Hadith 3479

(1) The statement: “Fulfill your vow, etc.”: Tayyibi (may Allah be pleased with him) said: This is evidence that fulfilling a vow in a specific place is obligatory. The command is for obligation, perhaps this is Shafi’i’s view. We say: It is known from the Shariah that committing to an act of worship is obligatory, and it is not established in the Shariah that a servant’s specification of a place for worship is considered. Rather, that is known for Allah, the Exalted. Thus, the obligation of the essence of the act of worship by committing to it does not extend to the obligation of specifying a place, so it is nullified, and what remains obligatory is the act of worship itself. Thus, the command in the hadith is for permissibility. [Taken from “Al-Mirqat”] It is stated in “Radd al-Muhtar” in the book of sacrifice: Know that a sacrificial animal is a term for what is slaughtered at a specific time, and the time is not nullified. If one vows it, he must perform it at that time, otherwise he has not fulfilled the vowed act, as it is not called a sacrificial animal afterward. Hence, it is given as charity alive if its time passes, unlike if one vows to slaughter a sheep at a specific time, where mentioning the time is nullified, as it is an additional attribute to the sheep’s essence. Hence, our scholars nullified specifying time and place, unlike a sacrificial animal, as the time is part of its concept, so it must be considered. Similarly, if one vows a sacrificial sheep, they said: He fulfills the obligation only by slaughtering it in the sanctuary and giving it as charity there, although they said: If one vows to give a dirham as charity to the poor of Mecca, he may give it to others. This is because a sacrificial animal is a term for what is offered to Mecca and given as charity there, so the place is part of its concept, like time in a sacrificial animal. If he gives it as charity outside Mecca, he has not fulfilled what he vowed, unlike vowing to give a dirham as charity there, as the place is not part of the dirham’s concept. A dirham is a dirham whether given as charity in Mecca or elsewhere, unlike a sacrificial animal. Thus, the validity of the tenth day and the obligation to slaughter it on the days of sacrifice are clear. The author of “Radd al-Muhtar” said: Seize this noble benefit, which is a result of my humble thought, as I have not seen it in any book, and praise be to Allah, the Sovereign, the Bestower.

(2) The statement: “He said: Pray here, etc.”: Ibn al-Humam said: If one vows two rak’ahs in the Sacred Mosque and performs them in a less noble place or one with no nobility, it suffices. [Stated in “Al-Mirqat”] It is stated in “Al-Alamgiriyyah”: Our scholars differed about one who vows fasting or prayer in a specific place. Abu Hanifah and Muhammad said: He may fast and pray in any place he wishes. [Stated in “As-Siraj al-Wahhaj”] Tahawi preferred it, and its evidence is mentioned in “Sharh Ma’ani al-Athar.” It is stated in “Ad-Durr al-Mukhtar” in the book of oaths: Because an unsuspended vow is not restricted to anything. Its detail is in “Radd al-Muhtar”: A vow for retreat, pilgrimage, prayer, fasting, or others, unsuspended, even if specified, is not restricted to time, place, dirham, or poor person. If one vows to give charity on Friday in Mecca with this dirham to so-and-so and violates it, it is valid. Likewise, if he advances it before, or specifies the month of retreat or fasting and advances it, it is valid. Similarly, if he vows to perform pilgrimage in a specific year and performs it in a prior year, or prayer on a specific day and prays it before, as it is advancing after the cause, which is the vow, so the specification is nullified. This is unlike a suspended vow, which cannot be advanced before the condition’s occurrence. The difference is that a suspended vow does not form a cause immediately, as established in principles, but upon the condition’s occurrence. If advancing it were permissible, it would occur before its cause, which is not valid. It is clear from this that in a suspended vow, the time is specified regarding advancing, but delaying it is apparently permissible, as there is no issue in it. It is also clear that the place, dirham, and poor person are not specified, as the suspension only affects the formation of causality, preventing advancing and specifying the time. The place, dirham, and poor person remain on the default of non-specification. Just as the poor person is not specified, their number is not specified. It is stated in “Al-Khaniyah”: If he says: “If I marry my daughter, a thousand dirhams of my wealth are charity, one dirham for each poor person,” and he marries her and gives the thousand to one poor person entirely, it is valid.