Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

mentioned in the Quran; rather, it is established by the sunnah, and the sunnah completes the Quran.

His statement, “He fasted ten days and then exited the state of consecration,” indicates that fasting is obligatory, and that he may not exit the state of consecration until he has fasted the ten days. Their evidence for this is an analogy with tamattuʿ, since in each case one enjoys the concession of leaving the state of consecration.

However, this analogy is invalid due to a relevant difference, and it contradicts the apparent meaning of the text.

This is because both rulings—the ruling concerning being prevented from completing the pilgrimage and the ruling concerning tamattuʿ—occur in a single verse. The Revealer of the verse is One, and He, Exalted is He, knows the rulings. Regarding tamattuʿ, He says: “And whoever performs Umrah during the Hajj months followed by Hajj must offer whatever sacrificial animal is available. But whoever cannot find one must fast...” [al-Baqarah: 196]. Regarding being prevented, He says: “And if you are prevented, then offer whatever sacrificial animal is available, and do not shave your heads...” [al-Baqarah: 196]. He then moved on to another ruling and did not mention fasting.

If the ruling were the same, would Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He, mention the alternative in the case of tamattuʿ but not mention it in the case of being prevented?!

The answer is: this is impossible. Since Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He, did not mention fasting in the case of being prevented, while making it obligatory for one performing tamattuʿ who cannot find a sacrificial animal, this proves that whoever among those prevented cannot find a sacrificial animal has no obligation upon him; rather, he may exit the state of consecration without having to do anything.

Furthermore, it appears that many of the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, were poor, yet it has not been reported that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, instructed them to fast. The basic presumption is freedom from liability. In the expiation for accidental killing, Allah made the emancipation of a slave obligatory and said: “But whoever cannot find one must fast for two consecutive months...” [al-Nisa’: 92]. He mentioned only two alternatives. In the expiation for zihar, Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He, made the emancipation of a slave obligatory and said: “Then whoever

مذكوراً في القرآن، لكن جاءت به السنة، والسنة تكمل القرآن. وقوله: «صام عشرة ثم حل» يقتضي وجوب الصوم وأنه لا يحل حتى يصوم العشرة ثم يحل، ودليلهم في ذلك القياس على التمتع؛ لأن كلًّا منهما ترفه بالتحلل من الإحرام. لكن هذا القياس قياس مع الفارق ومخالف لظاهر النص. ووجه ذلك أن الحكمين في آية واحدة، حكم الإحصار وحكم التمتع، ومنزل الآية واحد، وعالم بالأحكام ـ جل وعلا ـ، قال في التمتع: ﴿فَمَنْ تَمَتَّعَ بِالْعُمْرَةِ إِلَى الْحَجِّ فَمَا اسْتَيْسَرَ مِنَ الْهَدْيِ فَمَنْ لَمْ يَجِدْ فَصِيَامُ﴾ [البقرة: ١٩٦]، وقال في الإحصار: ﴿فَإِنْ أُحْصِرْتُمْ فَمَا اسْتَيْسَرَ مِنَ الْهَدْيِ وَلَا تَحْلِقُوا رُؤُوسَكُمْ﴾ [البقرة: ١٩٦] فانتقل إلى حكم آخر ولم يذكر الصوم. ولو كان الحكم واحداً، فهل يذكر الله ﷿ البدل في التمتع ولا يذكره في الإحصار؟! الجواب: لا يمكن؛ لأنه لما سكت الله ﷿ عن الصيام في الإحصار، وأوجبه في التمتع لمن عدم الهدي، دل على أن من لم يجد الهدي من المحصرين، فليس عليه شيء فيحل بدون شيء. ثم إن الظاهر من حال كثير من الصحابة ﵃ أنهم فقراء، ولم ينقل أن النبي ﷺ أمرهم بالصيام، والأصل براءة الذمة، وفي كفارة القتل أوجب الله عتق الرقبة، وقال: ﴿فَمَنْ لَمْ يَجِدْ فَصِيَامُ شَهْرَيْنِ مُتَتَابِعَيْنِ﴾ [النساء: ٩٢] ذكر خصلتين فقط، وفي كفارة الظهار أوجب الله ﷿ عتق الرقبة فقال: ﴿فَمَنْ

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Why Translate?

Support

  • Contact us
  • Report a bug
  • Support us
  • Donate
  • AI combat arena

Follow us

© 2026 Kutub. All rights reserved.
Terms and conditionsPrivacy policyCookies