Hadith 32 of Nawawi : « There shall be no harm and no requiting of harm (la darar wa-la… »

Then he reports it from the narration of 'Abd al-Malik ibn Mu'awiya an-Naysaburi, from ad-Darawardi, connected. Ad-Darawardi: Imam Ahmad graded weak what he reported from memory, without caring for it; no doubt the word of Malik is preferred to his. And Khalid ibn Sa'd al-'Andalusi the hafiz said: the hadith, "no harm nor nuisance," is not authenticated connected. As for Ibn Majah: he reports it from the narration of Fadil ibn Sulayman: Moussa ibn 'Oqba informed us: Ishaq ibn Yahya ibn al-Walid informed us, from 'Obada ibn as-Samit, that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) judged, "no harm nor nuisance." And that is part of a sheet reported by this isnad, severed, drawn from a book, as al-Madini, Abu Zur'a and others said. Ishaq ibn Yahya: it is said he is son of Talha; he is weak, not having heard from 'Obada, as Abu Zur'a, Ibn Abi Hatim and ad-Daraqoutni said in one place.

It has been said: it is Ishaq ibn Yahya ibn al-Walid ibn 'Ubada, and he did not hear from 'Obada either; ad-Daraqoutni says it also. Ibn 'Adi mentions it in his book of the weak, and says, most of his hadiths are not preserved. And it has been said: Moussa ibn 'Oqba did not hear from him, reporting these hadiths from Abu 'Ayyach al-'Asadi; and Abu 'Ayyach is unknown. Ibn Majah reports it also by another channel, from the narration of Jabir al-Jou'fi, from Ikrima, from Ibn 'Abbas: the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, "no harm nor nuisance." And most graded Jabir al-Jou'fi weak. And ad-Daraqoutni reports it from the narration of Ibrahim ibn Isma'il, from Dawoud ibn al-Houssayn, from Ikrima: a group graded Ibrahim weak; and the narrations of Dawoud from Ikrima are reproved.

And ad-Daraqoutni reports from the hadith of al-Waqidi: Kharja ibn 'Abd Allah ibn Sulayman ibn Zayd ibn Thabit informed us, from Abu ar-Rijal, from 'Amra, from 'Aicha, may Allah be pleased with her, from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), who said, "no harm nor nuisance." And al-Waqidi is abandoned, and his shaykh diverges over his multiplicity. And at-Tabarani reports it by two weak channels also, from al-Qasim, from 'Aicha. At-Tabarani reports also from the narration of Mouhammad ibn Salama, from Ibn Ishaq, from Mouhammad ibn Yahya ibn Hibban, from his uncle Wasi' ibn Hibban, from Jabir, from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), who said, "no harm nor nuisance in Islam." And here is an isnad near, but singular: Abu Dawoud reports it in the mursal, from the narration of 'Abd ar-Rahman ibn Mu'azz, from Ibn Ishaq, from Mouhammad ibn Yahya ibn Hibban, from his uncle Wasi', in mursal form, and it is the most correct.

And ad-Daraqoutni reports from the narration of Abu Bakr ibn 'Ayyach, who says: I believe it of Ibn 'Ata, from his father, from Abu Hourayra, may Allah be pleased with him: the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, "No harm nor constraint, and none of you shall prevent his neighbour from resting his wood upon his wall." And this isnad is doubtful: Ibn 'Ata, that is Ya'qoub, is weak. And Kathir ibn 'Abd Allah ibn 'Amr ibn 'Awf al-Muzani reports, from his father, from his grandfather, from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), "no harm nor nuisance." Ibn 'Abd al-Barr said: his isnad is not authentic. I say: at-Tirmidhi authenticates the hadith of this Kathir; and al-Boukhari says of certain of his hadiths, it is the most correct hadith of the chapter; Ibrahim ibn al-Moundhir al-Hizami judged his hadith good, and said, it is the best of the mursal of Ibn al-Mousayyib; and Ibn Abi 'Asim judged it good also; and others abandoned it, among them Imam Ahmad and others.

Here is what is presented to us of the channels of the hadiths of this chapter. The Cheikh, may Allah have mercy on him, mentions that certain of its channels reinforce one another, and that is as he said. And al-Bayhaqi said, of certain hadiths of Kathir ibn 'Abd Allah al-Muzani: when it joins other chains containing weakness, they reinforce one another. And ach-Chafi'i said of the mursal: when it is connected by another channel, or mursal-reported by one who takes knowledge from other than the one from whom the first mursal takes, it is accepted. And al-Jouzajani said: when the connected hadith is of an unconvincing man, that is, one is not convinced by his narrations, and his mursal columns harden by the channels accepted among those who choose, it is used, and one suffices with it, when nothing stronger contradicts it. And Imam Ahmad argued by this hadith, and said, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, "no harm nor nuisance."

And Abu 'Amr ibn as-Salah said: ad-Daraqoutni connects this hadith by channels whose sum reinforces the hadith and judges it good: the masses of the people of knowledge accepted it and argued by it. And the words of Abu Dawoud, "it is among the hadiths around which the fiqh turns," give to feel that it is not weak. And Allah knows best. In the sense also: the hadith of Abu Sirma, from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), who said, "Whoever harms, Allah harms by him; whoever makes difficult, Allah makes difficult for him." Abu Dawoud, at-Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah report it; at-Tirmidhi says, good, singular. And at-Tirmidhi reports, by a chain with weakness, from Abu Bakr as-Siddiq, may Allah be pleased with him, from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), "Cursed is whoever harms a believer or schemes against him."

Between harm and nuisance

His words (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), "no harm nor nuisance": this correct version is "nuisance" without hamza, and "harming" with hamza is reported, occurring in certain narrations of Ibn Majah and of ad-Daraqoutni, and even in certain copies of the Mouta. Some established this version, and say, one says, he harmed and he harmed; and others denied it, saying, no truthfulness. They diverged: between the two words, that is, harm and nuisance, is there difference or not? One said: the two are of one sense, by way of confirmation. And the well-known: that there is between them difference.

Between harm and nuisance it has been said: harm is the name, and nuisance the act: the meaning: harm itself is annulled in the Law, and introducing harm without right likewise. It has been said: harm is to introduce upon another a harm whereby one profits, and nuisance to introduce upon another a harm without profit to him, like the one withholding a wealth that harms him not, and whose withheld one is harmed. Part, among them Ibn 'Abd al-Barr and Ibn as-Salah, preferred this view. It has been said: harm is to harm whoever harms him not, and nuisance to harm whoever has already harmed him in a manner not lawful. In every state, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) denied only harm and nuisance without right. As for introducing harm upon someone with right, either because he transgressed the limits of Allah, so he is punished to the measure of his crime, or because he wronged another, so the victim demands his compensation with justice: that is not intended at all; the intent is to inflict harm without right.

That is of two types: the first, that there be in it no design but to harm another: its ugliness and illicitness admit no doubt. The prohibition of harm has come in the Quran in several places.

The places of the prohibition of harming

Among that: in the bequest, the Most High says,

"after a bequest legislated, or a debt, without harm."

An-Nisa, 12

And in the hadith of Abu Hourayra, in raised form, "The servant acts by obedience to Allah sixty years, then death approaches him, and he harms in his bequest: he enters the Fire." Then he recited, "these are the limits of Allah," up to His words, "and whoever disobeys Allah and His messenger and transgresses His limits, He brings him into a fire wherein he abides eternally, and he shall have a humiliating punishment." At-Tirmidhi and others report it in the sense. And Ibn 'Abbas, may Allah be pleased with both of them, said, "harming in the bequest is of the great sins," then recited this verse. Harming in the bequest is at times granting certain heirs an increase beyond the share Allah prescribed him, the rest of the heirs being thereby harmed by his specific grant. That is why the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, "Allah gave each entitled one his right; there is therefore no bequest for an heir."

And at times bequeathing to a stranger an increase beyond the third: the rights of the heirs are thereby diminished; that is why the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, "the third, and the third, is much." When therefore he bequeaths to an heir or a stranger an increase beyond the third, what he bequeathed is not executed without the approval of the heirs, whether he intended harm or not. If he intended harm in bequeathing to a stranger the third, he sins by his design of harm. Is his bequest annulled were that established by his confession, or not? Ibn 'Attiya reports a version of Malik that it is annulled; it is said, that is the analogy of the school of Ahmad. Among that: the return in marriage: the Most High says,

"Hold them then with beneficence, or release them with beneficence, and hold them not for harm, to transgress; whoever does that wrongs his own soul."

Al-Baqara, 229

and He says,

"and their husbands have more right to take them back therein, if they desire reconciliation."

Al-Baqara, 228

That indicates that whoever's design in the return is harm sins by it. And that as they did in the first days of Islam, before divorce was confined to the triple: the man would repudiate his wife, then leave her until near the end of her waiting period, then take her back, then repudiate her, and do that without end, leaving the woman neither repudiated nor retained. Allah annulled that, confining divorce to three times. Malik adopted: whoever takes back his wife before the end of her waiting period, then repudiates her without reason, if he intended thereby to harm her by lengthening her waiting period, the waiting period does not restart, and she continues upon what has passed of it; otherwise it restarts a new waiting period. It has been said: she is discharged in the absolute: the view of 'Ata, Qatada and ach-Chafi'i in the ancient, and of Ahmad in a narration. It has been said: she restarts in the absolute: the view of most, Abu Qoulaba, az-Zouhri, ath-Thawri, Abu Hanifa, ach-Chafi'i in the recent, Ahmad in a narration, Ishaq, Abu 'Obayd and others.

Among that: in the oath of abstinence: Allah assigned the swearing husband four months: when a man swears to abstain from relation with his wife, four months are counted him; if he returns to relation, that is his repentance; if he persists in abstinence, he is not prevented from it. Two views, of the ancient and the later: the first, she is repudiated by the elapse of that duration. The second: he is suspended: if he returns, well and good; otherwise the order of divorce is given. And if he abandons relation intending harm without oath for a duration of four months, many of our companions say, its judgement is that of the swearing husband therein. And they say, it is the apparent of the words of Ahmad. And a group of them says, if he abandons relation four months without excuse, then she demands separation, they are separated, upon the basis that relation is obligatory with us in that duration. They diverged: is the design of harm therein considered or not?

The school of Malik and his companions: if he abandons relation without excuse, his marriage is broken, with their divergence over the estimated duration. And if he lengthens the journey without excuse, and his wife demands his return, and he refuses, Malik, Ahmad and Ishaq say, the judge separates them: Ahmad estimated it six months, and Ishaq the elapse of two years. Among that: in nursing: the Most High says,

"Let no mother harm her child, nor a father his child."

Al-Baqara, 233

Moujahid, at His words, "let no mother harm her child," said: his mother is not forbidden him to nurse him, for fear of saddening him thereby. And 'Ata, Qatada, az-Zouhri, Soufyan, as-Soudi and others say: when she is content with what contents another, she is more entitled therein. And that is what is stated explicitly of Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him: even were the mother in the bonds of marriage. It has been said: if she is in the bonds of marriage, it is permitted her to forbid him nursing, but the child cannot be nursed by another: the view of ach-Chafi'i and certain of our companions. But that is permitted only if the design of the husband by her is to keep the wife for enjoyment, not the mere inflicting of harm upon her. His words, "nor a father his child": therein enters that the repudiated one, asking the wage of nursing her child at the equivalent, the father is obliged to answer that, whether there be another or not.

It is stated explicitly of Imam Ahmad. If she asks an increase beyond the equivalent wage, a great increase, and the father finds who would nurse at the equivalent wage, the father is not obliged to answer her demand, for she intends harm: Imam Ahmad stated it also. Among that: in sale: the prohibition of the sale of the constrained has come. Abu Dawoud reports it from the hadith of 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, that he preached the people and said, "A time of biting will come upon the people: the rich will bite what is in his hand, though not commanded it. Allah, the Most High, says,"

"And forget not the grace between you."

Al-Baqara, 237

"and the constrained shall sell." The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) forbade the sale of the constrained. Al-Isma'ili reports it, and adds, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, "If there be with you wealth wherewith you aid your brother, otherwise add not peril to his peril." And Abu Ya'la al-Mawsili reports it in the sense of the hadith of Houdhayfa, in raised form also. And 'Abd Allah ibn Mu'qal said, "the sale of necessity is usurious." Harb says: Ahmad was asked about the sale of the constrained: he disapproved it. It was said to him: how is it? He said, "There comes to you one in need, and you sell him what is worth ten for twenty?!" And Abu Talib says: it was said to Ahmad, if the profit is five upon ten? He disapproved that. And if the buyer is naive, incapable of bargaining, and one sells him at great detriment, that is not permitted also.

Ahmad said, "Deceit, swindling: it is the detriment where the people do not detriment alike: selling what is worth a dirham for five." And the school of Malik and Ahmad: the option of rescission is established for him thereby. Had he need of liquidity, finding none to lend him, and bought a commodity at a deferred price upon his responsibility, intending to sell that commodity to take its price: two views of the Ancients: Ahmad permitted it in a narration. And in a narration he said, I fear he be constrained; if he sells the commodity to the one who sold it him, most of the Ancients forbid it: it is the school of Malik and Abu Hanifa, may Allah have mercy on them, of Ahmad and others. Among the types of harm in sales: the separation of the mother and her child in sale: if it be small, illicit by consensus.

It is reported from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) that he said, "Whoever separates a mother and her child, Allah separates between him and his beloved on the Day of Resurrection." If the mother consents to it, her authorisation diverged. And the questions of harm in judgements are very numerous: we mentioned this only by way of example. The second type: that he have another correct design, like disposing of his property in what is useful to him, exceeding into the harm of another; or preventing another from profiting by his property in order to keep it, and the withheld one is then harmed. As for the first: disposing of his property whereby his harm exceeds into another: if it is outside the usual manner, like kindling in his land a fire on a windy day, burning what is beside it, he transgresses by that, and the guarantee is upon him. If it is in the usual manner, two famous views among the scholars.

The first: he is not prevented of it, the view of ach-Chafi'i, Abu Hanifa and others. The second: the prevention: the view of Ahmad, to which Malik agreed in certain images. Among the images: opening a window in his high building overlooking his neighbour; or building a high building overlooking his neighbour without covering it: he is obliged to cover it, as Ahmad stated, to which part of the companions of ach-Chafi'i agreed. Al-Rouyani, among them, says in the book of ornament: the judge strives therein, and prevents if perversity and the design of corruption appear. And he says: likewise the view upon the lengthening of the building and the prevention of sun and moon. And al-Khara'iti and Ibn 'Adi report, by a weak chain, from 'Amr ibn Chou'ayb, from his father, from his grandfather, in raised form, a long hadith on the right of the neighbour, containing, "let him not lengthen by building to the point of cutting the wind, without his permission."

Among that: digging a well near the well of his neighbour, draining its water: it is filled, at the apparent of the school of Malik and Ahmad. And Abu Dawoud reports in the mursal from the hadith of Abu Qoulaba, who said, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, "Harm not one another in the digging," meaning, digging one man beside another to drain his water. Among that: introducing into his property what harms the property of his neighbour, of shaking, of pounding and the like: he is prevented of it, at the apparent of the school of Malik and Ahmad; it is one of the ways of the Shafi'ites. Likewise when he harms the inhabitants, as having a nauseating smell and the like. Among that: having a property in the land of another, the holder of the land being harmed by his entry: he is forced to remove it, the harm of entry being repelled.

And Abu Dawoud reports in his Sunan from the hadith of Abu Ja'far, Mouhammad ibn 'Ali, that he related from Soumra ibn Joundoub that he had in the garden of a man of the Ansar a cluster of palm, the man having his family, and Soumara entered towards his palm-tree being harmed, that being hard upon him; he asked him to exchange it, and he refused. He came to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and mentioned it to him; the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) asked him to sell it to him, and he refused; to exchange it, and he refused; he said, "Give it him, and you shall have such and such": a matter urging him; he refused. He said, "You are a harm-doer." The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said to the Ansarite: go then, uproot his palm-tree.

And it is reported from Abu Ja'far in mursal form: Ahmad said, in the narration of Hanbal, after this hadith was mentioned to him, "Everything upon this way containing harm, one is prevented of it: if he answers, well and good; otherwise the governor forces him, and he wrongs not his brother therein: there is for him an advantage." Abu Bakr al-Khallal reports from the narration of 'Abd Allah ibn Mouhammad ibn 'Aqil, from 'Abd Allah ibn Soulayt ibn Qays, from his father, that men of the Ansar had in the garden of another man a palm-tree, and the holder of the palm-tree visited it not morning and evening: that became hard for the holder of the garden; he came to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and mentioned it to him; the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said to the holder of the palm-tree, "Take from him a palm-tree adjoining the garden in place of your palm-tree." He said: no, by Allah. He said, "Take then of me two."

He said: no, by Allah. He said, "Give it them then." He said: no, by Allah. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) repeated it to him: he refused. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) ordered there be given him a palm-tree in place of his palm-tree. And Abu Dawoud reports in the mursal, from the narration of Ibn Ishaq, from Mouhammad ibn Yahya ibn Hibban, from his uncle Wasi' ibn Hibban, who said, Abu Loubaba had a cluster in the garden of a man: he spoke to him and said, you walk in my garden towards your cluster; I give you its like in your garden, and you take it out of it; he refused; he spoke to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), who said, "O Abu Loubaba! Take the like of your cluster, uproot it towards your property, and spare your companion what he dislikes." He said, I shall not do it.

He said, "Go then, take out for him the like of his cluster towards his garden, then build over it a wall, for there is no harm nor nuisance in Islam." In this hadith and its like, he is forced to the exchange, when its leaving carries harm upon his partner or neighbour, like the obligation of pre-emption for repelling the harm befalling the partner; it is argued therein also the obligation of building upon the partner refusing to build, and the obligation of selling when division becomes impossible. From the hadith of Mouhammad ibn Abi Bakr, from his father, in raised form, "no division of inheritance, save what division bears"; and Abu Bakr is son of 'Amr ibn Hazm: Imam Ahmad said it, the hadith being then mursal. And division is the sharing: when division becomes impossible because the shared thing is harmed by its division, and one of the partners demands the sale, the other is forced, and the price is divided: Ahmad, Abu 'Obayd and other imams stated it.

As for the second: preventing the neighbour from profiting by his property and associating in it: if it harms the one profiting by his property, the prevention is due him, like the one having a fragile wall, upon which wood may not be thrown. And if it harms not: is he obliged to permit, and forbidden to refuse, or not? Whoever said in the first category, the holder is not prevented from disposing of his property even were he to harm his neighbour, says here to the neighbour, the prevention of disposing of his property without his permission. Whoever said there the prevention, they diverged here into two views: the first, the prevention herein: the view of Malik. The second: prevention is not permitted: the school of Ahmad in the throwing of wood upon the wall of the neighbour, to which agreed ach-Chafi'i in the ancient, Ishaq, Abu Thawr, Dawoud, Ibn al-Moundhir, 'Abd al-Malik ibn Jayb the Malikite; and Malik reports it from certain judges of Medina.

In the two authentic collections, from Abu Hourayra, may Allah be pleased with him, from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), "Let none of you prevent his neighbour from fixing a peg upon his wall." Abu Hourayra said, "Why do I see you turning from it? By Allah, I shall fix them between your shoulders." And 'Omar ibn al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, judged for Mouhammad ibn Maslama to run the water of his neighbour into his land, "and you shall let it pass, even over your belly." And in the obligation of that, two narrations of Imam Ahmad. And the school of Abu Thawr: the obligation of running water into the land of the neighbour, when he ran it into a channel inside his land; Harb al-Kermani reports it from him. Among what prevention is forbidden for harm: withholding water and pasture.

In the two authentic collections, from Abu Hourayra, may Allah be pleased with him, from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), "Withhold not the surplus of water to withhold thereby the pasture." And in the Sunan of Abu Dawoud: a man said, O prophet of Allah! What is the thing whose withholding is not lawful? He said, "water." He said, O prophet of Allah! What is the thing whose withholding is not lawful? He said, "salt." He said, O prophet of Allah! What is the thing whose withholding is not lawful? He said, "doing good: it is better for you." And in the same collection also, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, "The people are partners in three: water, fire and pasture." Most of the scholars adopted that the surplus of the flowing and springing water is never withheld, whether one say the water is the property of the holder of his land or not: the view of Abu Hanifa, of ash-Chafi'i, of Ahmad, of Ishaq, of Abu 'Obayd and others.

And the statement of Ahmad: its being placed free of charge, without counterpart, for drinking, watering the beasts and irrigating the crops, is obligatory. And the school of Abu Hanifa and of ash-Chafi'i: its being placed for the crop is not obligatory. They diverged: is its being placed obligatory in the absolute, or when it is near the pasture and its withholding leads to withholding the pasture? Two views of our companions and the companions of ash-Chafi'i. The speech of Ahmad indicates the restriction of prevention to the nearness of the pasture. As for Malik: the placing of the surplus of the water owned by possessing its source and its course is obligatory upon him only for the constrained, like the thirsty one with vessels; it is the surplus of the water not capable of possession whose placing is obligatory upon him. And with ach-Chafi'i: pasture has the like judgement, its surplus may be withheld, save in the dead land.

The school of Abu Hanifa, of Ahmad and of Abu 'Obayd: the surplus of pasture is never withheld. And one said: the surplus of water and pasture is withheld only by the people of the frontiers specially: the view of al-'Awza'i, for the people of the frontiers, when their water and pasture vanish, cannot leave their place, because of the egg of Islam and its people. As for the prohibition of withholding fire, some jurists carried it upon the prohibition of lighting oneself from it without embers; and some carried it upon withholding the stones producing fire, and that is far-fetched; carrying it upon the prohibition of lighting oneself by fire, and the placing of what remains at the gate of its holder for whoever warms or cooks, is not far-fetched. As for salt: carrying it upon the prohibition of taking apparent minerals is perhaps valid, for salt is of apparent minerals, not owned by enlivening nor fief; Ahmad stated it.

And in the Sunan of Abu Dawoud: the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) conceded salt to a man; it was said, O Messenger of Allah! It is like the flowing water; so he withdrew it from him. Among what enters the generality of his words: Allah the Most High charged not His servants with acting what harms them absolutely, for what He commands them is the uprightness of their religion and their low world, and what He forbids them is the corruption of their religion and their low worlds. But He commanded not His servants something harming also their bodies: that is why purification with water was suspended to the sick man, He says, "Allah wills not to impose upon you a discomfort." And the fast was suspended to the sick man and the traveller, He says, "Allah wills for you facility, and wills not for you difficulty." And the avoidance of the prohibitions of the state of sacralisation, such as trimming and the like, was suspended to whoever is sick or has a head ill, the compensation being ordained.

In the Mousnad, from Ibn 'Abbas, who says, it was said to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), which religion is most beloved to Allah? He said, "the tolerant and upright religion." And from the hadith of 'Aicha, may Allah be pleased with her, from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), "I was sent with the tolerant and upright religion." Of this sense is what is in the two authentic collections, from Anas: the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) saw a man walking; it was said to him, he vowed to pilgrimage walking; he said, "Allah is, indeed, rich of his walking: let him ride." And in a version, "Allah is rich of punishing this man Himself." And in the Sunan, from 'Oqba ibn 'Amir: his sister wished to walk to the House; the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, "Allah does nothing with the hardship of your sister: let her ride then."

The scholars diverged over the judgement of whoever vowed to pilgrimage walking. One said, walking is not obligatory upon him, riding is permitted him in every state: a narration of al-'Awza'i and of Ahmad. Ahmad said, he fasts three days; and al-'Awza'i: he has an expiation of oath; and the months: that is obligatory upon him if he can, otherwise it is said he rides at incapacity, nothing upon him. It is one of the two views of ash-Chafi'i. It has been said, rather he has, despite that, an expiation of oath: the view of ath-Thawri and of Ahmad in a narration. It has been said, rather he has blood: the view of part of the Ancients, 'Ata, Moujahid, al-Hasan, al-Layth, and Ahmad in a narration. It has been said, he gives as alms the hire of his mount, and it is reported from al-'Awza'i, and reported from 'Ata. 'Ata is reported giving as alms the measure of his spending at the house.

And part of the Companions and others said, riding does not suffice him, but he pilgrimages of what is accessible: he walks what he rode, and rides what he walked. Certain add, and there is for him an offering: the view of Malik were what he rode much. Entering therein also: whoever has a debt, it is not claimed from him with his insolvency, his state of ease being awaited; the Most High says, "and if he be in hardship, a deferral until ease." Upon that the majority of the scholars, against Chourayh: the verse is specific to the debts of usury in ignorance. The majority took the general wording: the debtor is not charged to pay what is upon him, going out of his property with harm: his garments, his necessary dwelling, his servant likewise, or what requires commerce with, for his subsistence and that of his dependants. It is the school of Imam Ahmad, may Allah the Most High have mercy on him.