Disagreement among the scholars:
The jurists differed over the legality of making a stipulation at the moment of entering iḥrām.
A number of the Companions and their Followers regarded it as recommended, and this is the position of the two Imams al-Shāfiʿī and Aḥmad, as well as the view championed by Ibn Ḥazm in al-Muḥallā. Their proof is the present authentic and unequivocal ḥadith.
By contrast, the two Imams Abū Ḥanīfah and Mālik held that the stipulation is not prescribed and serves no purpose. Consequently, even if a pilgrim makes the stipulation and then confronts an impediment, he is not permitted to exit his iḥrām. Ibn ʿUmar used to reject the stipulation in Hajj, saying, “Is the practice of your Prophet ﷺ not sufficient for you?”
They argued that the stipulation is not known from the Prophet ﷺ or his Companions except in the single incident involving Dubaʿah.
Hence Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah maintained that the stipulation is legislated only for one who fears being prevented—such as Dubaʿah’s case—thereby reconciling the evidences. This was likewise the preference of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Saʿdī (may Allah have mercy on him).
Benefit:
Stipulating provides the pilgrim with two advantages:
-
Should an enemy, illness, loss of funds, or similar hindrance arise, he may lawfully terminate his iḥrām.
-
Once he ends his iḥrām for a valid excuse, he is not required to remain in that state, nor is he obliged to repeat the rites or offer any compensation.
By declaring before his Lord, “If I am prevented, then my place of release is wherever You restrain me,” he secures complete freedom should an impediment occur.