his ihram is invalidated? What difference is there between intercourse and the other prohibited acts?!

However, we answer them with what is stated in the Quran: hunting is prohibited while in ihram, and Allah says concerning it: “If any of you kills it deliberately”—that is, without excuse—“then compensation is due: an offering of livestock equivalent to the animal he killed.” [al-Ma'idah 5:95] Yet Allah did not declare the ihram invalid. This shows that Hajj and Umrah have particular rulings, due to how binding and firmly established they are. Nothing prohibited during them invalidates them except that upon which the scholars are unanimously agreed—namely, intercourse, as far as I know. Moreover, the prohibited act is remedied by compensation. And an excuse in the case of something invalidating does not entail that the invalidity is lifted. Consider the fasting person: if he is ill and breaks his fast because of his illness, does not his fast become invalid, even though he is excused?

When one first hears the argument of the Zahiris, one may be impressed by it. But upon reflection, we find that sound jurisprudence lies with those who follow the evidence, both its outward wording and its underlying meaning, and who interpret the revealed texts in light of one another until they are harmonious. They are the people of meanings and transmitted reports.

Third: If a prohibition is general, applying both to an act of worship and to other matters, it does not invalidate that act of worship.

For example, backbiting is forbidden for one who is fasting, but it does not invalidate the fast, because the prohibition is general.

Likewise, if someone prays on usurped land, his prayer is valid, because there is no prohibition specifically against praying there. If it were said, “Do not pray on usurped land,” and he prayed, we would say that it is invalid, because the prohibition concerns the prayer itself.

Similarly, if he performs ablution with usurped water, his ablution is valid, because