the Hajj of Islam and its 'Umrah, or a vowed [Hajj or 'Umrah], then her husband has no right to prevent her from proceeding with it, nor to force her to exit from it (tahlil), according to the statement of the majority of scholars. Among them are Ahmad (1), al-Nakha'i, Ishaq, the scholars of opinion (ashab al-ra'i), and al-Shafi'i in his most correct of two opinions (2). In his other opinion, he said: He does have the right to prevent her, because in his view, Hajj is [an obligation to be performed] over an extended period (tarakhi), and thus it is not fixed to this specific year. This is not correct, for the obligatory Hajj becomes fixed upon beginning it, becoming like the prayer when one enters into it at its earliest time, or the making up of Ramadan once one has begun it. Furthermore, the right of the husband is continuous and permanent; if he possessed the right to prevent her in this year, he would possess it in every year, which would lead to the abandonment of one of the pillars of Islam, unlike the waiting period ('iddah), as it does not continue indefinitely. As for if she enters into ihram for a supererogatory (tatawwu') Hajj, he has the right to force her to exit it and to prevent her from it, according to the manifest statement of al-Khiraqi. Al-Qadi said: He does not have the right to force her to exit, because Hajj becomes binding upon commencing it, so the husband does not possess the authority to force her to exit it, like a vowed Hajj. It was narrated from Ahmad, regarding a woman who swears an oath to fast or to perform Hajj, and she has a husband: She has the right to fast without her husband's permission. What can she do! She has been afflicted, and her husband has been afflicted. Our position is that this is a supererogatory act that causes the loss of another's right over her, which she entered into without his permission, so he possesses the right to force her to exit it, like a slave woman who enters into ihram without her master's permission, or a debtor who enters into ihram without the permission of the creditor to whom she is in debt, in a manner that prevents her from fulfilling a current debt owed to him. Also, the waiting period ('iddah) prevents one from proceeding in ihram for the right of Allah the Almighty, so the right of a human being takes precedence, for his right is more restricted due to his stinginess and need, whereas Allah the Almighty is generous and self-sufficient. The words of Ahmad do not address the place of contention, and it is inconsistent with it in two respects: Firstly, it is regarding fasting, and the impact of fasting on preventing the husband's right is minimal, as it is only during the day and not the night. If she were to swear an oath regarding Hajj, he would have the right to prevent her, because Hajj does not become fixed in an oath of stubbornness or anger, rather he is given the choice between performing it or offering expiation, so he may prevent her from it before her ihram in any case, unlike fasting. Secondly, fasting, once it becomes obligatory, becomes like a vow, unlike the case we are in, and commencing it here is in a manner not