[The Ruling on Performing Ṭawāf, Saʿy, and Stoning from the Second Level and Above]

Answer—and Allah grants success: What is superior is to perform Ṭawāf around the House from the ground level. It is not appropriate to perform Ṭawāf from the second or third level of the Ḥaram except in cases of necessity.
I consider among the necessities the severe intermingling of women with men such that a woman cannot avoid it due to the intensity of the crowd. In such a case, there is no harm in a woman performing Ṭawāf from the second level of the Ḥaram.
If it be said: One who performs Ṭawāf from the second or third level is not circumambulating the House itself, but rather the sky above the Ancient House—with the House beneath him.
We say: The ruling of the space above the Kaʿbah is the ruling of the Kaʿbah itself—evidenced by the validity of praying atop the high mountain peaks surrounding Makkah and other lofty mountains, without any notable disagreement among the scholars of the Muslims.
And in al-Sahrah and marginalia: “His Ṭawāf is from within the mosque even if upon its roofs.” End quote. (Adopted) (Í).
As for stoning the jamarāt from atop the bridge, this is not called “stoning” in the sense described by the scholars of the madhhab and others. That is because one throwing from above merely drops the pebble so that it descends to the bottom, or he throws it and it strikes the entryway and is then propelled into the target area. There is, however, a way of stoning from above that may be valid: that the thrower stands above the jamarāt and throws directly at the stoning area such that the pebble reaches the target by the force of the throw itself, not by the assistance of the pebble’s downward momentum. Yet this case only occurs for one standing at the aperture that overlooks the jamarāt.
Moreover, there is no necessity in stoning the jamarāt [at peak times]. The weak person and the woman can stone the jamarāt at night, for the crowding at night is light. This differs from Ṭawāf around the House, where crowding is inescapable by night and by day—except on the Day of ʿArafah, when it is somewhat lighter.
As for Saʿy between al-Ṣafā and al-Marwah, we say regarding it what we said concerning Ṭawāf: performing Saʿy from the second or third level is not appropriate except in cases of necessity.
If it be said: It has not been established that the ruling of the space above al-Ṣafā and al-Marwah is like their own ruling, as it has been established concerning the Kaʿbah—so why have you analogized al-Ṣafā and al-Marwah to the Kaʿbah?
We say: True, that has not been established. However, we affirm the validity of Saʿy between them from another angle, namely: that what is obligatory is Saʿy between al-Ṣafā and al-Marwah, and this “betweenness” is realized on the second and third levels.
If it be said: If the ruling of the space above the Kaʿbah is its ruling, and the ruling of the space above the route between al-Ṣafā and al-Marwah is its ruling, then why do you not permit Ṭawāf and Saʿy from above absolutely? Why do you permit it only in cases of necessity?
We say: Ṭawāf and Saʿy from the ground level are known to be valid without doubt or ambiguity. As for Ṭawāf and Saʿy from the second or third level, their validity is not definitively known; rather, it is presumed. It is not permissible to act upon what is presumed in such matters while one is able to act upon what is certain. This is a matter well-established by reason. The Prophet (May Allah bless him and his family and grant them peace) said: “Leave what makes you doubt for what does not make you doubt.” And the scholars of legal theory said: “It is not permissible to act upon conjecture when one is able to act upon knowledge.” And He, Most High, said: “And do not pursue that of which you have no knowledge. Indeed, the hearing, the sight and the heart—about all those [one] will be questioned.” [al-Isrāʾ:36]. And He, Glorified is He, censured conjecture and acting upon it in general, saying: “You follow not except assumption…” [al-Anʿām:148], and other verses in this regard. Therefore, acting on conjecture is a concession relied upon only when acting upon knowledge is difficult.
From here we said: it is not appropriate to perform Ṭawāf and Saʿy from above except in cases of necessity, and we have illustrated necessity by the severe intermingling of women with men such that a woman cannot free herself from the crowding during her Ṭawāf.
It is suitable here to clarify the rationale of necessity. We say: A woman’s intermingling with men [in such crowding] is disobedience, while Ṭawāf around the House is an obligation entailed by entering iḥrām and must be performed in both Hajj and ʿUmrah. The scholars have said: leaving an act of obedience is preferable to committing an act of disobedience. Indeed, they have said: it is obligatory to leave an obligation if performing it entails disobedience—such as praying in a usurped house.
From here, the woman is excused from performing Ṭawāf amidst the men—rather, she is prohibited from crowding them. For that reason we said: she should perform Ṭawāf from the second level, where there is no crowding. That is permitted for her due to the necessity we have mentioned, and likewise for Saʿy.
If it be said: Does the obligation of performing Hajj fall from a woman if she cannot complete Hajj except with severe crowding during Ṭawāf and Saʿy?
We say: The preferable view is that the obligation of performing Hajj does not fall from her for that reason. She can avoid the sin of crowding. She may perform Ṭawāf and Saʿy of arrival (qudūm) on the Day of ʿArafah, or from the second level. She can also perform Ṭawāf al-Ziyārah from the second level, and likewise Ṭawāf al-Wadāʿ and the ʿUmrah.
Source : Min Thimār al-ʿIlm wa al-Ḥikmah vol.1