Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:196

This means: Make them both complete when you undertake their performance for the sake of Allah the Exalted. There is no evidence in the verse for more than the obligation of completion once one has entered into them. This is agreed upon between the Hanafis and the Shafi'is—may Allah the Exalted be pleased with them—for invalidating Hajj and 'Umrah, regardless of the reason, necessitates continuing the remaining acts and making them up (qada').

The verse does not indicate the original obligation of performing them. The argument that it does indicate it, based on the principle that "a command to complete implies a command to perform, given that what is necessary for the completion of an absolute obligation is itself an obligation," is invalid. This is because the command to complete requires a prior commencement; thus, the command to complete is restricted by the act of starting.

The claim that the meaning is "Perform them both while they are complete, encompassing all conditions and pillars," which would imply their obligation because the command is apparent in that, and that it is supported by the recitation "And perform (aqimu) Hajj and 'Umrah," is not sound. Firstly, because it is contrary to the apparent meaning (zahir). Even if we were to accept it for the sake of argument, the obligation derived from the command therein could be directed toward the qualification—namely, "being complete"—rather than the performance itself, as in his (peace be upon him) saying: "Sell them equally for equally."

Secondly, the command in that recitation is interpreted in the metaphorical sense shared between the obligatory and the recommended—namely, seeking the act. The evidence for this is the hadiths indicating the recommendation of 'Umrah. Al-Shafi'i narrated in Al-Umm, along with 'Abd al-Razzaq, Ibn Abi Shaybah, 'Abd bin Humayd, and Ibn Majah, that he (peace be upon him) said: "Hajj is a struggle (jihad), and 'Umrah is voluntary (tatawwu')." Al-Tirmidhi narrated and authenticated it from Jabir that a man asked the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) about 'Umrah, "Is it obligatory?" He said, "No, and that you perform 'Umrah is better for you."

This is supported by the fact that Ibn Mas'ud, the transmitter of this recitation, said—as narrated by Ibn Abi Shaybah and 'Abd bin Humayd—"Hajj is an obligation, and 'Umrah is voluntary." Ibn Abi Dawud also narrated in Al-Masahif from him that he used to recite it thus and then say: "By Allah, were it not for the fear that I did not hear anything about it from the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), I would have said that 'Umrah is an obligation like Hajj." This indicates that he (may Allah be pleased with him) did not consider the command regarding it to be for obligation because he had not heard anything about it. Perhaps he heard something that contradicted it. For this reason, he was certain in the first report from him regarding the obligation of Hajj and the recommendation of 'Umrah. It is as if, for this reason, he interpreted the command in his recitation to be the common denominator we mentioned, and nothing more, based on the impossibility of using a homonym in both its meanings simultaneously and the inadmissibility of combining the literal and the metaphorical, and an inclination against positing an omitted verb of the same root to imply recommendation.

Indeed, what has been mentioned would not be considered a disproof unless it were proven to be prior to the verse. But if it is proven to be after it, then it does not count, because it would necessitate the abrogation of the Book by a singular report (khabar al-wahid), given that the command is apparent in its obligation and is not ambiguous in its meanings according to the correct view, so that the report might be interpreted as a delay in explanation, as some have mistakenly thought. The argument that the hadiths of recommendation are prior and do not divert the command from its apparent meaning—rather, they would be abrogating it—is obviously weak, because the hadiths are explicit (nass) regarding recommendation, and the Quran is apparent (zahir) regarding obligation. How could the apparent be an abrogator of the explicit, when the explicit takes precedence over the apparent in the event of a contradiction?

Furthermore, this which we have mentioned, even if it does not invalidate the original support, weakens it greatly. Some have claimed that the hadiths indicating the recommendation of 'Umrah are contradicted by those indicating its obligation. Among these is what Al-Hakim narrated from Zayd bin Thabit: "The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: 'Hajj and 'Umrah are two obligations; it does not harm you which of them you begin with.'" And Abu Dawud and Al-Nasa'i narrated that a man said to 'Umar: "I found Hajj and 'Umrah written upon me, so I entered into ihram for both." He said: "You have been guided to the sunnah of your Prophet."

This indicates that entering into ihram for both is the way of the Prophet (peace be upon him), for the inference using what the Companion recounted of his sunnah is an inference based on a practical hadith reported by the Companion. The argument that "I entered into ihram for both" is a sentence explaining "I found," so the obligation might be due to the entering into ihram, and thus the hadith does not indicate the obligation initially, is invalid. This is because the sentence is initiating (musta'naf); it is as if he was asked: "What did you do?" and he replied: "I entered into ihram." Thus, it indicates that the finding was the cause of the ihram, not the reverse, because the questioner’s intent was to ask about the correctness of his entering into ihram for both. How could he say, "I found them written because I entered into ihram for both"? This is only correct if he already knew the correctness of his entering into ihram for both. 'Umar's (may Allah be pleased with him) answer is detached from the obligation of completion, for the fact that commencing a thing makes its completion mandatory is not called "the way of the Prophet (peace be upon him)," rather, that is said regarding the performance of rites and acts of worship. This is supported by what appears in some narrations: "So I entered into ihram with the 'fa'," which indicates sequence.

What has been mentioned from Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him) is contradicted by what was also narrated from him regarding the opinion of obligation. 'Ali (may Allah be honored) said this, and he used to recite it as "And perform (aqimu)" as well, as narrated by Ibn Jarir and others; and likewise Ibn 'Abbas and Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with them).

In fairness, one must acknowledge the conflict of the reports, and each of the Imams has taken what was authenticated according to him; the issue is among the branches (furu'), and disagreement in such matters is a mercy. The truth is that the verse is not a valid piece of evidence for the Shafi'is and those who agree with them, such as the Imamiyyah, against us. Upon investigation, it contains nothing more than a declaration of the obligation to complete their acts once one has undertaken their performance, and a guidance to people on how to rectify any impediments that might prevent this, such as being detained (ihsar) and the like, without addressing their status in terms of obligation or lack thereof. The obligation of Hajj is derived from His saying: "And Hajj to the House is a duty unto Allah for mankind, for him who can find a way thither." Whoever among the opponents claims it is evidence for them has overstepped the bounds and spoken wrongly, as is not hidden from one who listens while being present.

Ibn Jarir, Ibn al-Mundhir, Al-Bayhaqi, and a group narrated from 'Ali (may Allah be honored) regarding "complete Hajj and 'Umrah for Allah" that it means: "Enter into ihram for them from the limits of your home." Something similar is narrated from Abu Hurayrah, attributed to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). 'Abd al-Razzaq and Ibn Abi Hatim narrated from Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) that their completion is to perform each one separately from the other, and to perform 'Umrah in other than the months of Hajj. It is said: their completion is that the provisions be lawful. It is also said: that you dedicate a separate journey for each. It is also said: that you set out intending them, not for trade and the like. It was recited "to the House (ila al-bayt)" and "for the House (lil-bayt)." The first is narrated from Ibn Mas'ud, and the second from 'Ali (may Allah be honored).

(Then if you are prevented) is a counterpart to an omitted clause, meaning: "This is if you are able to complete them." Ihsar and hasr are both in the origin of the language synonymous with prevention in a general sense. Hasr is not exclusively for what comes from an enemy, and ihsar for what comes from sickness or fear—as Al-Zajjaj imagined from the frequency of their usage as such—for it is common for a word coined for a general meaning to be used for some of its specifics. Evidence for this is that it is said: "The enemy besieged (hasarahu) him," and "He was prevented (uhsir) as if he were blocked." If the relation to the enemy were considered in the concept of hasr, then specifying it would be redundant. And if the relation to sickness were considered in the concept of ihsar, then attributing it to an enemy would be metaphorical; both are contrary to the origin.

The intent of ihsar here is the blockade of an enemy, according to Malik and Al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on them), because of His saying: "Then when you are safe." For safety, linguistically, is the opposite of fear. Also, because it was revealed generally at Hudaybiyyah, and because of Ibn 'Abbas's (may Allah be pleased with them) statement: "There is no ihsar except the ihsar of an enemy." He restricted the generality of the verse, and he is most knowledgeable of the places of revelation.

Imam Abu Hanifah held that what is meant is that which encompasses every prevention—from enemy, sickness, or otherwise. Abu Dawud, Al-Tirmidhi (who classified it as hasan), Al-Nasa'i, Ibn Majah, and Al-Hakim narrated from the hadith of Al-Hajjaj bin 'Amr: "Whoever suffers a fracture or a limp, then Hajj is upon him the following year." Al-Tahawi narrated from the hadith of 'Abd al-Rahman bin Zayd who said: "A man entered into ihram for 'Umrah, who was called 'Umar bin Sa'id, and he was stung. While he was lying on the road, a caravan passed by including Ibn Mas'ud. They asked him, so he said: 'Send an offering (hady) and fix a time between you and it. When that arrives, he should release his ihram.'" Ibn Abi Shaybah narrated from 'Ata': "There is no ihsar except from sickness, enemy, or an imprisoning affair." Al-Bukhari narrated something similar from him. 'Urwah said: "Anything that traps the muhrim is ihsar."

What the opponent cites as evidence is answered. As for the first, you will know what is in it. As for the second, the specificity of the cause is of no consequence, and interpreting it as mere support is rejected by the fact that it is mentioned with the "lam" independently. The claim that "if you are prevented" is not general, since a positive verb has no generality, and thus it is not meant to be anything other than what was revealed—namely, the blockade of the enemy by consensus—is invalid. For although it may not be general, it is absolute (mutlaq), so it flows upon its absoluteness. As for the third, after conceding the authority of Ibn 'Abbas's (may Allah be pleased with them) statement in such matters, it is contradicted by what Ibn Jarir and Ibn al-Mundhir narrated from him in his interpretation of the verse: that he used to say, "Whoever enters into ihram for Hajj or 'Umrah then is held back from the House by a debilitating sickness or an enemy that traps him, he must slaughter whatever is easy of the hady." Just as he restricted it in the first narration, he generalized it in this one, and he is most knowledgeable of the places of revelation. The claim that the hadith of Al-Hajjaj is weak is weak itself, for it has various paths in the Sunan. Abu Dawud narrated that 'Ikrimah asked Al-'Abbas and Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with them) about that, and they said: "He spoke the truth."

Interpreting it as applying only when the muhrim stipulates release upon the occurrence of an obstacle of sickness at the time of intention, due to his (peace be upon him) saying to Duba'ah: "Perform Hajj and stipulate, and say: 'O Allah, my release is where You have held me back'," does not align with what is established in the principles of the Hanafis: that the absolute flows upon its absoluteness unless the event and the ruling are identical and the absoluteness and restriction are in the same ruling; for what we are in is not such, as is not hidden.

He slaughters it where he is prevented, according to the majority, because he (peace be upon him) slaughtered it in the year of Hudaybiyyah while being in the hill (outside the sanctuary). According to us, the one who is prevented sends the hady, and he sets a time for the messenger in his hand. When that day arrives and he assumes that it has been slaughtered, he releases his ihram, because of His saying: (And do not shave your heads until the Hady reaches its place of sacrifice). Shaving the head is a metonymy for the release that occurs via cutting the hair for women. The address is to those who are prevented, as it is the closest thing mentioned. The second hady is the same as the first, as is the apparent meaning: "Do not release your ihram until you know that the hady sent to the sanctuary has reached its place where it must be slaughtered, which is the sanctuary," because of His saying: "Then its place of sacrifice is to the Ancient House," and "as an offering brought to the Ka'bah."

What is narrated about his (peace be upon him) slaughtering at Hudaybiyyah is conceded, but the fact that he slaughtered in the hill is not conceded. The Hanafis say that the prevention of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) was on the road to Hudaybiyyah, below Makkah, and Hudaybiyyah is connected to the sanctuary. The slaughter occurred in the part connected to it where the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) alighted. Through this, one can reconcile what Malik said with what Al-Zuhri narrated: that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) slaughtered in the sanctuary. The fact that the narration is from him is not in the realm of prohibition. The former group interpreted "the hady reaching its place" as slaughtering it where it is valid to slaughter, whether in the hill or the sanctuary; but this is contrary to the apparent, except that it does not require positing the [knowledge of the] time, as in the previous view.

They inferred from his limiting it to the hady in the place of explanation that there is no obligation to make up the Hajj. According to us, it is mandatory to make it up, due to the completion of the Hajj by the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and his companions in the 'Umrah of Hudaybiyyah in which they were prevented, and it was called the 'Umrah of Compensation (al-Qada'). The place is one of explaining the way for the prevented person to leave ihram, not a place for stating everything that is obligatory upon him. The ruling for the one who is not prevented was not known from the verse directly, just as the ruling for the prevented person was known from the inadmissibility of releasing ihram before the hady reached its place. This is derived via dalalat al-nass. Making the address general for both the prevented and the non-prevented, based on joining "And do not shave" to His saying: "And complete" rather than "Then whatever is easy," would require cutting the structure, for "Then when you are safe" is joined to "Then if you are prevented," as is not hidden. Al-mahall, with a kasra from the scale of daraba, is used for a place, as is apparent in the verse, and for a time, as it is said, "The mahall of the debt is the time of its arrival and the end of its duration."

(Then when you are safe): from safety, the opposite of fear, or from amnah, the disappearance of it. According to the first, its meaning is: when you are in safety and ease and are not fearful. According to the second: when the fear of the ihsar has vanished. From this, the ruling for one who was safe initially is understood by way of inference. The fa is for joining to "prevented," useful for sequence, whether the blockade of an enemy is meant or every prevention that exists. It is said to the sick person when his sickness has ended and he has recovered: "He is safe," as narrated from Ibn Mas'ud and Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) through the path of Ibrahim, which weakens the inference of Al-Shafi'i and Malik from the verse to what they held.

(Then whatever is easy of the Hady): The fa occurs in the answer to "whoever," meaning a blood sacrifice is upon him that is made easy for him because of the tamattu'. It is a blood of compensation (jibran), because the obligation upon him was to enter ihram for Hajj from the miqat. Since he entered ihram not from the miqat, this resulted in a deficiency in it, so it was compensated by this blood. Hence, it is not obligatory upon the Meccan and those in his status. He slaughters it when he enters ihram for Hajj; it is not permissible before entering ihram, and the day of sacrifice is not specifically assigned to it, but it is recommended. He does not eat from it. This is the school of Al-Shafi'i. Imam Abu Hanifah held that it is a blood of worship like the blood of the qarin (the one combining), because it became obligatory upon him as a thank-offering for combining the two rites, so it is like the udhiyyah (sacrifice), and he slaughters it on the day of sacrifice.

(So whoever does not find): meaning the hady. It is joined to "Then when you are safe." (Then a fast of three days during Hajj): meaning fasting is upon him. It was recited "a fast" (fasiyam) in the accusative, meaning "he should fast." The temporal context of the fast is omitted, as it is impossible for any of the deeds of Hajj to be a time for it. Abu Hanifah said: "The intent is the time of Hajj generally, but between the two ihrams: the ihram of Hajj and the ihram of 'Umrah." This is a metonymy for not releasing from both, so it includes if it occurred before the ihram of Hajj, whether he released from 'Umrah first or not, and what occurred after it. Evidence for this is that if he becomes capable of the hady after fasting the three days before release, the slaughter becomes obligatory upon him. If he becomes capable after release, it is not obligatory, as the goal of the fasting—which is release—has been achieved.

Al-Shafi'i said: "The intent is the time of the performance of Hajj, which is the days of engagement in it after ihram and before release." Fasting is not permissible according to him before the ihram of Hajj. It is best that he fasts the 7th, 8th, and 9th of Dhu al-Hijjah, because it is the furthest that can be reached in delay due to the possibility of being capable of the original, which is the hady. It is not permissible on the day of sacrifice and the days of tashriq, because fasting is prohibited in them. Some permitted fasting the three days late, arguing with what Ibn Jarir, Al-Daraqutni, and Al-Bayhaqi narrated from Ibn 'Umar: "The Prophet (peace be upon him) granted a concession for the mutamatti' if he does not find the hady and has not fasted until the days of the ten passed, to fast the days of tashriq in their place." Malik narrated from Al-Zuhri: "The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) sent 'Abdullah bin Hudhafah, and he called out during the days of tashriq: 'These are days of eating, drinking, and remembering Allah the Exalted, except for whoever has a fast of hady.'" Al-Daraqutni narrated the same from the path of Sa'id bin al-Musayyib. Al-Bukhari and a group narrated from 'A'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her): "He (peace be upon him) did not grant a concession for the days of tashriq to be fasted except for a mutamatti' who did not find a hady." Imam Malik took this view. Perhaps our Hanafis relied on the hadiths of prohibition and said: "If he missed the fasting until the day of sacrifice arrived, nothing suffices him except the blood, and he does not make it up after the days of tashriq, as the Shafi'is held, because it is a substitute, and substitutes are not imposed except by legislation, and the nass restricted it to the time of Hajj, and the permissibility of the blood is based on the original." From 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), it is reported that he ordered the slaughter of a sheep in such a case.

(And seven when you return): meaning: when you finish and depart from its deeds. Returning is mentioned, and its cause is intended, or the meaning is: when you return from Mina. Al-Shafi'i (may Allah be pleased with him) said—according to the more correct view among most of his companions—: "When you return to your families." This is supported by what Al-Bukhari narrated from Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them): "When you return to your cities," and that the word "returning" is clearer in this meaning. The ruling for one intending to reside in Makkah permanently is the ruling of one returning to his homeland, because the Law has established the place of residence in the place of the homeland. In Al-Bahr, the meaning of returning to the family is starting the journey back, according to some, and finishing by arriving at it, according to others. In the speech, there is an iltifat (shift in person/number). It is interpreted in meaning after being interpreted in wording in terms of its singular and third-person pronoun. It was recited as "seven" (sab'atan) in the accusative, joined to the position of "three days" because it is an object of extension. Those who did not permit it posited "Fast" (sumu).

(That is ten complete): The reference is to the three and the seven. The discriminator of the number is omitted: "days." Proving the ta in the number while omitting the discriminator is the better of the two usages. The benefit of this summation is so it is not imagined that the "and" is in the sense of "or" for option. Al-Sirafi asserted in Sharh al-Kitab that it comes for that purpose. The precedence of an explicit command is not a condition for it; rather, a statement that is in the sense of a command is also such. This wards off the distant imagining that we pointed out in the introduction to the inimitability of the Quran, and so that the number is known as a whole as it was known in detail; thus, it is encompassed from two directions, and the knowledge is confirmed. Among their proverbs is "Two pieces of knowledge are better than one," especially since most of the Arabs were not proficient in calculation. What is suitable for the common address, by which the elite and commoner understand—who are of natural disposition, not of scientific training—is for the speech to be repeated and the understanding increased, and to signal that what is intended by the seven is the number, not abundance, for it is used in these two meanings.

If you say: "What is the wisdom in it being thus, requiring its separation which necessitates what was mentioned?" I answer that because it was a substitute for the hady, and a substitute is in the place of the original mostly, the three were made a substitute for it in the time of Hajj, and the seven were added as an extra to balance it without a loss in reward, because fidyah is built on ease. The seven were not placed therein due to the hardship of fasting during Hajj. To signal this balance, the ten were described as "complete." It is as if it were said: "That is ten complete in their occurrence as a substitute for the hady." It is said that it is a confirmatory adjective that provides increased recommendation to fast them, and that one should not be lax regarding them nor decrease their number. It is as if it were said: "That is ten complete, so observe their completeness and do not decrease them." It is also said that it is an adjective explaining the completeness of the ten, for it is a number in which the properties of numbers are complete. For one is the initiator of the number, two is the first of numbers, three is the first of odd numbers, four is the first of square numbers, five is the first of cyclic numbers, six is the first perfect number, seven is the first prime number, eight is the first of even-even numbers, nine is the first triangular number, and ten is the number itself at which counting ends, for every number after it is composed of it and what preceded it. Some investigators have said this.

The Imam mentioned ten aspects for this summation with the description, but they are ten incomplete aspects, and were it not for further lengthening, I would have mentioned them with their arguments for and against.

(That): is a reference to the tamattu' understood from His saying: "So whoever enjoys," according to Abu Hanifah (may Allah be pleased with him), as there is no tamattu' or qiran for those who live near the Sacred Mosque, because their legislating was for comfort by dropping one of the two journeys. This is for the afaqi (one living beyond the miqat), not for the people of Makkah and those in their status. Al-Shafi'i (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "It is a reference to the closest, which is the aforementioned ruling, namely the necessity of the hady or its substitute upon the mutamatti'." This necessity only applies if the mutamatti' is an afaqi, because the obligation is to enter ihram for Hajj from the miqat. When he enters ihram from the miqat for 'Umrah, then enters ihram for Hajj not from the miqat, a deficiency has occurred there, so it was made compensable by blood. In order that his ihram from the miqat be obligatory, his prioritizing it over the tamattu' does not cause a deficiency in his Hajj; thus, neither the hady nor its substitute is obligatory upon him. This is countered by the fact that if the reference were to the hady and the fasting, it would have come with "for" (lam) rather than "upon" ('ala) in His saying: (for him whose family is not present at the Sacred Mosque). Because the hady and its substitute are obligatory upon the mutamatti', and "obligatory" is used with "upon" ('ala), not with the "lam" (li). That the "lam" is in the place of "upon," as was said in "stipulate for them loyalty," is contrary to the apparent meaning. The intent of the relative pronoun is one who is at the distance of shortening prayer from the sanctuary, according to Al-Shafi'i (may Allah be pleased with him); one whose dwelling is beyond the miqat, according to Abu Hanifah (may Allah be pleased with him); the people of the hill, according to Tawus; and those other than the people of Makkah, according to Malik (may Allah be pleased with him). "Present" in the first view is the opposite of the traveler, and in the other views, it means the witness who is not absent. "Presence of family" means presence of the muhrim. He expressed it thus because it is the norm for a man, as it is said: "to dwell where his family dwells."

"Sacred Mosque" has two meanings: one is the mosque itself, and the second is the entire sanctuary. From this is His saying: "Glorified be He Who took His servant for a journey by night from the Sacred Mosque," based on the fact that he (peace be upon him) was taken on the journey from the sanctuary, not from the mosque. Upon the intent of the latter meaning in the verse here, the majority of the Imams of the religion are agreed.

(And fear Allah): in all that He commands you and forbids you, as is derived from the omission of the object. Hajj enters into this primarily, and with this the organization is completed. (And know that Allah is severe in punishment): for whoever does not fear Him—meaning, keep this in mind to refrain from disobedience. Expressing the Glorious Name in the place of the pronoun is for the sake of fostering reverence and striking awe. Attributing "severe" is from the addition of the adjective to its subject.