to stand before the sun passes the meridian; and if he leaves ʿArafah for Muzdalifah before noon he must sacrifice an animal, just as he must if he departs before sunset.

He said—after mentioning, among the prohibitions of iḥrām, wearing sewn garments, using perfume, and covering the head:
“They are unanimously agreed that if a pilgrim, whether deliberately or by mistake, commits any of the acts we have said he must avoid while in iḥrām, neither his pilgrimage nor his state of consecration is thereby nullified.
They are also unanimously agreed that one who disputes during the pilgrimage does not invalidate either his Hajj or his iḥrām.
They differed, however, about a person who deliberately kills game: Mujāhid said that his Hajj is void and he must offer a sacrificial animal.” 1

I say:
In another of his books he adopted the opposite position and censured those who claimed the consensus he cites here. He wrote: “Knowingly engaging in false or unjust dispute while aware of one’s iḥrām invalidates both the iḥrām and the Hajj, in view of the Almighty’s words, ‘…there shall be no sexual relations, no disobedience, and no disputation during Hajj.’” 2
He also said: “Any act of disobedience that a pilgrim deliberately commits while conscious of his consecration invalidates his iḥrām, his Hajj, and his ʿumrah, because of His words, ‘…there shall be no sexual relations and no disobedience.’”

He went on: “It is one of the marvels of the world that the verse, as we have just recited it, places sexual relations and wrongdoing side by side, yet they have declared the pilgrimage invalidated by sexual relations but not by wrongdoing.
Furthermore, anyone who knowingly commits any sin whatsoever—from the moment he enters iḥrām until he completes the ifāḍah circumambulation of the House and pelts the Jamrat al-ʿAqabah—has thereby invalidated his Hajj.
Even more astonishing is their claim of consensus on this point.”

I say:
The consensus here is actually clearer than in many of the issues he discusses in his book.

He said:
“They are unanimously agreed that any obligatory charity or feeding required in connection with the pilgrimage, if carried out in Mecca, is valid. They differ about one who discharges it outside Mecca—apart from compensation for hunted game, concerning which they all agree that it is only valid in Mecca.” 3

I say:
According to Abū Ḥanīfah and Mālik, it is permissible to give the obligatory food for compensation for game outside Mecca, and distributing the meat likewise suffices outside the Sacred Precinct; within the Precinct only the shedding of the blood is obligatory. By contrast, al-Shāfiʿī, Ahmad, and those who follow them stipulate that the animal must be slaughtered within the Sacred Precinct, and they also require its distribution