which he interpreted as meaning that the obligation was specific to them. Otherwise, Abu Dharr, may Allah be pleased with him, could not have said, “It was specific to us.” Moreover, Suraqah ibn Malik ibn Juʿshum, may Allah be pleased with him, asked the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him: “Is this for this year of ours only, or forever?” He replied: “Rather, it is forever and ever” (1). Thus, if the ruling’s being specific to the Companions refers to the obligation, then this has a valid basis. But if what is meant is the conversion of Hajj into an umrah in all cases, then the hadith indicates that it is legislated for all people.

As for the rational evidence, it may be said: the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, were addressed directly by the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him. Had they failed to carry it out, this would have been a grave matter. It would then be said: if the Companions had refused the Messenger of Allah’s direct command, then those who came after them would be even more likely to do so.

Furthermore, the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, wished to firmly establish this ruling, and establishing it through action is more forceful than establishing it through words. Once it had been established in practice, the matter remained as it had originally been: namely, that it is preferable—or that it differs, as Shaykh al-Islam said, according to a person’s circumstances.

What he, may Allah have mercy on him, said is very compelling: the obligation to convert Hajj into an umrah applied only in that year, when the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, addressed them directly. Thereafter, however, it was not obligatory. I believe that, had it been obligatory, it would not have escaped Abu Bakr and ʿUmar, may Allah be pleased with them both—given who they were in terms of their closeness to the Messenger of Allah and their understanding of his words. It is well known that whoever is closer to