reports that Ibn Umar stood at the two jamarat for the length of reciting Surah al-Baqarah ("al-Mughni", 5/73-75).
Abandoning the standing and the supplication abandons a sunna and entails nothing: ash-Shafi'i, Abu Hanifa, Ishaq and Abu Thawr said it, with no known opponent, except ath-Thawri, for whom some food is due, and who said he would prefer even blood, for the Prophet did it and the act thereby becomes a rite. Our proof: it is the supplication of a legislated standing; nothing is due for abandoning it, as with beholding the House and the other supplications; and stopping at the middle jamra is not obligatory as at the first, while the Prophet performed the obligations and the recommended acts ("al-Mughni", 5/77).
The scholars differ over advancing the stoning before the decline on these three days, in three views.
First view (the majority): advancing the stoning before the decline is not permitted; whoever stones after dawn and before the decline repeats the stoning. This is the view of the majority of the scholars: the Malikis ("al-Mudawwana al-Kubra", 2/423; "al-Istidhkar", 4/353; "al-Kafi", 1/146; "sharh Ibn Battal", 4/407; "tafsir al-Qurtubi", 3/8; "Bidayat al-Mujtahid", 1/477), the Shafi'is ("al-Umm", 2/213; "al-Majmu'", 8/166) and the Hanbalis of the madhhab ("al-Mughni", 5/75; "al-Insaf", 4/45; "al-Furu'", 3/382; "Kashshaf al-Qina'", 2/508), and the famous narration from Abu Hanifa ("Bada'i' as-Sana'i'", 2/137-138; "al-Bahr ar-Ra'iq", 2/374; "al-Uddah", 3/497); it is narrated from Umar, Ibn Abbas and Ibn Umar among the Companions ("Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah", 3/319; "at-Tamhid", 7/272), and from al-Hasan, Ata' and ath-Thawri among the Successors ("Fath al-Bari", 3/580; "Nayl al-Awtar", 5/161). Malik: "whoever stones on the three days before the decline of the sun repeats the stoning; there is no stoning except after the decline on all the days of Tashriq" ("al-Mudawwana al-Kubra", 2/423). Ash-Shafi'i: "one does not stone, on any day of Mina other than the day of the sacrifice, except after the decline; whoever does so before it repeats" ("al-Umm", 2/213). Al-Mirdawi: it is the correct view of the Hanbali madhhab, held by the mass of the companions; many cut off debate on it and stated it ("al-Insaf", 4/45).
Their evidence: first evidence, the Prophet's stoning after the decline in numerous hadiths: that of Jabir cited above; that of Warbarah, who asked Ibn Umar: "when do I stone the jamarat?"; he replied: "when your imam stones, stone"; he repeated the question, and he said: "we used to wait, and when the sun declined we stoned" (Bukhari (1659)); and that of A'ishah cited above (reported by Abu Dawud (1937), Ahmad (6/90) and Ibn Khuzaymah (4/311), authenticated by al-Albani in "Sahih Abi Dawud" (1722) except for the words "after the midday prayer", which he judged munkar). The stoning is pure worship, not attained by reason, not known by analogy, but only by transmission, and the Prophet said: Take your rites from me. Second evidence, the prohibition by the Companions, as Ibn Umar: "the jamarat are not stoned on the three days until the sun declines" (al-Muwatta' (1/408, no. 918), a sahih chain): were it permitted, Ibn Umar would not have forbidden it.
Second view: stoning on the three days of Tashriq is permitted before the decline without restriction; narrated from Ibn Abbas ("Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah", 3/319, via Ibn Abi Mulaykah) and Ibn az-Zubayr ("Akhbar Makkah" of al-Fakihi, 4/298, via Amr ibn Dinar); transmitted from Ata' (Ibn Battal, 4/415; "Fath al-Bari", 3/580), Tawus, Ikrimah ("al-Mughni", 5/75), Ibn Tawus and Abu Ja'far al-Baqir ("al-Istidhkar", 4/353); it is the view of Abu Hanifa, and of al-Juwayni, ar-Rafi'i and al-Isnawi among the Shafi'is ("al-Majmu'", 8/170; "Tuhfat al-Muhtaj", 4/138), and of Ibn al-Jawzi and Ibn az-Zaghuni among the Hanbalis ("al-Furu'", 3/382; "al-Insaf", 4/45). Their evidence: first evidence, the verse: "Whoever hastens (his departure) in two days commits no sin, and whoever remains commits no sin" (Surah al-Baqarah, 203), the day embracing its beginning and its end: since hastening is permitted on the two days, the stoning of the twelfth day is permitted from the beginning of the day, that is, before the decline; and what holds for the twelfth holds for the eleventh, with no difference. Second evidence, the hadith of Ibn Abbas "no harm" (Bukhari (1648); an-Nasa'i (3067): "the days of Mina"), for he would not ask about stoning in the evening unless its permissibility by day was established before him; and this is not specific to the day of the sacrifice but applies to all the days of Tashriq. Third evidence, the hadith of Abu al-Baddah ibn Asim from his father: the Messenger of Allah "granted the shepherds of camels the dispensation from the night's stay: they stoned on the day of the sacrifice, then the next day, then two days after, and stoned on the day of departure" (reported by Malik in "al-Muwatta'" (no. 919), Ahmad (5/450), Abu Dawud (1975) and Ibn Majah (3037), a sahih hadith); and the hadith of Amr ibn Shu'ayb from his father from his grandfather: the Prophet "permitted the shepherds to stone by night and at whatever hour of the day they wished" (ad-Daraqutni, 2/276): the Prophet did not forbid the shepherds stoning before the decline, and the delay of explanation beyond the moment of need cannot come from him; the second hadith even permits it in explicit terms for every time. Fourth evidence, the acts of several Companions before the decline, among them Ibn Abbas and Ibn az-Zubayr: Ibn Abi Mulaykah said: "I saw Ibn Abbas stone at midday, before the decline" (Ibn Abi Shaybah, 3/319), a report to be carried to the days of Tashriq since stoning the jamra al-'Aqaba after sunrise is permitted by agreement; and concerning Ibn az-Zubayr, Amr ibn Dinar said: "I asked: did Ibn Umar stone? They said: only the Commander of the Believers (Ibn az-Zubayr) stoned; I waited for Ibn Umar, and when the sun declined he went out and stoned the first jamra" (al-Fakihi, 4/298, a chain judged hasan). Fifth evidence, the hadith of Warbarah cited above: "when your imam stones" indicates the breadth of the time, otherwise he would have ordered it at once; and had the questioner not repeated, the first answer would have sufficed. Sixth evidence: there is in the Book of Allah and in the sunna of His Messenger no explicit statement forbidding the stoning before the decline, nor a command fixing the time of the stoning at the decline; had that time been forbidden, the Prophet would have explained it clearly by a text certain in transmission and in meaning, as he forbade prayer at known hours and clear matters of Hajj, like the bottom of the valley of Uraynah; fixing the beginning of the stoning at that moment is of the same kind as the distance requiring shortening of prayer or the resident's obligation to complete, matters without any text.
Seventh evidence: several scholars, as stated above, give the pilgrim the right to defer his whole stoning to the last of the days of Tashriq, explaining that the day of the feast together with the days of Tashriq form a single time for the stoning, and that stoning on the last day counts as performance and not as makeup: stoning each day on its day is the view, but before the decline is closer to the sunnah than combining them on the last day, the combining having come only for the excused, like the shepherds and the water-carriers; whoever forbids the stoning before the decline while permitting the combining falls into contradiction and prefers a view over what is more correct than it. Eighth evidence: the Prophet's omission of the stoning before the decline does not prove its prohibition, as his standing at Arafah after the decline and after the isha prayer: the time after isha is a time for the standing by agreement, and before the decline is so according to the Hanbali view; he stood after the decline not because before it would be forbidden, but because it is better: this worship therefore has a time of excellence and a time of permission. Ninth evidence: before the decline is a time of the stoning on the day of the sacrifice, therefore also on the second and third days, all being days of slaughter; his stoning before the decline on the day of the sacrifice and after the decline on the other days informs of the breadth of the time and that both are legislated, against whoever restricts the permission to the day of the feast alone ("Bada'i' as-Sana'i'", 2/137). Tenth evidence: the greatest principles of the Law require lifting hardship and removing difficulty in Hajj: the harsh crush of our day, especially at the decline of the first wave, deserves dispensation more than the case of the shepherds, the difficulty being greater, for "He has imposed upon you in the religion no hardship" (Surah al-Hajj, 78); the stoning nowadays involves harms and danger to life, and necessity makes the forbidden permissible, as in combining prayers in rain and cold; and if the Law conceded to the shepherds abandoning the night's stay and combining the stoning to preserve their flocks, the preservation of lives takes precedence over the preservation of property. Eleventh evidence: the people of knowledge agreed on the excuse of the shepherds and the water-carriers in the falling away of the night's stay and the delay of the stoning, because of the texts; some joined them in extending that to all bearers of excuse, including whoever fears the crush for himself, his family or his companions, and the women who fear exposure: they may do what the shepherds and water-carriers do, combining the jamarat and stoning them at whatever hour of night or day they wish.
Third view (differentiation): the stoning before the decline is permitted on one specified day only, in two groups. The first group permits it on the twelfth day, the day of the first departure (nafar) for whoever departs then: it is the view of Abu Hanifa, a narration from Ahmad and Ishaq ("al-Mughni", 5/75; "al-Furu'", 3/382; "al-Insaf", 4/45), and of Tawus ("at-Tamhid", 7/272): Abu Hanifa and Tawus say that whoever departs stones before the decline ("al-Mabsut", 4/68; "al-Uddah", 2/500), and a narration from Ahmad says: "he does not depart except after the decline", which is the view of Ikrimah. Justification: the stoning on that day is permitted to ward off the apparent hardship, for whoever intends to hasten may, by delaying the stoning beyond the decline, reach Makkah only by night; he is therefore granted the advance in order to reach Makkah by daylight and see his place of lodging. And necessity is measured by its measure: the permission on the first day of departure aims at warding off harm and preserving lives and property, the time of the stoning for the hastening one being narrow; on the eleventh day the time is wider and the need lesser. The second group of the differentiators does not permit it before the decline except on the thirteenth day: the view of Abu Hanifa and a narration from Ahmad, and whoever departs on that day stones according to them. Justification: the last days are likened to the first; and the stoning of the fourth day may be abandoned entirely, so it resembles supererogatory acts whose time is not an absolute constraint; the advance is therefore permitted there in order to reach Makkah before night; and since the stoning of the jamarat may be abandoned entirely on that day, stoning at any moment, before the decline or after, is better than abandoning it altogether.
The end of the stoning time: according to the Hanafis, until the dawn of the second day; whoever passes that term owes a dam according to Abu Hanifa. According to Abu Yusuf and Muhammad: no dam, unless he delays until the sunset of the last day of Tashriq, the last of the days of the stoning ("Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil", 2/336; "ash-Sharh al-Kabir", 2/48). According to the Malikis, as stated above, passing the sunset entails a dam, as on the day of the sacrifice. According to the Shafi'is and Hanbalis, the time ends at the sunset of the fourth day of the days of slaughter, the last day of Tashriq.
An-nafar al-awwal: after stoning on the second day of Tashriq, the pilgrim may leave Mina for Makkah, if he wishes to hasten his departure, by the word of Allah: "Whoever hastens in two days commits no sin" (Surah al-Baqarah, 203): he departs after stoning two days of the days of Tashriq and abandons the stoning of the third, called the day of the first departure, and the stoning of that third day falls away by consensus. According to Malik, ash-Shafi'i and Ahmad, he may depart before sunset: if the sun sets before he leaves Mina, he may no longer depart, whether he has struck camp or is staying where he is. Abu Hanifa permits it until the dawn of the fourth day of the days of slaughter, for the time of the stoning of the last day has not yet entered. Ibn Qudama summarizes: the stoning of the second day is like that of the first in its time, its description and its manner, with no known disagreement; whoever wishes to hasten in two days leaves before sunset; if the sun sets while he is still there, he does not leave until he has stoned on the morrow after the decline, as he stoned the day before ("al-Mughni", 5/79-81; "Bada'i' as-Sana'i'", 3/89).
The people of science are agreed that whoever wants to leave Mina for outside the Sanctuary may depart after the decline on the second day of Tashriq. Ahmad said he does not approve of one departing on the first departure residing in Makkah. Malik used to say concerning the people of Makkah: whoever has an excuse may hasten in two days; but not one who merely wants to lighten his Hajj. One argues by the statement of Umar: "let whoever wishes among all the people depart on the first departure, except the family of Khuzaymah, who depart only on the second departure". Ahmad and Ishaq gave the meaning that "the family of Khuzaymah" are the people of the Sanctuary of Makkah; the madhhab is the permission of the first departure for everyone, the view of most of the scholars, by the word of Allah: "Whoever hastens in two days commits no sin, and whoever remains commits no sin, for him who fears" (Surah al-Baqarah, 203). Ata' said: "it is for all the people".
The days of Mina are three: whoever hastens in two days commits no sin, and whoever remains commits no sin.Reported by Ahmad (4/335), Abu Dawud (1949), at-Tirmidhi (889) and Ibn Majah (3015), from Abd ar-Rahman ibn Ya'mur; al-Albani: "its isnad is sahih" ("Sahih Abi Dawud", 1703), also authenticated by Ibn al-Jarud, Ibn Hibban and al-Hakim, with adh-Dhahabi's agreement
Sufyan ibn Uyaynah used to say: "there is no hadith in Kufah nobler or finer than this one", and: "it is the best hadith Sufyan ever narrated". Waki' used to say: "this hadith is the mother of the rites, and it contains an addition I have abbreviated". Since it is a departure from a place, the people of Makkah are like the rest in it, as with the departure from Arafah and from Muzdalifah; and Ahmad's statement aims at recommendation, in agreement with Umar, nothing more. So: whoever wishes to hasten departs before sunset; if the sun sets before he leaves Mina, he may no longer depart, whether he has struck camp or stays: this is the view of Umar, Jabir ibn Zayd, Ata', Tawus, Mujahid, Aban ibn Uthman, Malik, ath-Thawri, ash-Shafi'i, Ishaq and Ibn al-Mundhir. Abu Hanifa permits it until the dawn of the third day, for the same reason as above. Our proof: the verse, the day being the name of the daytime; whoever is overtaken by the night has not hastened in two days. Ibn al-Mundhir reports from Ibn Umar: "whoever is overtaken by the evening on the second day, let him stay until the morrow and depart with the people"; and their analogy does not resemble our case, for this is a hastening in two days ("al-Mughni", 5/79-80).
Stoning the three jamarat is obligatory on this day for whoever has stayed and not performed the first departure; its time is after the decline according to the majority, as stated above; Abu Hanifa and Ahmad in one narration permit advancing it before the decline after dawn. They agree that the end of the time of the stoning on this day is sunset, and that the time of the stoning of this day and the makeup of what precedes also extends to the sunset of the fourth day, for the time of the rites ends at its sunset. Ibn Abd al-Barr writes: "the scholars are agreed that whoever does not stone the jamarat during the days of Tashriq until the sun sets on the last of them stones no more afterward, and is compensated by blood or food according to their differences" ("al-Istidhkar", 4/357; "at-Tamhid", 17/255-256). Ibn Rushd says the like.
On the compensation: Malik says that whoever abandons the stoning of all the jamarat, part of them or one of them owes a blood. Abu Hanifa: if he abandons them all, a blood; if he abandons one jamra or more, a feeding of half a sa' of wheat to a poor person for each jamra, up to a blood if he abandons all except the jamra al-'Aqaba, whose abandonment entails a blood. Ash-Shafi'i: a mudd of food per pebble, two mudds for two pebbles, and a blood for three pebbles ("Bidayat al-Mujtahid", 1/477; "al-Mudawwana al-Kubra", 2/419-420; "adh-Dhakhira", 3/277; "al-Majmu'", 1/213). Ahmad, for whoever leaves one pebble of the pebbles of the jamarat: a mudd; in another narration, a handful of food; in another, nothing is required of him ("al-Ifsah", 1/305; "al-Kafi", 1/453; "al-Mughni", 5/78; "al-Insaf", 4/47).
After stoning the three jamarat on the third day of Tashriq, the fourth of the days of slaughter, the pilgrim leaves Mina for Makkah; it is not sunnah for him to stay at Mina after the stoning. This is the day of the second departure, with which the rites of Mina end.
Delegation (niyabah) in the stoning: the excused person who cannot stone himself, such as the sick or the detained, must appoint someone to stone for him. The deputy should have stoned for himself; otherwise let him stone the whole stoning of the day for himself first, then for the one who appointed him. This delegated stoning suffices according to the Hanafis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis, with no dam, since delegation in the origin of the Hajj is permitted, all the more in its parts. If stones are thrown for him and he recovers after the days of Mina, the stoning suffices; if he recovers during the days of Mina, he must stone what remains, and it is recommended for him to repeat what was stoned for him, so as to be the direct performer in its time; nothing is obligatory upon him, the stoning having fallen away by the act of another. It is recommended for him to attend the stoning if he can at the time it is thrown for him, and to place the pebbles in the deputy's hand, the incapacitated one saying the takbir and the deputy throwing; omitting the handing over while able does not invalidate the delegation. The Hanafis: throwing two pebbles, one for oneself and one for another, is valid but disliked ("Sharh Fath al-Qadir", 2/498; "al-Bahr ar-Ra'iq", 2/375). The Shafi'is restrict the delegation to a sick man whose recovery before the end of the days of Tashriq is not hoped for; and among them one view recommends stoning the pebbles of the jamra for oneself first, then for one's principal until the stoning ends, a sound course for whoever fears the crush ("al-Hawi al-Kabir", 4/204; "al-Majmu'", 8/174; "Mughni al-Muhtaj", 1/508; "Nihayat al-Muhtaj", 3/314).
Whoever cannot even appoint someone, like the child or the unconscious person: the guardian stones for the child. Ibn al-Mundhir reports the consensus that stones are thrown for the child incapable of stoning ("al-Ijma'", 202). As for the unconscious man, his companions stone for him, with no fidyah according to the Hanafis. The Shafi'is add: if the muhrim falls unconscious before the stoning without having authorized stoning for him, the stoning during his unconsciousness is not valid by consensus; if he had authorized it, it is valid. An-Nawawi reports from ash-Shafi'i and his companions: the one prevented from stoning, by illness, detention or the like, appoints someone, whether the illness is expected to pass or not, for a wage or without, a man or a woman; it is recommended to hand the pebbles to the deputy if he can, the incapacitated one saying the takbir and the deputy throwing, and omitting the handing over while able does not invalidate the delegation. The Shafi'i companions of the two ways (the Iraqi and the Khurasanian) permit the delegation of the sick man without restriction, whether despairing of recovery or not; Imam al-Haramayn, ar-Rafi'i and their like restrict it to an incapacity whose end before the stoning time passes is not hoped for, specifying that hope of recovery after the time has lapsed does no harm; and if the incapacity ceases during the days of the stoning, the remainder of the stoning becomes obligatory for him. If the muhrim falls unconscious without having authorized the stoning, stoning for him during his unconsciousness is not valid by consensus; if he had authorized, it is valid, and the majority of the companions of the two ways cut off debate on it; ar-Rafi'i reports from them one weak odd view: that it is not permitted; Imam al-Haramayn reports from the Iraqis that if the incapacitated man appointed someone and then fell unconscious, the delegation continues, just as if a sick man who appointed someone to perform Hajj for him dies, the paid delegation is not severed, since hiring for a dead person after his death is possible; al-Mawardi adds: if he authorized while capable, stoning for him during his unconsciousness is not valid, delegation not being valid for the capable man; if he authorized while incapacitated, sick, and then fell unconscious, the delegation is valid and so is the deputy's stoning. All agree that authorization given in a state of unconsciousness is invalid, and stoning by such an authorization does not count. The insane person follows the same rule as the unconscious one ("al-Majmu'", 8/174-176).
According to the Malikis, delegation has no benefit except the falling away of the sin if it occurs at the time of performance; otherwise the dam is due, whether one delegates or not; the dam is due neither from the minor nor from the one assimilated to him, like the unconscious man, because only the legally addressed adult is bound by all the pillars. Ad-Dardir writes in "ash-Sharh al-Kabir": the incapacitated man appoints someone to stone for him, but the deputy's stoning does not remove the dam; the benefit of the delegation is the removal of the sin. The incapacitated man watches for the time of the stoning, says the takbir for each pebble as he watches for the time of his deputy's supplication and supplicates; if he recovers before the expiry of the time that comes with the sunset of the fourth day, he repeats: before the sunset of the first day, no dam; after it, a dam and the makeup of each jamra, including al-'Aqaba, until the sunset of the fourth; the night following each day is a makeup of that day entailing a dam. The bedridden sick man is carried to the stoning and stones of obligation himself; he does not place the pebble in another's palm for him to stone with it: that does not suffice him ("ash-Sharh al-Kabir", 2/48; "Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil", 2/336, 340; "al-Mudawwana al-Kubra", 2/419, 424; "al-Istidhkar", 4/352). Ibn Qudama summarizes: if he is sick, detained or excused, he may appoint someone to stone for him.
Al-Athram asked Ahmad whether the one for whom stones are thrown must attend: "I like him to attend if he can, at the time it is thrown for him; if he is too weak, let him stay where he is and be stoned for". The qadi said: it is recommended to place the pebbles in the deputy's hand; if the principal falls unconscious, the delegation is not severed, and the deputy stones for him, as if he had appointed him for the Hajj and then fell unconscious. Ash-Shafi'i said as we have mentioned, and Malik resembles him, except that he says: the sick man watches for the moment of their stoning and says seven takbirs ("al-Mughni", 5/120; "Kashshaf al-Qina'", 2/381, 511; "Majmu' al-Fatawa", 26/245).
Stoning from the upper floors is a modern question of our era: the earlier scholars have no specific texts, but their texts allow deducing its permissibility. Al-Qari writes: if the pebble comes to rest on the marker of the jamra, it suffices; if it rests on the top of the marker without descending from it, the apparent view is that it does not suffice, given the distance ("Irshad as-Sari", p. 164). The "al-Mudawwana al-Kubra" transmits: Ibn al-Qasim asked Malik whether one may stone the jamra al-'Aqaba from above it; Malik replied that he prefers stoning it from below, and specifies that the statement of Qasim ibn Muhammad, stoning the jamra al-'Aqaba from wherever was easy, means "from below it, from wherever was easy"; but "if he stones it from above it, it suffices him" (2/421).
Al-Hattab cites al-Baji: the jamra is the name of the place of stoning; Ibn Farhun specifies that the standing structure is not the jamra: it stands in the middle of the jamra as a marker of its location, the jamra being the name of the whole ("Mawahib al-Jalil", 3/134). An-Nawawi reports from ash-Shafi'i: the jamra is the mass of pebbles, not what has rolled from it; hitting the mass with the throw suffices, hitting the pebbles that rolled away does not; what is meant is the mass at its known location, the one of the Prophet's time: if the spot is moved and the people stone elsewhere and the pebbles mass there, it does not suffice ("al-Majmu'", 8/140; "Asna al-Matalib", 1/498). Al-Haytami adds on this statement: al-Jamal at-Tabri defined the mass as what lies within three cubits of the base of the jamra, a definition from his own understanding, which observation supports; and the mass known today on all sides of the two first jamarat and beneath the marker of the jamra al-'Aqaba is the one of the Prophet's time, which is not far-fetched, the original being that what was remains as it was until the difference is known ("Sharh al-Iidah", p. 140). Al-Buhuti writes likewise that the target is the mass of pebbles, not the marker nor what rolls from it, and that stoning the jamra al-'Aqaba from above it is permitted by the act of Umar ("Kashshaf al-Qina'", 2/501). The author of "Shifa' al-Gharam" cites al-Azraqi: the jamra had been displaced, the ignorant among the people having moved it by their throws of pebbles, until it was shifted a little from its place; Ishaq ibn Salamah as-Sa'igh, sent by the caliph al-Mutawakkil, restored it to its place, built behind it a wall rising above it and a mosque adjoining that wall, so that whoever wished to stone could not reach its top ("Shifa' al-Gharam", 1/294).
On this basis, the Council of Senior Scholars of Saudi Arabia ruled that stoning from the top of the floor is permitted, by the act of Umar which none of the Companions disavowed, the words of Ibn Umar being carried to excellence, and because whoever owns ground owns its boundaries and its air; this is what is legally established. The athar of Umar is reported by Ibn Abi Shaybah (3/199, no. 13415): "I saw Umar ibn al-Khattab stone the jamra al-'Aqaba from above it"; but Ibn Hajar notes in "Fath al-Bari" (3/580) that it contains Hajjaj ibn Artaah and suffers a weakness ("Abhath Hay'at Kibar al-Ulama", 3/285).
The majority of the jurists (Hanafis, Malikis, Hanbalis) hold the shaving of the hair of the head or its shortening to be an obligation of the Hajj and the Umrah, compensated by a blood, according to the word of the Prophet: "release yourselves from your ihram by the tawaf of the House and the course between Safa and Marwah, and shorten" (Bukhari (1493), Muslim (1216)), the command there aiming at obligation; and: "whoever among you has no offering, let him circumambulate the House and between Safa and Marwah, shorten and release" (Bukhari (1606), Muslim (1227)). The Shafi'is, in the madhhab, make it a pillar of the Hajj and the Umrah without which they are not valid, not compensated by blood or anything else.
On the required amount, after agreement that the best is to shave the whole head for the man, by the word: "with heads shaved or shortened" (Surah al-Fath, 27), the head denoting the whole, and by the report that the Prophet shaved his whole head: the Malikis and Hanbalis require the whole head; the Hanafis suffice with a quarter of the head; the Shafi'is with the removal of three hairs or their shortening, which is the same disagreement as that on the extent of the wiping of the head in ablution. All agree that shaving is better than shortening, and that shortening dispenses with shaving, according to the following hadith.
May Allah have mercy on those who shave. They said: and those who shorten, O Messenger of Allah? He said: May Allah have mercy on those who shave. They repeated this twice more, then he said: and those who shorten.Reported by Bukhari (1640) and Muslim (1301)
They also agree that shaving is not prescribed for women, but the shortening, which is obligatory for them, according to the word of the Prophet: "no shaving for the women; for them the shortening" (sahih hadith: Abu Dawud (1984, 1985)).
On the time and place of shaving: the Shafi'is, the Hanbalis of the madhhab and Abu Yusuf hold that it has no defined time or place: whoever delays it beyond the days of slaughter owes nothing, for Allah showed the beginning of the time by His word: "and do not shave your heads until the offering reaches its place of slaughter" (Surah al-Baqarah, 196) without showing the end: performing it therefore suffices whenever one wishes, like the tawaf of visitation and the sa'y; and it is a rite deferred to a moment when its performance is permitted, thus resembling the sa'y. Abu Hanifa and Ahmad in one narration hold that deferring it beyond the days of slaughter entails a blood: it is a rite deferred from its place, and whoever abandons a rite owes a blood, with no difference between little and much, deliberate and forgetful; the Prophet shaved during the days of slaughter in the Sanctuary, so that his deed explains the general of the Book, and deferring an obligation is like abandoning it as to the obligation of the later performer. Malik: whoever defers it until departing (releasing himself) owes a blood, for it is a rite to be performed within the sanctuary of the Hajj like his other rites.
The bald man: the people of science agree that he passes the razor over his head. Ibn al-Mundhir affirms it: "they agreed that the bald man passes the razor over his head at the time of shaving" ("al-Ijma'", 197). It is not obligatory according to the majority, but recommended: shaving has hair as its seat, so it falls away with its absence, as the washing of a lost limb falls away in ablution; and passing the razor is such that had he done it in ihram no blood would be due, so nothing either at the releasing, like his passing over the hair without shaving. The Hanafis, however, require it, by the hadith: "when I command you a matter, do of it what you can": were he possessed of hair, he would have to remove it and pass the razor; one of the two being impossible, the other becomes obligatory; and if he cannot fulfill the shaving, he cannot fail to resemble the shavers, by the word of the Prophet: "whoever resembles a people is one of them" (sahih hadith: Abu Dawud (4031)) ("Bada'i' as-Sana'i'", 3/93, 97; "al-Majmu'", 8/151, 155; "al-Mughni", 5/49, 53).
The Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis of the madhhab hold obligatory the night spent at Mina during the nights of Tashriq; abandoning it without excuse entails a blood according to the Shafi'is and Hanbalis; the Malikis say it is obligatory even with an excuse. Evidence: the Prophet spent the nights of Mina there; and the fact that Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib asked the Messenger of Allah permission to spend the nights of Mina in Makkah because of his office of watering, and that he permitted him (Bukhari (1553), Muslim (1315)): this proves he was addressed by it, otherwise Abbas and others would have enjoyed it without a concession; confirmed by the practice of the imams after the Prophet, then by Umar's forbidding staying behind al-'Aqabah; and the Prophet did it as a rite, saying: Take your rites from me.
The required length is the greater part of the night. They then differ over whoever abandons one or two nights, after agreeing that he may leave the third night if he departs on the first departure. Malikis: one whole night abandoned, or the three nights, entails a single blood, not multiplied. Shafi'is: three famous opinions for one abandoned night, the most correct being a mudd per night, the second a dirham, the third a third of a blood; for two nights: two mudds on the most correct view, two dirhams on the second, two thirds of a blood on the third. Among the Hanbalis, Ibn Taymiyyah reports from al-Qadi, differing with him, and from Ibn Aqil, a single narration: no blood for abandoning one or two nights, unlike the night of Muzdalifah, which is a single rite whose abandonment entails the blood, while all the nights of Mina are a single rite whose part does not entail what its whole entails, as with one or two pebbles abandoned; they cite in support his disagreement with requiring a blood for a single night, where he ordered a charity, and draw from it three narrations: a dirham or half a dirham, which is what is explicit here; a mudd per night and two mudds for two nights; a handful of food per night and two handfuls for two nights, these last two being derived from the blood required for shaving one or two hairs ("Sharh al-Umdah", 3/646).
The Hanafis, the Shafi'is in one view, the Hanbalis in a narration and the Zahiris make it a sunnah, not an obligation: whoever abandons it has done ill but owes nothing, for the Prophet conceded to the water-carriers and the shepherds, as he conceded to the weak the departure from Muzdalifah by night; were it obligatory, it would not fall away except by necessity, like the farewell tawaf; Abbas would not have abandoned an obligation for the watering, nor would the Prophet have permitted him it. The Prophet's deed is carried to sunnah reconciling the two evidences, and the Law brought nothing on it; Ibn Abbas said: "when you have stoned the jamarat, sleep where you wish" (Ibn Abi Shaybah, 3/298); and it is one of the two night stays of Mina, without obligation like the night of Muzdalifah of the eve of the day of Tarwiyah ("Bada'i' as-Sana'i'", 3/145; "al-Majmu'", 8/176, 178; "al-Mughni", 5/71-72; "al-Insaf", 4/47; "Kashshaf al-Qina'", 2/510). Ibn Hazm writes: whoever does not spend the nights of Mina at Mina has done ill but owes nothing, except the shepherds and the water-carriers of Abbas, for whom staying elsewhere is not disliked; the shepherds may even stone one day out of two. Abu al-Baddah ibn Adiyy reports from his father that the Messenger of Allah permitted the shepherds to stone one day and leave one (Abu Dawud (1976), Ibn Majah (3036)): by this report it is established that the stoning of each day of Mina is not an obligation (fard). Ibn Umar reports that Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib asked the Messenger of Allah permission, because of his watering, to spend the nights of Mina in Makkah, and that he permitted him (Bukhari (1634, 1745), Muslim (3238)): the water-carriers are excused for the watering, and he himself slept at Mina without being commanded the stay: the stay there is therefore sunnah and not obligation, the binding one being only the command of the Prophet. If it is objected that his permissions to the shepherds and to Abbas prove that the others are commanded, we answer: only had he first commanded the stay and the stoning, these then being exceptions; without a prior command we know only that they were excused, without the others being addressed by a command or a prohibition: they are therefore upon permission. Umar used to say: "let no one stay behind al-'Aqabah during the days of Mina", established from him and the like from Ibn Abbas; Ibn Umar disliked sleeping outside Mina during the days of Mina, and none of them prescribed any compensation for it. Ibn Abbas also said: "there is no harm in whoever has goods at Makkah spending the nights of Mina in Makkah"; and: "when you have stoned the jamarat, sleep where you wish" ("al-Muhalla", 7/184, slightly altered).
The farewell tawaf is also called the tawaf of as-sadr and the tawaf of the last covenant. The jurists differ: is it obligatory, falling away only for excuse and entailing a blood on whoever abandons it without excuse, or a sunnah whose abandonment is permitted without anything required? Abu Hanifa, Ahmad and ash-Shafi'i in his most correct view hold it obligatory, its abandonment without excuse entailing a blood, by Ibn Abbas: the people were departing in every direction, and the Prophet said: "let no one depart until his last covenant is with the House" (Muslim (1327)); and by: "the people were commanded that their last covenant be with the House, except that the menstruating woman was relieved of it" (Bukhari (1668), Muslim (1328)); Ibn Umar said likewise: "whoever performs the pilgrimage of the House, let his last covenant be with the House, except the menstruating woman, whom the Messenger of Allah relieved" (sahih hadith: at-Tirmidhi (944)). It is a command and an unrestricted command, aiming at obligation; only the menstruating woman was withdrawn from this generality, without the Prophet ordering her to perform anything in its place, which would be the blood: this is a principle for every rite whose abandonment is permitted for excuse, namely that no compensation is due from the excused. Ibn Qudama adds: its falling away for the excused does not permit its falling away for others, as prayer falls away from the menstruating woman and remains due on the others; rather her being singled out proves its obligation on the others, for were it to fall away from all, singling her out would have no meaning ("al-Mughni", 5/86).
Malik and ash-Shafi'i in his second view make it a sunnah, not an obligation, with nothing on whoever abandons it: it does not weigh on the menstruating woman nor on the woman in childbed, so it is not obligatory like the tawaf of visitation; it falls away from the menstruating woman, so it is not obligatory like the tawaf of arrival; and it is like the greeting of the House, resembling the tawaf of arrival.
They then differ: one who performs this farewell tawaf and then stays for a purchase, a visit to a sick man, waiting for a caravan or the like: does his tawaf suffice him or must he repeat another tawaf? Ash-Shafi'i, Ahmad and Abu Yusuf: he repeats, for his last covenant must be with the House; staying afterward removes it, by custom, from being a farewell, as if he had performed the tawaf before the permission of departure. Abu Hanifa: he does not repeat, even were he to stay a month, for he came to Makkah for the rite and, it being completed, the time of departure came; his tawaf at that moment therefore counts for him as farewell, since he is resolved upon return. Malik: there is no harm in one who has bidden farewell to the House with the farewell tawaf buying some of his needs and passing the night with his hirer, with no repetition; but repeating would be dearer to me. All those who obligate it agree that it is due only upon the people of the provinces, not upon the people of Makkah; and were he to complete his rites and wish to reside in Makkah, the farewell tawaf is not due upon him, except Abu Hanifa, for whom the intention to reside after the permission of the first departure does not cause the farewell tawaf to fall away ("Mukhtasar Ikhtilaf al-'Ulama", 2/164; "al-Mabsut", 4/24, 35; "Bada'i' as-Sana'i'", 3/100; "al-Ikhtiyar", 1/208-209; "al-Mudawwana al-Kubra", 2/402; "Bidayat al-Mujtahid", 1/499; "al-Majmu'", 8/184; "al-Mughni", 5/85, 90; "Kashshaf al-Qina'", 2/512).
The dependent obligations of the Hajj are matters whose performance is required within a pillar of the Hajj or within an original obligation of its obligations. Three groups.
First, the obligations of ihram: entering ihram from the territorial miqat, not after it, already explained; the talbiyah, whose ruling has already been explained; and avoiding the prohibited matters of ihram, which will be discussed in detail later, Allah willing.
Second, the obligations of the standing at Arafah: the extension of the standing past the maghrib is obligatory according to the Hanafis and Hanbalis; the Shafi'is make it a sunnah; the Malikis make the standing after the maghrib the pillar, and before it an obligation.
Third, the obligations of the tawaf: the Hanafis make the last three circuits obligatory, which are a pillar according to the majority; and they obligate, where the majority sees conditions of validity, five matters: purity from legal impurities and filth; covering the 'awrah; beginning the tawaf from the Black Stone; the counterclockwise motion, that is, that the one circumambulating be on the right of the House (it on his left); and including the Hijr (al-Hatim) within the tawaf. Finally, the Hanafis and others obligate what is sunnah with the others: walking for the one able, obligatory with the Hanafis and Malikis, sunnah with the Shafi'is and Hanbalis; the two rak'ahs of the tawaf, obligatory with the Hanafis and the Malikis of the madhhab and the Shafi'is in one view, sunnah with the Hanbalis, the Shafi'is (most correct view) and the Malikis in one view; and the obligation, according to Abu Hanifa, of performing the tawaf of visitation during the days of slaughter: deferring it remains valid but entails a blood.