for Hajj to entering ihrām for umrah, he enjoyed the ease of being spared one of the two journeys. The sacrificial offering was therefore prescribed in return for that ease. For this reason, some jurists thought that the sacrificial offering required for tamattuʿ was compensatory. They prohibited the pilgrim from eating any of it and regarded its obligatory nature as evidence that tamattuʿ was less preferable, since a pilgrimage requiring no compensation is better than one requiring it.

Others replied:

One may not, without an excuse, commit an act that necessitates a compensatory sacrifice. Yet tamattuʿ is permissible without any need, so this cannot be a compensatory sacrifice. It may, however, be said that tamattuʿ is a concession, and a concession may be preferable. Thus, according to the scholars, shortening the prayer is preferable to praying four units, as established by the mass-transmitted Sunnah and the agreement of the early generations. Likewise, according to the stronger of the two scholarly opinions, not fasting while travelling and wiping over leather socks are preferable.

Not fasting was the later of the Prophet’s two practices, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. Scholars disagreed over whether it is obligatory and whether fasting while travelling fulfils the obligation. A group of scholars, both early and later, held that anyone who fasts while travelling must make up those days. Muslims unanimously agree that not fasting while travelling is permissible, because it was the later of the Prophet’s two practices, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. Muslims agree on its permissibility, and it is preferable; they did not dispute its permissibility. Moreover, it is authentically reported that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said:

“It is not righteousness to fast while travelling.”

It is also established in Sahīh Muslim “that Hamzah