Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (7/464)

based on disagreement. This is the view chosen by Shaykh al-Islam. If we were to adopt this view—that is, to base the ruling on scholarly disagreement—there would not remain a single permissible matter that was not deemed disliked, for one can hardly find any issue in which there is no disagreement. If we were to say that taking disagreement into consideration is obligatory, and that we must avoid whatever is disputed on the basis of, “Leave what causes you doubt for what does not cause you doubt,” then no matter would remain except that it would be disliked.

However, it should be said: if the disagreement has some basis for consideration—that is, some evidentiary basis—then we take it into account, not merely because it is an area of disagreement, but because of the evidence accompanying it that gives rise to doubt. Hence it was said:

Not every disagreement that arises is worthy of consideration;
Only disagreement with some basis in evidence is so.

The correct view, then, is that slaughtering during either of their nights is not disliked, unless doing so compromises something required regarding the sacrificial animal. In that case, it is disliked for that reason, not because the slaughter takes place at night.

His statement, “If it passes,” means: if the time for slaughter passes. This occurs at sunset on the second day of Tashriq, according to the view adopted by the author, or at sunset on the third day of Tashriq, according to the view we regard as preponderant.

His statement, “he makes up his obligation,” means that he performs it just as he would have performed it within its proper time.

His statement, “his obligation,” refers to an obligatory sacrificial offering and an obligatory udhiyah; what is meant is that which became obligatory before the animal was designated.

An example is a man who says, “I have vowed to Allah that I will offer an udhiyah this year,” but he does not offer it until the sun has set. We say to him: Make up this udhiyah.

The correct view regarding this issue is that when the time has passed, then if

بالخلاف، وهو اختيار شيخ الإسلام، ولو أننا أخذنا بهذا القول، أي بالتعليل بالخلاف ما بقي مسألة مباحة إلا وفيها كراهة؛ لأنه لا تكاد تجد مسألة إلا وفيها خلاف، فإذا قلنا إن مراعاة الخلاف لازمة، وأنه يجب أن ندع ما فيه الخلاف من باب: دع ما يريبك إلى ما لا يريبك، لم يبق مسألة إلا وهي مكروهة. ولكن يقال: إن كان الخلاف له حظ من النظر، أي: من الدليل فإننا نراعيه، لا لكونه خلافاً، ولكن لما يقترن به من الدليل الموجب للشبهة، ولهذا قيل: وليس كل خلاف جاء معتبراً إلا خلافاً له حظ من النظر فالصواب أن الذبح في ليلتهما لا يكره إلا أن يخل ذلك بما ينبغي في الأضحية فيكره من هذه الناحية، لا من كونه ذبحاً في الليل. قوله: «فإن فات»، أي: وقت الذبح، وذلك بغروب الشمس من اليوم الثاني من أيام التشريق على ما ذهب إليه المؤلف، أو بغروب الشمس من اليوم الثالث من أيام التشريق على ما رجحناه. قوله: «قضى واجبه»، أي: فعل به كالأداء. وقوله «واجبه»، أي واجب الهدي والأضحية، والمراد ما وجب قبل التعيين. مثال ذلك: رجل قال: لله علي نذر أن أضحي هذا العام، ولكنه لم يضح حتى غابت الشمس، فنقول: اقض هذه الأضحية. والصواب في هذه المسألة أنه إذا فات الوقت، فإن كان