Hadith 3475

(1) The statement: “She vowed to walk, etc.”: If one swears to walk to the House of Allah if he does such-and-such and then does it, nothing is required of him by analogy, because only what is of a type legally obligatory is obligated by a vow, and walking to the House is not legally obligatory. Since he is not obligated to fulfill specifically what he committed to, which is walking, it is even less likely that something else, such as pilgrimage or minor pilgrimage, is required. By istihsan, he is obligated to perform a pilgrimage or minor pilgrimage, as narrated from Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). This is because, in people’s custom, this expression implies committing to pilgrimage or minor pilgrimage. In vows and oaths, custom is considered, so we treat this as an expression for committing to pilgrimage or minor pilgrimage metaphorically, as the purpose of speech is people’s usage to express their inner intentions. When an expression becomes used metaphorically for something, it is treated as literal in that context. Then he has the choice between pilgrimage and minor pilgrimage, as they are the two rites related to the House, which are only performed through consecration and going to that place. They disagreed about one who vows to walk to the House of Allah. Shafi’i said: He walks if he can endure it, but if he is unable, he sheds blood and rides. The companions of Abu Hanifah (may Allah be pleased with them) said: He rides and sheds blood, whether he can endure walking or not. According to us, he has the choice: if he wishes, he walks, which is more complete and fulfills the vow; if he rides, he slaughters a sheep, because he introduced a deficiency in the pilgrimage or minor pilgrimage, as pilgrimage on foot is superior, since a rite with the attribute of walking is more complete. It is narrated that Abdullah ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) after losing his sight said: “I do not regret anything as much as not performing pilgrimage on foot, for Allah, the Exalted, mentioned the walkers first, saying: They come to you on foot and on every lean camel (Al-Hajj: 27).” If he rides, he has introduced a deficiency, and deficiencies in rites are compensated with blood. This is due to his statement: “Let her ride and shed blood.” Shafi’i has two opinions: the first, which we hold, is that blood is required, and it is his more correct opinion; the second is that if he is unable to walk, no sacrificial animal is required, and nothing is established against him. The blood or sacrificial animal, according to us, is at least a sheep and at most a camel, so a sheep suffices, and the command for a camel is for recommendation. This is Shafi’i’s more apparent opinion. We also acted upon the generality of the sacrificial animal without specifying a camel due to the strength of its narration. They disagreed about the starting point of walking. Some said: From the ritual boundary. Others said: From where he consecrates, and this is the view of Imam Fakhr al-Islam (may Allah be pleased with him), Utabi, and others. Others said: From his house, and this is the view of Shams al-A’immah as-Sarakhsi, the author of “Al-Hidayah,” and authenticated by Qadi Khan, Zayla’i, and Ibn al-Humam, as it is the customary intent, and it is the preferred view. If he consecrates from his house, it is agreed that he walks from his house. If he rides the entire way or most of it, with or without an excuse, blood is required, as he neglected an obligation to fulfill the vow. If he rides for the lesser part, he gives charity equivalent to the value of a sheep. [Taken from “Al-Mabsut,” “Al-Mirqat,” commentaries on “Al-Kanz,” “Al-Muswi,” and “Ash’at al-Luma’at”] It is stated in “Al-Urf ash-Shadhi”: Some hadiths mention the sacrificial animal, some mention fasting three days, and some mention both. Tahawi said: Perhaps she vowed and swore. I say: The obligatory is the sacrificial animal, and fasting three days is a substitute for the sacrificial animal, not the expiation of an oath, as the apparent meaning is that expiation refers to the expiation of a violation, which is the sacrificial animal or its equivalent in fasting, to align the narrations. Tahawi is supported by what is in Abu Dawud from Ibn Abbas mentioning the oath, and I believe it is from Ibn Abbas’s ijtihad, as he knew the question was about the oath fundamentally, as it is not mentioned in the narrations.

(2) The statement: “The sacrificial animal is in place of walking”: Meaning without returning to walking when able. By analogy, he does not fulfill the vow’s obligation if he rides, but he must walk if he can, just as if he vows consecutive fasting and breaks the continuity. However, this is established by text for pilgrimage, so it must be followed. This is what Abu Dawud narrated from the hadith of Ibn Abbas that the sister of Uqbah ibn Amir vowed to walk to the House, and the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) ordered her to ride and offer a sacrificial animal. [Stated in “At-Ta’liq al-Mumajjad”]