spending the nights at Mina during the days of Mina because they were occupied with tending the camels. (1)

Issue: Are those who resemble them in serving the general interests of the pilgrims—such as traffic officers, those maintaining water pipes, hospital staff, and others—likewise included, or not?

The answer is: Yes, they are included with them, because all the elements of analogical reasoning are present. Analogical reasoning is the extension of a ruling from an original case to a subsidiary case on account of a shared effective cause. This is fully applicable to those engaged in serving the pilgrims’ interests. Accordingly, those who serve people’s needs during these days are analogized to the herdsmen and water providers, and are granted permission to spend the night outside Mina.

If someone has a personal excuse—for example, a sick person who is taken to a hospital outside Mina—should he be analogized to them or not?

Some scholars have said that he is analogized to them, due to the shared excuse in each case.

Other scholars have said that he should not be analogized to them, because his excuse is personal, whereas the excuse of the water providers and herdsmen is general and serves the public interest. Thus, his case does not resemble livestock tending or public administration. As for one whose excuse is personal, his case should be considered: should he be granted a concession to forgo spending the night and told that he must offer an expiation for missing it, or should it be said that no expiation is due from him? However, analogizing him to the herdsmen and water providers is an analogy with a relevant difference.

It should be understood, however, that spending the night at Mina is not as strongly emphasized as the stoning ritual, for example. The evidence for this is that the Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, did not waive the stoning for