what he had done was less preferable, but because his Companions found it difficult to leave ihrām while he remained in it. He would therefore have preferred to join them so that they would carry out what they had been commanded gladly and willingly. He may leave a better course for a less preferable one for the sake of harmony and unity of hearts, as when he said to ʿĀ’ishah:

“Were it not that your people had only recently left the pre-Islamic state of ignorance, I would have demolished the Kaaba and given it two doors.”

Here, he left what was preferable for the sake of harmony and conciliation, which were of lesser merit than that preferable course. Likewise, he chose tamattuʿ without bringing sacrificial animals.

On this understanding, Allah would have enabled him to do what was best while also granting him the merit of his willingness to join them. Thus, he would receive both rewards. This is what befits his standing, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. The following makes this clear:

Bringing sacrificial animals is better than not bringing them, and he brought a hundred sacrificial camels. How, then, could foregoing that be better in itself merely because one leaves ihrām and then enters it again? Bringing sacrificial animals honours the sacred rites of Allah in a way that repeatedly leaving and entering ihrām does not. This is further illustrated by the fact that a pilgrim performing tamattuʿ who brings sacrificial animals should have greater merit than anyone who does not bring them, while a pilgrim who combines Hajj and umrah in a single ihrām and brings sacrificial animals has greater merit than both.

Furthermore, both the pilgrim who combines Hajj and umrah in a single ihrām and the pilgrim performing tamattuʿ must offer a sacrificial animal. It is well known that the sacrificial animals a pilgrim brings