of the Prophet’s Mosque, for the Sacred Mosque is superior. And since the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, did not excuse the Companion who slaughtered his udhiyah sacrifice outside its prescribed time, the view that it does not suffice is stronger in principle. However, if people ask us about this matter and there is no clear evidence prohibiting slaughter outside the Sacred Precinct, then it should be said: “Do not repeat it, but do not do it again”—that is, do not slaughter another animal, but do not repeat such an action. This is especially so if they are people predominantly characterized by ignorance and sincerity of heart, who did not deliberately intend to contravene the ruling, and the intended purpose has been achieved by giving the meat to those entitled to it.

If it is said: Should we not hold that one who slaughtered it in a place where slaughter is not valid—even if he is excused due to ignorance—must repeat it? This is undoubtedly a strong objection, for violating the prescribed place is like violating the prescribed time. Yet what prevents us from equating one with the other is that there is no explicit text stating that the slaughter must take place within the Sacred Precinct. As for the Prophet’s saying, peace and blessings be upon him, “All of Mina is a place of sacrifice” (1), and, “Every mountain pass of Mecca is a road and a place of sacrifice” (2), this indicates that elsewhere is not a place of sacrifice only by implication. In such matters, where there is no explicit text and the matter has already passed and ended, there is no harm in taking the circumstances of the one seeking a ruling into consideration and not imposing hardship upon him regarding a matter for which no textual proof has been found. Nevertheless, students of knowledge must alert people to this issue, for it is important.