The jurists also disagreed about a pilgrim who trims only some of his nails. Al-Shāfiʿī and Abū Thawr said: if he removes one nail, he must feed one needy person; if he removes two, he feeds two; and if he removes three, he is liable for a single blood offering, all at once.

In one of his reports Abū Ḥanīfah maintained that nothing is due until he cuts them all.

Abū Muḥammad Ibn Ḥazm went further, saying that a muḥrim may trim his nails and moustache. This view is anomalous, for, according to him, no fidyah is incurred except for shaving the head, and then only for the specific excuse mentioned in the revealed text.

The scholars are unanimous that shaving the head is forbidden. They differed, however, about shaving hair from the rest of the body: the majority hold that doing so requires a fidyah, whereas Dāwūd said that no fidyah is owed.

They also disagreed about one who plucks a single hair, two hairs, or so from his head or body. Mālik said: nothing is due for removing a small amount of hair unless it is taken off to relieve harm, in which case the fidyah becomes obligatory. Al-Ḥasan said: for one hair the penalty is a mudd of food, for two hairs two mudds, and for three a blood offering; this is likewise the position of al-Shāfiʿī and Abū Thawr. ʿAbd al-Malik, a companion of Mālik, said: when the amount of hair is small the penalty is feeding, and when it is large it is a blood offering.

Thus, whoever views the prohibition on a muḥrim’s shaving as a pure act of worship makes no distinction between a little and a lot, whereas whoever sees it as a ban on the cleanliness, adornment, and relief afforded by shaving distinguishes between small and large amounts, for removing a little hair entails no appreciable change.

As for the place where the fidyah is to be discharged, they again disagreed. Mālik said: the pilgrim may carry out whichever option he chooses wherever he wishes—whether in Mecca or elsewhere, even in his own land—and in his view slaughtering, feeding, and fasting are all the same in this regard; Mujāhid held the same. Mālik considers this offering a nusuk, not a hady, for a hady may be offered only in Mecca or Minā.

Abū Ḥanīfah and al-Shāfiʿī maintained that the blood offering and the feeding are valid only in Mecca, while the fasting may be done wherever the pilgrim prefers. Ibn ʿAbbās said: whatever involves blood must be in Mecca, whereas feeding and fasting may be done wherever one wishes; a similar report is transmitted from Abū Ḥanīfah. Al-Shāfiʿī is consistent in holding that the meat of the blood offering must go solely to the needy of the Sacred Precinct.

The root of the disagreement is whether to analogise the blood attached to this nusuk to the hady. Whoever does so requires the hady’s conditions—slaughtering in its designated place and distribution to the poor of the Ḥaram—even though Mālik allows the hady meat to be given to persons other than the poor of the Ḥaram. What the nusuk and the hady have in common is that both are meant to benefit the needy who live near the House of God.

The opposing side argues that since the Law gives them different names—calling one a nusuk and the other a hady—their rulings must necessarily differ.

With regard to timing, the majority hold that this expiation is not performed until the harm has been removed, though further disagreement could arise by analogy with the expiation for oaths. Such is the discussion of the fidyah for removing harm.

They also differed as to whether shaving the head is itself one of the rites of the pilgrimage or merely the act by which one exits the state of consecration (iḥrām). The majority agree that it is among the rites and that shaving is superior to shortening, because of the authentic report from Ibn ʿUmar that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said:

“O Allah, have mercy on those who shave!”

They said, “And those who shorten, O Messenger of Allah?”

He replied, “O Allah, have mercy on those who shave!”