We reviewed request no. 927 for the year 2009 which includes the following: 

    As tour operators for hajj, we strive to facilitate matters for pilgrims due to the great number of people performing this pillar and who have, in some instances, reached five million. Our aim is to prevent any accidents that may occur due to crowding. Therefore, what is your opinion on the following:

    1- Stopping at Muzdalifa for a period equivalent to the time it takes the pilgrims to unload their luggage, and pray maghrib and 'isha at the time of 'isha and whether this suffices to meet the requirement of passing through Muzdalifa according to Imam Malik.

    2- The permissibility of stoning after the midpoint of the night and the manner of determining the midpoint.

    3- The permissibility of making a single tawaf with the intention of combining tawaf al-ifada and tawaf al-wada'.

    It is established in Islamic law that difficulty necessitates facilitation. Since hajj is one of the physical acts of worship that involves great exertion, Islamic law made facilitation a central matter and the Prophet established it as a principle for hajj. 'Abdullah Ibn 'Amr Ibn Al-'As (may Allah be pleased with them both) narrated, "The Prophet of Allah was at Mina during his farewell pilgrimage when people started asking him questions. A man approached the Prophet and asked, 'I had my hair shaved before slaughtering out of forgetfulness.' The Prophet replied, 'Slaughter now and there is no harm.' Another man asked, 'I slaughtered before stoning.' The Prophet said, 'Stone now and there is no harm.' He was not asked about anything which was performed before or after its time to which he did not reply, "Do it and there is no harm."¹ 
 
    The rites of hajj are divided into two categories: actions upon which Muslims are unanimous that their performance is obligatory, and other actions upon which there is a difference of scholarly opinion. It is the latter which must be facilitated for Muslims. 
 
    The principle for matters upon which there is a difference of scholarly opinion is that objections are reserved for omitting what is agreed upon and not for issues where there is a difference of opinion; it is permissible for anyone afflicted with something controversial to follow the opinion of any scholar, especially if the opinion he chooses is in his best interest and facilitates the matter for him. It is recommended to remove oneself from controversial issues if possible.

    It is established that preservation of the self is one of the objectives of Islamic law that takes precedence over the others. Adhering to the opinion of some scholars in matters of difference — even if those scholars are in the majority—is contingent upon it not being at the expense of preservation of life. Otherwise, it is a duty upon a person to follow the opinion of the scholar who permits the issue in question and facilitates it for him. This is most evident in hajj and its rites as a means to ward off injuries and prevent loss of life resulting from the congestion that occurs during some of the rites. There is nothing in Islamic law nor is there any wisdom behind implementing a recommended matter or one over which there is a difference of opinion at the expense people's lives.

    Staying overnight at Muzdalifa

    Scholarly opinions

    Some scholars such as Al-Hasan al-Basri and some from among the tabi'in and other scholars maintain that the overnight stop at Muzdalifa is obligatory.
 
    The correct opinion, of the majority of scholars, is that spending the night at Muzdalifa is not an obligatory element of hajj. Imam Al-Nawawi mentioned in Al-Majmu', "The judge, Abu al-Tayeb and scholars from our school said, 'This is the opinion maintained by the majority of Muslims from among the salaf (predecessors) and the khalaf (those who followed them).' "² 
 
    Scholars who have maintained that hajj performed without the overnight stop at Muzdalifa is complete and valid have differed on its obligation. Some have maintained that it is a requisite without which hajj is valid but its omission necessitates slaughtering in expiation. This is the most correct opinion in the Shafi'i and Hanbali schools of jurisprudence. According to them, the requirement to be present at Muzdalifa is met by being present even for a moment in the second half of the eve of yawm al-nahr or by merely passing through. They maintained that expiation is only necessary upon the pilgrims who neglect to stay overnight without an excuse but not for the pilgrims who have an excuse such as those who go to 'Arafat on yawm al-nahr and are preoccupied with standing there; a woman who fears the onset of her menses or postnatal bleeding and proceeds to Mecca to perform tawaf; and those who depart from ‘Arafat to Mecca to perform the obligatory tawaf and therefore it is not possible for them to spend the night at Muzdalifa without hardship, such as herdsmen and water suppliers. This is due to the report of 'Adiy (may Allah be pleased with him) who said, “The Prophet of Allah gave permission to the water suppliers of camels to spend the night outside Mina.”³ 'Abbas Ibn Abu Taleb (may Allah be pleased with him) asked the Messenger of Allah to spend the nights of Mina at Mecca since he was responsible for supplying water to the pilgrims.⁴ 

    Imam Al-Nawawi, the Shafi'i scholar, wrote in Al-Majmu’, “Among those who have an excuse is someone who fears losing his property were he to stay overnight, fears for his life, suffers from an illness that makes it difficult for him to spend the night there, is a caregiver, looking for his runaway slave or is occupied with an important matter. There are two opinions for these categories of people: the correct and established opinion is that it is permissible for them to not spend the night there and no expiation is due upon them.”⁵ 
 
    Imam Al-Shafi'i has two opinions regarding the matter of expiation for those who do not have an excuse. In one opinion he maintained that expiation is obligatory and in the other recommended.

    Imam Al-Mawardi, the Shafi'i scholar, mentioned in Al-Hawi, “There are two opinions for the case of a pilgrim who does not stay overnight at Muzdalifa or departs before midnight. The first is that expiation is obligatory and this is Al-Shafi'i 's opinion mentioned in both the earlier and later phases of his jurisprudence. The second opinion is that it is recommended and this is his opinion mentioned in Al-Umm and Al-Imla`. The ruling for this is the same as that for departing 'Arafat before sunset. This is because his opinion differed on four instances of slaughtering in expiation: these include the above two instances in addition to slaughtering for refraining to stay overnight at Mina and for omitting tawaf al-wada'."⁶
    Al-Shafi'i's opinion on the recommendation of slaughtering in expiation for a pilgrim who does not stay overnight at Muzdalifa, follows from his opinion on the one who omits to stay overnight at Mina. A group of Shafi'i scholars, such as Imam Al-Raf'i, maintained this as the preponderant opinion. It is likewise the opinion of Imam Ahmed. 
 
    Imam Al-Haramayn, the Shafi'i scholar, mentioned in Nihayat Al-Matlab fi Dirayat Al-Madh-hab, “If there is a difference of opinion concerning slaughtering in expiation for omitting to spend the night at Muzdalifa, then it is absolutely necessary to say that there is a difference in opinion concerning whether it is obligatory in itself and whether it is obligatory for a pilgrim in this situation to perform it, such that he is considered disobedient if he does not.”⁷ 
 
    The luminary Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, the Shafi'i scholar, mentioned in Tuhfat Al-Muhtaj, “It has been said that it is a sunna and this is the preponderant opinion of Al-Rafi'i."⁸ 

    Citing Imam Ahmed, the luminary al-Mardawi stated in Al-Insaf, "It is not obligatory. [The ruling for such a person] is comparable to herdsmen and water suppliers. He mentioned this opinion in Al-Mustaw'ib and other books."⁹ 

    Some Shafi’i scholars have maintained that it is permissible to depart from 'Arafat and proceed directly to Mecca to perform tawaf al-ifada without stopping at Muzdalifa and this entails no consequences.

    Imam Al-Nawawi mentioned in Al-Majmu', “Shafi'i scholars are unanimous that no expiation is due upon a person who goes to 'Arafat on the eve of yawm al-nahr and is preoccupied with standing there and therefore misses spending the night at Muzdalifa. Among those who cited this consensual opinion is Imam Al-Haramayn. A person who departs from 'Arafat to Mecca and performs tawaf al-ifada after midnight of the eve of yawm al-nahr, has missed spending the night at Muzdalifa due to tawaf al-ifada. The author of Al-Taqrib and Al-Qaffal maintained that no expiation is due upon such a person because he was occupied with an obligatory act [of hajj]. Therefore he is similar to someone who is occupied with standing at 'Arafat.”¹⁰ 
 
    The Shafi'i scholar, Al-Shaykh al-Khatib mentioned in Mughni Al-Muhtaj, “The two opinions i.e. the obligation and recommendation of slaughtering in expiation, concern a person who does not have an excuse. As for the one who has an excuse, slaughtering is definitely not obligatory upon him. Among those who have an excuse is someone who arrives at 'Arafat at night and is occupied with standing there and someone who departs from Muzdalifa for Mecca to make tawaf al-wada' and misses spending the night at Muzdalifa."¹¹ 
 
    Maliki scholars have maintained that it is recommended for a pilgrim to stay at Muzdalifa for a period equivalent to the time it takes him to unload his luggage, whether he does so or not. He must slaughter in expiation if he does not stay there for this time until the break of dawn without having an excuse, though nothing is upon him if he has an excuse.”
 
    Hanafi scholars have maintained that staying overnight at Muzdalifa on the eve of yawm al-nahr until dawn is a confirmed sunna and not obligatory. This is because spending the night there was legislated to prepare pilgrims for standing at 'Arafat and not as a rite of and in itself. They maintained that it is requisite to be present there for a brief period, even if for a moment between dawn and sunrise. They further maintained that there is no harm for a person who has an excuse and thereby misses spending the night at Muzdalifa.
 
    From the above, it can be concluded that Imams Al-Shafi'i and Ahmed (may Allah be pleased with them) maintained the unconditional recommendation of staying overnight at Muzdalifa without stipulating being present for a period equivalent to the time it takes a pilgrim to unload his luggage and pass through Muzdalifa. Some Shafi'i scholars have made the departure from 'Arafat for Mecca to perform tawaf al-ifada a legal excuse for not spending the night at Muzdalifa. Maliki scholars have maintained the recommendation of spending the night at Muzdalifa and obligate pilgrims to stay there for a period equivalent to the time it takes a pilgrim to unload his luggage and pray maghrib and 'isha prayers. Hanafi scholars have maintained that staying overnight is not required. According to them the requirement is discharged by staying at Muzdalifa after dawn and until sunrise only. The most correct opinion according to Shafi'i and Hanbali scholars is the obligation of spending the night there. Those scholars who obligate spending the night at Muzdalifa, concur its obligation but waive it for someone who stays there for a period equivalent to the time it takes a pilgrim to unload his luggage and pray the maghrib and 'isha prayers according to Maliki scholars; stops at al-Mash'ar al-Haram after dawn according to Hanafi scholars and meeting the obligation of staying the night at Muzdalifa by being present there for a brief moment after midnight, even if only passing through according to the majority of scholars.
 
    If the Prophet permitted herdsmen not to stay overnight due to their livestock and permitted his uncle, Al-'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) not to spend the night since he was responsible for supplying the pilgrims with water, then there is no doubt that the crowding that occurs at the holy sites due to the great number of pilgrims and limited spaces and which is the reason for the injuries and loss of life every year, is a more legitimate excuse than those mentioned above. This is because supplying water to pilgrims and herding livestock are contingent upon the needs of pilgrims and the animals. But the crowding that usually occurs at these places is incompatible with the objectives of Islamic law because, in many instances, it not only leads to injuries but, as we know, to loss of life.
 
    According to Hanafi scholars who insist on the requirement of spending the night at Muzdalifa, crowding is still considered an excuse for refraining from stopping there after dawn. The luminary Al-Haskafi wrote in Al-Dar Al-Mukhtar, "No expiation is necessary for a pilgrim who does not spend the night at Muzdalifa for an excuse such as crowding."¹² The luminary Ibn 'Abdin wrote in his commentary on Haskafi, “The author's words [crowding as a valid excuse for not staying overnight at Muzdalifa] are in fact the terminology of Al-Lubab which maintained the non obligatoriness of staying overnight at Muzdalifa for those who have an excuse, the weak and a woman who fears crowding. However, the author of Al-Bahr said that Al-Muhit, did not restrict fear of crowding [as an excuse] to merely women but took it to include men. I said that this includes fear of crowding during the rite of stoning; therefore, if a person leaves at night to avoid the crowding of other pilgrims, there is nothing upon him."
 
    It is not a condition that the crowding that is considered a legitimate excuse occurs in Muzdalifa itself. The aim is to prevent the crowding of pilgrims by any means when the pilgrims are departing from it. At present, due to the number of pilgrims which have greatly multiplied while the holy sites remain the same, crowding is an ever present possibility. A keen observer of the rites at their peak time will notice the danger of death surrounding pilgrims because of the crowding and their proximity to each other. Preventing crowding is one of the most important legal duties concerning hajj. The very presence of such great numbers of pilgrims waives the obligation of staying overnight at Muzdalifa. This is because Islamic law equates conjecture with facts and because the obligation to protect lives supersedes any other. In addition to crowding, the presumption of crowding which includes fear of or flight from crowding, is itself considered a legitimate reason for waiving the obligation and this consequently waives the expiation for its omission. 
 
    Based on the above, the established opinion for fatwa during our times when the volume of pilgrims has greatly increased, is that staying overnight at Muzdalifa is but a praiseworthy recommendation, and this is the opinion of Imam Shafi'i as expressed in his books Al-Umm and Al-Imla`. It is likewise the opinion of Imam Ahmed as expressed by the Hanbali author of Al-Mustaw'ib. Maliki scholars find it sufficient to stipulate being present at Muzdalifa for only a period equivalent to the time it takes a pilgrim to unload his luggage and pray the shortened maghrib and 'isha prayers together. The majority of scholars, who maintain the obligation of staying overnight at Muzdalifa, waive this obligation in the case of an excuse. Protecting lives from imminent or possible danger is an example of such an excuse. Therefore, the dense crowds and the build-up of human traffic which are characteristics of present day hajj and which very often ensue in injuries and loss of lives, is a legal excuse for not staying overnight at Muzdalifa according to those scholars who obligate it.

    Stoning

    Stoning Jamrat al-'Aqaba on yawm al-nahr

    Several scholars such as Shafi'i and Hanbali scholars as well as others have permitted stoning Jamarat al-'Aqaba al-Kubra after midnight of the eve of yawm al-nahr for those who are able and unable alike. They based their opinion on the hadith narrated by 'A`isha (may Allah be pleased with her) who said, "The Prophet sent Um Salama on the eve of yawm al-nahr to throw the pebbles before dawn and afterwards she performed tawaf al-ifada.<sup>13</sup> 
 
    Commenting on the hadith, Shaykh Zakaria al-Ansari, the Shafi'i scholar, mentioned in Asna Al-Matalib, "The hadith denotes that the Prophet made stoning conditional upon its performance before dawn. As the time is unregulated, i.e. it may extend for the entire night, the Prophet set midnight as the criterion for the time of stoning since this is closer to fact and because it is the time for pilgrims' departure from Muzdalifa."<sup>14</sup> 
 
    The Hanbali scholar, Ibn Qudama, mentioned in Al-Mughni, "There are two times when it is permissible to stone Jamarat al-'Aqaba al-Kubra—a time when it is optimal and another when it merely fulfills the obligation. The former is after sun rise while the latter starts at midnight of the eve of yawm al-nahr. This is the opinion of 'Ata`, Ibn Abu Layli, 'Ikrima Ibn Khalid and al-Shafi'i."¹⁵ 

    Stoning during ayam al-tashriq

    There are three opinions for the beginning of the time for stoning during ayam al-tashriq

    1-The majority of scholars have maintained that it is impermissible to stone on any of the days of al-tashriq except after noon. They based their opinion on the Prophet's act as attested to in the hadith narrated by Jabir Ibn 'Abdullah (may Allah be pleased with them both) which states that the Prophet stoned on the forenoon of yawm al-nahr. After that time (on the days of tashriq) he stoned after midday [Recorded by Muslim and others. Al-Bukhari mentioned it as a suspended hadith].

    2-It is permissible to stone before midday on the days of the departure from Mina. This opinion is narrated from Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both), is the opinion of 'Ikrima and Is-haq Ibn Rahwiya and the well known opinion of Imam Abu Hanifa. This same opinion was likewise reported as an opinion of Imam Ahmed and supported by some Hanbali scholars, although he stipulated that a person is not to depart until after noon. In one report from Abu Hanifa, supported by Abu Yusuf (may Allah have mercy on both of them), it is permissible for a pilgrim who wishes to leave early, to stone before midday of 12th Dhul-Hijja.
'Abdullah Ibn Abu Mulayka reported through Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both)  who said, "When the day brightens, it is permissible to stone and then leave on the last day of departure." The hadith scholar, Al-Baihaqi, included this hadith in his Al-Sunan Al-Kubra.¹⁶ 

    3-It is permissible for a pilgrim to stone before midday on any of the days of tashriq. This is the opinion of a group of scholars from among the salaf and khalaf such as 'Abdullah Ibn 'Umar and 'Abdullah Ibn al-Zubair (may Allah be pleased with them), Tawus Ibn Kisan, 'Ata` Ibn Abu Rabah (in one of two reports from him), Imam Abu Ja'far Mohammed al-Baqer, Imam al-Naser from the Zaydiyya school of jurisprudence as mentioned in Al-Bahr Al-Zakhar Al-Jami' li Madhab 'Uluma` Al-Amsar and Imam Abu Hanifa according to one report. Al-'Izz Ibn Jama'a mentioned it as the preponderant opinion of the Shafi'i school. Al-Jamal al-Asnawi said that this is the known opinion of the [Shafi'i] school. Imam Al-Haramayn likewise cited this opinion in Nihayat Al-Matlab¹⁷ from the Shafi'i Imams as did al-Ruyani in Bahr Al-Madhab¹⁸ who quoted it from some Shafi'i scholars in Khurasan. This is the opinion chosen by Imams Al-Fawrani, al-'Umrani, al-Rafi'i and other Shafi'i scholars. It is the opinion expressed in one report from Imam Ahmed and maintained by a group of Hanbali scholars such as Abu al-Wafa` Ibn 'Uqail, Abu al-Farag Ibn al-Jawzi, Abu al-Hasan Ibn al-Zaghwani and others. Ibn Muflih, the Hanbali scholar, mentioned in Al-Furu'¹⁹ , "Ibn al-Jawzi maintained the permissibility of stoning before midday. The permissibility of stoning from sunrise on all the days of tashriq except the third day was mentioned in Al-Wadih, while the permissibility of stoning from sunrise on all the days of tashriq without exception was mentioned in Al-Mansak." 
 
    The Hanbali scholar Ibn Rajab cited in Al-Dhayl 'ala Tabaqat Al-Hanabila²⁰ , Ibn al-Zaghuni's opinion as expressed in Al- Mansak which states the permissibility of stoning on the days of Mina and stoning Jamrat al-'Aqaba on yawm al-nahr either before or after midday, though it is better to stone after midday. Wabra Ibn 'Abd al-Rahman said, "I asked Ibn 'Umar when I should stone and he replied, 'When your Imam does.' I asked again and he said, 'We used to observe the sun and wait until after midday before stoning' [Imam Bukhari recorded it in his Sahih]. If it had been obligatory to wait until after midday, Ibn 'Umar would not have made the stoning time contingent upon the time chosen by the Imam which includes facilitation and ease. Therefore, he did not wish to restrict the matter for him.

    Al-Fakihi recorded in his Akhbar Mecca Ibn al-Zubair's narration through 'Amr Ibn Dinar who said, "I went to stone and asked whether 'Abdullah Ibn 'Umar had stoned yet. I was told that he had not but that the Leader of Believers (Ibn Zubayr) did. I waited for Ibn 'Umar to stone and after midday, he stoned Jamrat al-'Aqaba."²¹
Those who maintain the above opinion rely on the following evidences:

    - Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) narrated that on yawm al-nahr at Mina, the Prophet was asked about several things to which he replied, 'There is no harm.' A man said, 'I had my head shaved before slaughtering.' The Prophet replied, 'Slaughter and there is no harm.' Another man said, 'I stoned after sunset." The Prophet replied, 'There is no harm.' He was not asked about anything on that day to which he did not reply there is no harm" [Recorded by Bukhari in his Sahih and by Muslim in his Sahih. The phrasing is Bukhari's]. The evidence from the hadith points to the necessity of lifting harm on the days of stoning and for other rites.

    -'Amr Ibn Shu'ayb narrated through his father, who narrated the hadith through his father, who said that the Prophet permitted the herdsmen to stone at night or at any time during daylight [Al-Darqutni and others].

    -Imam Ibn Qudama, the Hanbali scholar, mentioned in Al-Kafi, "All of those who have an excuse such as an illness and fear for oneself or one's property fall under the same ruling as the herdsmen due to their similar circumstances."²²

    At this point, we will maintain what we have held earlier concerning staying overnight at Muzdalifa, i.e., the crowding that usually accompanies contemporary hajj and 'umra is a valid excuse. They maintained that, just as it is permissible to stone on yawm al-nahr before midday, it is likewise permissible to stone on ayam al-tashriq at the same time since the three days of tashriq are considered a time for both slaughtering and stoning.
 
    Due to the above, Shafi'i and Hanbali scholars have maintained the permissibility of collecting all the pebbles including those for stoning on yawm al-nahr and to throw them all at once if a pilgrim wishes to leave on the second or third day of ayam al-tashriq; this fulfills the obligation of stoning according to the more correct of the two opinions of the Shafi'i school of jurisprudence. This is because the days of Mina are considered as one. This is the dominant opinion of the Shafi'i school as Imam al-Nawawi mentioned in Al-Majmu' and it is likewise the established opinion of the Hanbali school as Imam Ibn Qudama mentioned in Al-Mughni.
 
    A group of Shafi'i scholars have permitted stoning for one day ahead of another based on the verified opinion of their school that all the days of tashriq are as one and that stoning after midday is a choice and not the only valid time. Based on this, they permitted a pilgrim to make the stoning of the day of his departure on the previous day. Imam Al-Taqi al-Subqi maintained the correctness of this opinion, al-'Izz Ibn Jama'a maintained that it is the preponderant opinion, while Imam al-Asnawi said it is the acknowledged opinion of the Shafi'i school.
 
    Imam Al-Shafi'i wrote in Al-Imla`, as cited by Imam al-'Izz Ibn Jama'a in Hidayat Al-Salik²³ that only the following two opinions are permissible in regards to stoning:

    - It must be done at the beginning of its time and each stoning must be performed during the day and not at night. Its performance after sunset either may or may not necessitate a sacrifice in expiation.

    - The time for stoning begins on the first day of tashriq and continues up to the third day. Stoning can be performed any time on the three days before or after sunset and this does not necessitate slaughtering except after these three days. This is the opinion of our school.

    After quoting the above, Imam Al-'Izz Ibn Jama'a, the Shafi'i scholar, said, "From the above, the following can be deduced concerning stoning on the first two days of tashriq:

    1-The most correct opinion is that it is permissible for a pilgrim to stone on any of the days of tashriq. This fulfills the obligation and does not entail slaughtering in expiation.

    2-If he stones on any of the days after sunset, he must offer a sacrifice in expiation. 

    3-If he stones on any of the days before sunset, he is not required to offer a sacrifice.

    4-If he neglects to stone, he must slaughter in expiation.²⁴ 

    Concerning the first opinion, Al-Rafi'i mentioned in Al-Sharhayn, following Imam al-Ghazali's opinion in Al-Waseet, that all the days of Mina are considered as one. A pilgrim may choose to stone on any of these days just as a person may choose to offer an obligatory prayer any time during its prescribed time [whether during the beginning of its time which is the optimal time; at the middle of its time or towards its end which merely fulfills the obligation]. It may be understood from this that it is permissible to stone one day before another or delay stoning one day to the next. Al-Fawrani and al-Rafi'i supported this opinion. 
 
    Imam Al-'Izz said, "Imam al-Shafi'i stated definitively that it is impermissible to stone on other than the times and days prescribed for stoning and this is likewise the opinion of al-Ghazali as expressed in Al-Waseet. The apparent meaning of what I have conveyed from Imam al-Shafi'i's opinions in Al-Umm and Al-Imla` contradicts this statement and demonstrates permissibility. This is the preponderant opinion of the Shafi'i school and Allah knows best."
 
    Imam Al-Haramayn mentioned in Nihayat Al-Matlab fi Dirayat Al-Madhab: "If we maintain that a pilgrim who has missed stoning on one of the days may stone on another, then is the stoning performed on the second day considered a makeup for the missed day or is it considered one that is simply outside the optimal time-period, thus fulfilling the obligation?" The Imams of our school disagreed over this issue. Some have maintained that it is considered to fulfill the obligation and that all the days of Mina are considered as one in relation to stoning, though they maintained that the Shari'a appointed a different time for each of the stonings similar to those for prayers [when the beginning of the time for each prayer is considered the optimal time and the end of its time merely fulfills the obligation]. Based on the differences of opinion, scholars have maintained the permissibility of stoning one day ahead of its time and said, 'If we maintain that the obligation of the first day's stoning is fulfilled on the second as a make-up, then it is impermissible to stone for one day ahead of its time. And if we maintain that its obligation is fulfilled even though it may be a delay, then there is no objection to stoning for one day ahead of its time during the days of tashriq."
 
    Al-Fawrani mentioned in Al-Ibana as cited by al-'Umrani in Al-Bayan, "If we maintain that a pilgrim who misses one day's stoning may make it up on the following day, then is it permissible for him to throw the pebbles of the day of departure on the previous day? There are two opinions: if he throws the first day’s stones on the second, then is this considered to fulfill the obligation or is it considered a make-up stoning? There are two opinions on this. If we maintain that it fulfills the obligation, then it is permissible to stone one day ahead of its time and stoning all the three days is a single act of worship when the stoning is to be made at the beginning of its time. And if we maintain that it is a make-up stoning, then it is impermissible to stone one day ahead of its time because making up for an act of worship is only made after its time ends and in this case, the time has not yet ended." 
 
    Imam Al-Subki mentioned in his Fatawa: "Al-Fawrani permitted stoning of one day ahead of its time and this fulfills the obligation. He [Al-Fawrani] reported this opinion from other scholars and Imam al-Ghazali likewise maintained the same. Al-Rowaini said that according to the correct opinion, it is impermissible to throw the pebbles of one day ahead of its time and al-Rafi'i favored this opinion, as did the words of al-Shafi'i in Al-Imla` and al-Buwaiti. So this is the correct opinion. As for stoning two days ahead of their time, Al-Mawardi said: "It is unanimously agreed upon that it is impermissible to combine the three days of stoning on the first day." 
 
    Imam Al-Isnawi wrote in Al-Muhimat: "What Imam Al-Rafi'i reported as the opinion of Imam al-Haramayn on the permissibility of stoning for one day ahead of its time is the known opinion of the school. He asserted this opinion unequivocally in Al-Sharh Al-Saghir despite his hesitancy in Al-Kabir. He mentioned in Al-Nihaya that scholars have permitted it, relating no disagreement. He did not, however, mention the report of al-Rafi’i. The author of Al-Ta'jeez also related Imam al-Haramayn’s position in his commentary on it, though he related from his grandfather that Imam al-Haramayn had showed hesitation in adopting this position. Al-Fawrani also asserted this opinion in Al-'Umdah."²⁵ 
 
    Scholars who permit stoning before midday on the days of tashriq differed on the beginning of its time:

    - Some Hanafi scholars maintained that its time begins at dawn.

    - Some Hanbali scholars maintained that its time begins after sunrise.

    - Some of the predecessors permitted stoning before midday since according to them, stoning on the days of tashriq is comparable to stoning on yawm al-nahr i.e. it is permissible to stone after midnight on each of the days of tashriq just as it is permissible to stone on yawm al-nahr.

     - Imam Al-Mawardi, the Shafi'i scholar, wrote in Al-Hawi, "Tawus and 'Ikrima said: "Like yawm al-nahr, it is permissible for a pilgrim to stone before midday."²⁶ This means that just as it is permissible to stone after midnight on yawm al-nahr, it is likewise permissible to do so on the days of tashriq.

    - This opinion is strengthened by the established opinion of the Shafi'i school in that spending the night at Mina is fulfilled by being present for a brief moment after midnight, as is the case at Muzdalifa. Therefore, this can be likewise applicable to staying overnight at Mina.
If a pilgrim stones after midnight of the day of departure, he is not obliged to wait until midday to depart from Mina. This is because he would have thus combined between permissible stoning and spending the night at Mina which is fulfilled by being present for a brief moment after midnight.

    Imam Al-Haramayn said in Nihayat Al-Matlab, "Is it obligatory for a pilgrim to slaughter an animal to compensate for neglecting to spend the night at Mina? Al-Shafi'i maintained two opinions on this: the first being that it is obligatory to slaughter in expiation for not staying overnight at Mina just as it is obligatory for neglecting to stone. Like stoning, spending the night at Mina is one of the rites prescribed by the Shari'a. Therefore, just as it is obligatory to slaughter for omitting stoning, it is likewise obligatory for not staying overnight at Mina. In the second opinion he maintains that a pilgrim is not obliged to slaughter for not spending the night at Mina. This is because spending the night at Mina was established for the pilgrims' anticipation of the rite of stoning and is not a rite in and of itself. This meaning is also applicable to spending the night at Muzdalifa because the time of performing rites begins at midnight."²⁷ 

    As for the opinion reported by Al-'Umrani in Al-Bayan from the Shafi'i scholar Al-Sharif al-'Uthmani and which al-Tabari (the commentator of Al-Tanbeeh) declared to be correct, that it is a condition to wait until after midday before leaving Mina, otherwise a pilgrim's departure is invalid, this needs careful consideration²⁸ . Imam Al-Isnawi has investigated this in Al-Muhimat: "Al-Tabari's words and those of the author of Al-Bayan demonstrate that they did not offer a report [as proof]. Imam Al-Haramayn mentioned this opinion in detail in Al-Nihaya and opposed it. Imam Al-Nawawi reported this in Sharh Al-Muhathab and approved of it."²⁹ Consequently, it is not a condition for a pilgrim who is in a hurry and wishes to leave early, to spend the night at Mina and wait until midday before stoning. This is because spending the night at Mina is prescribed to prepare a pilgrim for the rite of stoning i.e. it is among the complementary acts and is not prescribed in and for itself.

    Imam Al-Isnawi said in Al-Muhimat, "Scholars have stated that spending the night at Mina was made obligatory to prepare a pilgrim for stoning, thus it is supplementary to stoning—it does not take the same ruling as stoning."³⁰ 

    Based on this meaning, a group of Hanafi scholars have maintained that spending the night at Mina during the days of tashriq is a sunna and not an obligation. Both Imams Al-Shafi'i and Ahmed (may Allah be pleased with them) maintained the same. They based their opinion on the fact that spending the night at Mina is not meant for itself, but was prescribed to facilitate stoning for pilgrims due to the proximity of Mina to the stoning sites—it is not an obligation in itself.

    Therefore, it is legally permissible to stone on the days of tashriq after midnight and then depart for those who wish to leave on the second or third night.

    Since night starts at sunset and ends at true dawn, midnight is calculated by dividing this period by two and adding this to the beginning of the time of maghrib; it is not calculated by dividing the period between 'isha and fajr as some claim.

    Making the intention to combine tawaf al-ifada and tawaf al-wada'

    The majority of scholars have maintained that tawaf al-wada' is obligatory. Maliki scholars; Dawud; Ibn al-Mundhir; al-Shafi'i in, one of his opinions and Imam Ahmed, in one of his opinions, have all stated that tawaf al-wada' is a sunna since it has been waived for a woman in menstruation.

    Maliki and Hanbali scholars have permitted combining tawaf al-ifada and tawaf al-wada' based on the fact that it is the last act a person does in connection to his pilgrimage and this is fulfilled by performing tawaf al-ifada. Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) said, "Tell the people not to leave without performing tawaf as the last rite of the hajj. However it is waived for menstruating women."³¹

    Imam Malik said, as expressed in Al-Mudawana Al-Kubra, "I heard that, while on hajj, some of the Companions of the Prophet did not have time to perform tawaf before standing at 'Arafat. So they would set for 'Arafat without making tawaf and sa'y and then proceed to Mina and not leave until the last day of ayam al-tashriq. They would then go to Mecca, tie their camels outside the Mosque's door and enter to circumambulate the Ka'ba, perform sa'y and then leave. This fulfilled the obligation of performing tawaf al-qudum, tawaf al-ifada and tawaf al-wada'." ³²
 
    Abu al-Barakat al-Dardir, the Maliki scholar, wrote in Al-Sharh Al-Kabir: "Tawaf al-wada' is fulfilled by tawaf al-ifada or tawaf al-'umra. Combining the intention to perform tawaf al-wada' along with tawaf al-ifada or tawaf al-'umra, fulfills the obligation [of tawaf]."³³ 
 
    Imam Ibn Qudama, the Hanbali scholar, wrote in Al-Mughni: "There are two opinions on this matter. The first is that tawaf al-ifada fulfills the obligation of performing tawaf al-wada' because circumambulation must be the final rite connected to the hajj before departing and because the prayer for greeting the mosque is met by an obligatory act of its kind i.e. the obligatory prayer."³⁴ 
 
    The luminary Al-Mardawi, a Hanbali scholar, wrote in Al-Insaf: "[Imam Ahmed] maintained that tawaf al-ifada performed by a person who delays it before departing fulfills the obligation of tawaf al-wada'. This is the opinion of the school and its scholars and the opinion maintained by Al-Kharaqi as expressed in Sharh Al-Mukhtasar and by the author of Al-Mughni in the book on prayer. The second opinion of Imam Ahmed is that tawaf al-ifada does not fulfill the obligation of tawaf al-wada' which a person must perform. These are the two opinions he wrote in Al-Mughni without giving preference to one over the other."³⁵ 
 
    Therefore, there is no legal objection to following the Maliki opinion and that of those who maintain the same concerning the recommendation of performing tawaf al-wada' and its non obligatoriness. Both Maliki and Hanbali scholars have maintained that tawaf al-ifada fulfills the obligation of performing tawaf al-wada' even if a person makes sa'y afterwards. This is because performing sa'y after circumambulating the Ka'ba does not compromise a person's farewell to the House of Allah.
 
    The luminary Al-Dusuqi, a Maliki scholar, wrote in his commentary on Al-Sharh Al-Kabir by Imam Abu al-Barakat al-Dardir: "[In such a case], a person must not prolong his sa'y to ensure that it does not interrupt his farewell to the House."³⁶ He based his opinion on 'A`isha's narration which was recorded in the Sahih of Bukhari and the Sahih of Muslim and in which she said, "We went out with the Messenger of Allah for hajj, invoking Allah in the months of hajj……. we departed from Mina and alighted at Muhassab. The Messenger of Allah called Abdul-Rahman Ibn abu Bakr and told him, 'Take your sister outside al-Haram so that she can make the intention and enter ihram for 'umra. When you finish your tawaf, come back here and I will be waiting for you." Imam Muslim added the following, "We went outside al-Haram, I made the intention and entered ihram for 'umra, circumambulated the House, made sa'y and returned. The Messenger of Allah asked, "Have you finished?" I said, "Yes." He then announced the departure among his Companions and we all set out." 
 
    The hadith scholar, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani mentioned in Fath Al-Bari: "From 'A`isha's account, we deduce that if sa'y is performed after the obligatory tawaf—if we maintain that the obligatory tawaf suffices for tawaf al-wada',-it does not vitiate tawaf and fulfills the obligation for both tawaf al-ifada and tawaf al-wada'³⁷.

    Based on the above, it is permissible to delay tawaf al-ifada till just before departing Mecca. It suffices for tawaf al-wada' and there is no harm in performing sa'y after it.




-----------------------------------------
1- Recorded by Bukhari (83, 124, 1736) and Muslim (3216, 3219).
2- Vol. 8, p. 163.
3- Imam Malik, Al-Muwatta` (921), Abu Dawud (1975) and al-Tirmidhi (970). Al-Tirmidhi declared it fair and authentic.
4- Recorded by Bukhari (1634, 1745) and Muslim (3238).
5- Vol. 2, p.225.
6- (Dar Al-Kutub Al-'Ilmiyah), vol. 4, p. 178.
7- (Dar Al-Manhaaj), vol. 4, p.334.
8- (Dar Ihya` Al-Turath Al-'Arabi), vol. 4, p. 113.
9- (Dar Ihya` Al-Turath Al-'Arabi), vol. 4, p. 25.
10- (Al-Muniriyyah Press), vol. 8, p. 153.
11- (Dar Al-Fikr), vol. 1, p. 500.
12- (Dar 'Alam Al-Kutub), vol. 3, p. 529.
13- Recorded by Abu Dawud (1942). Ibn al-Hajar mentioned in Bulugh Al-Maram that it meets the criteria laid down by Muslim.
14- (Dar Al-Kitab Al-Islami), vol. 1, p. 493.
15- (Dar Ihya` Al-Turath Al-'Arabi), vol. 3, p. 219.
16- Vol. 5, p. 152.
17- (Dar Al-Minhaaj), vol. 4, p. 323.
18- (Dar Ihya` Al-Turath Al-'Arabi), vol. 5, vol. 217.
19- (Al-Risala), vol. 6, p. 59.
20- Vol. 1, p. 182.
21- Vol. 4, p. 299.
22- Vol. 1, p. 195.
23- Vol. 4, p. 1341.
24- Vol. 4, p. 1342.
25- (Dar Ibn Hazm), vol. 4, p. 391)
26- (Dar AL-Fikr), vol. 4, 194.
27- Vol. 4, p. 334.
28- (Dar al-Minhaj), vol. 4, p. 362.
29- Vol. 4, p. 381.
30- Vol. 4, p. 383.
31- Recorded by Bukhari (1755) and Muslim (3284).
32- (Dar al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyah), vol. 1, p. 424-5.
33- (Dar Ihya` al-Kutub al-'Arabiyah), vol. 2, p. 53.
34- Vol. 3, p. 237.
35- (Dar Ihya` al-Turath al-'Arabi), vol. 4, p. 50.
36- Vol. 2, p. 53.
37- Vol. 3, p. 612.