Islamic Fiqh > Hajj and umra > Ihram, miqat and the talbiya > Ihsar: the blocked pilgrim and his offering
Contents
Updated on 24 September 2026 at 7:46 PM
The ihsar is the state of being prevented from completing the Hajj or the Umrah for which one has entered the state of ihram. Jurists have examined in detail the causes of such prevention, the permission it grants to leave the state of ihram (tahallul), the way this exit is performed and what remains due afterwards. The six sheets gathered here come from the chapter devoted to ihram and cover all of these questions.
Jurists have differed over the prevention that brings ihsar about: does it include prevention by an enemy as well as prevention by illness and similar causes, or is it specific to being blocked by an enemy? The majority of jurists, namely the Malikis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis according to the madhhab position, hold that one whose access to the House is impossible without an enemy blockade, whether because of illness, lameness, the loss of his funds or a similar cause, may not on that account leave the state of ihram. They draw on the Book, the reports and reason.
As for the Book, Allah, the Most High, says:
"If you are prevented, then [sacrifice] an offering that is easy for you."
Surah Al-Baqarah, 196
Imam al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) comments: "I have not heard anyone differ over this, among those whose accounts I memorized and whom I met among the people of learning in exegesis: this verse was revealed at Hudaybiyyah, and it was a blockade by an enemy. The prevention was therefore Allah's permission, the Most High, to the one it befalls, to slaughter whatever offering is easy for him. Then the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) showed that the one whom prevention permits to leave the state of ihram is the one blocked by an enemy. I therefore hold that the verse, which commands completing the Hajj and the Umrah for Allah, is general to every pilgrim and every performer of Umrah, except the one Allah excepted; then the Messenger of Allah legislated in this matter the blockade by an enemy, and in my view the sick person is among those covered by the verse's generality" (Al-Umm, 2/163).
As for the reports, it is established through several chains that Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him and his father) said:
"There is no prevention except prevention by an enemy. As for one whom illness, pain or straying from the way befalls, nothing is due from him. Allah has said: 'once you are in safety'."Reported by al-Shafi'i in his Musnad (1/367), authenticated by al-Nawawi in al-Majmu' (8/234) and by al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar in Talkhis al-Habir (2/288)
The same meaning is transmitted from Ibn Umar, al-Zuhri, Tawus and Zayd ibn Aslam in similar terms. Malik reported in al-Muwatta (1/362), and al-Shafi'i in his Musnad (1/124), from Yahya ibn Sa'id, from Sulayman ibn Yasar, that Abdallah ibn Umar, Marwan ibn al-Hakam and Ibn al-Zubayr issued a fatwa to Ibn Hudhabah al-Makhzumi, whom illness had struck on part of the road to Mecca while he was in ihram: that he should treat himself with what he could not do without and pay a compensation; once recovered, he performs an Umrah and leaves his ihram, and it then becomes due upon him to perform the Hajj the following year and offer a sacrifice (al-Bayhaqi, 5/220).
As for the argument of reason, al-Shirazi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "If he enters ihram and illness blocks him, he is not permitted to leave that state, for leaving it does not free him from the harm he is in; he is like one who has lost his way" (al-Muhadhdhab, 1/235).
The Hanafis, as well as Imam Ahmad according to the narration chosen by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him), hold that ihsar is realized by an enemy and by other causes alike: illness, the ruin of funds, or the death on the way of the woman's mahram or of her husband. They cite the generality of Allah's words: "If you are prevented, then...", for ihsar is prevention, and prevention may come from illness and other causes just as it comes from an enemy. Consideration is given to the generality of the wording, not to the specificity of the cause, for in the case of the one prevented by illness the ruling follows the wording, not the cause.
Al-Kasani (may Allah have mercy on him) transmits the view of al-Kisa'i and Abu Mu'adh: prevention comes from illness and blockage from an enemy, and on this basis the verse would be specific to the one prevented by illness. As for Allah's words "once you are in safety", the answer to the objection they raise comes in two points.
It is also reported that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said:
"Whoever suffers a fracture or becomes lame, let him leave the state of ihram, and the Hajj will be due upon him the following year."Authentic hadith reported by Abu Dawud (1862), al-Tirmidhi (940) and Ibn Majah (3077)
The word "he leaves" means that it becomes permissible for him to leave the state of ihram without a blood offering, since no legal permission was granted to that effect. The phrasing resembles the Prophet's words (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "When night comes from here and day departs from there, the fasting person has broken his fast" (an authentic hadith cited earlier), whose meaning is that breaking the fast becomes permitted to him; likewise here the meaning is that leaving the state of ihram becomes permitted to him.
If prevention were restricted to the enemy, one of the very features grounding this exit is nevertheless found in illness and other causes: the need for relief and ease in the face of the harm and hardship that keeping him in ihram a long time brings about. That need is fully realized in the sick person and his like, so ihsar is realized and its cause is established, indeed with stronger reason. For a man can ward off the enemy's evil from himself by fighting and so remove the prevention, whereas he cannot ward off illness from himself; since that was accepted as an excuse, it is more fitting that this be accepted as an excuse too, and Allah knows best (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 3/191-192).
Al-Zayla'i (may Allah have mercy on him) adds: even if prevention were specific to an enemy, as al-Shafi'i claimed, illness is embraced by indication; for leaving ihram was only legislated to repel the hardship arising from prolonged ihram, and the hardship of enduring it while ill is greater still, which makes leaving all the more fitting. The proof of this sound meaning is that the one blocked by an enemy may return to his family without leaving the state of ihram, enduring it until the fear subsides; if he then reaches the Hajj, well and good, otherwise he leaves through an Umrah. Yet he was only permitted to leave out of necessity, so that prolonged ihram would not become oppressive: he is thus like the sick person (Tabyin al-Haqa'iq, 2/78 ; cf. Mukhtasar Ikhtilaf al-Ulama, 2/187 ; Ahkam al-Quran by al-Jassas, 1/334 ; al-Mabsut, 4/108 ; al-Istidhkar, 4/170 ; al-Tamhid, 15/194-201 ; Bidayat al-Mujtahid, 1/478 ; Tafsir al-Qurtubi, 2/371-375 ; al-Majmu', 8/222 ff. ; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 1/532 ; al-Mughni, 4/510 ; al-Ikhtiyar, 1/177 ; al-Insaf, 1/177 ; Sharh Ibn Batal, 4/457 ; al-Hawi al-Kabir, 4/357-360).
The rulings of ihsar fall under two matters: tahallul, that is, leaving the state of ihram, and what becomes due upon the blocked pilgrim after that exit. Linguistically, tahallul is a person's doing what brings him out of the state of inviolability (al-Misbah al-Munir, entry "halla"). In technical usage it is the dissolution of ihram and departure from that state by the way laid down in the Law (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 3/195).
Once the condition of ihsar is fulfilled, leaving the state of ihram becomes permissible for the blocked pilgrim by the agreement of the scholars, each according to the causes he counts as realizing legal ihsar. The default rule in ihram is the obligation to press on with the rite one entered it for, not leaving it until one has completed what occasioned it, by Allah's words:
"And complete the Hajj and the Umrah for Allah."
Surah Al-Baqarah, 196
The blocked pilgrim's leaving is nevertheless an exception to this rule, sanctioned by the legal evidence of Allah's words: "If you are prevented, then...". Al-Kasani (may Allah have mercy on him) explains that the statement is understood with an implied clause: "If you are prevented from completing the Hajj and the Umrah, and you wish to leave the state of ihram, then slaughter whatever offering is available to you"; for ihsar by itself does not entail an offering. The proof of this reading is precisely that ihsar does not suffice to impose an offering: the blocked pilgrim may remain in ihram as he was until the obstacle departs, as in Allah's words: "Whoever among you is ill or has an ailment of the head must pay a compensation"; the one with an ailment of the head shaves for a compensation, otherwise the ailment alone entails nothing.
The blocked pilgrim moreover needs tahallul: he is prevented from continuing his rite in a way he cannot repel, and were he not permitted to leave, he would remain in ihram, barred from what ihram bars, until the obstacle departs, with the harm and hardship one can imagine. The need to leave in order to repel harm therefore stands, whether the prevention concerns the Hajj, the Umrah or both, according to the majority of scholars, contrary to Malik, and Allah knows best (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 3/195-196). The Sunna also proves the blocked pilgrim's leaving through the deed of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) himself: he left the state of ihram and commanded his Companions to do the same in the year of Hudaybiyyah, when the polytheists had barred them from performing Umrah at the Ancient House, as seen in the authentic hadiths cited earlier.
The first element is the intention of tahallul. That intention, in the broad sense, is the starting point of this exit, and thus a condition for the blocked pilgrim's leaving, is agreed upon; the disagreement begins beyond it. The Shafi'is and the Hanbalis require the intention of leaving at the slaughtering of the offering: the one who slaughters must intend to leave the state of ihram by that slaughtering, for the offering may be slaughtered for leaving or for something else; the intention is therefore necessary to distinguish between the two, and he then shaves his head.
Ibn Qudamah (may Allah have mercy on him) explains: "Whoever performs the acts of the rite has done what is due to him, and leaves the state of ihram by completing them, hence his need for the intention" (al-Mughni, 4/505). Likewise, the intention of leaving is required at the shaving, according to the soundest view among the Shafi'is, who hold that shaving is a rite and a condition for the leaving to take place, on the same basis as the intention required at the slaughtering (al-Wasit, 2/707 ; Rawdat al-Talibin, 3/175 ; al-Majmu', 7/35 ; Sharh al-Minhaj, 2/148 ; Nihayat al-Muhtaj, 2/476 ; Kashshaf al-Qina', 2/455 ; al-Kafi, 1/625-626).
The Malikis, for their part, hold that the intention of leaving, on its own, is the pillar of leaving the state of ihram, with no shaving or offering required alongside it, and that nothing other than intention can substitute for it. Thus, one who slaughters the offering and shaves without intending to leave has not left the state of ihram, according to the sound position of the school (Hashiyat al-Dasuqi 'ala al-Sharh al-Kabir, 2/94 ; Mawahib al-Jalil, 3/198 ; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 2/392-393 ; Manh al-Jalil, 2/394 ; Sharh al-Zurqani, 2/335).
The Hanafis said: if the pilgrim is blocked in a Hajj or an Umrah, and likewise if he is in ihram for both, and he wishes to leave the state of ihram, he must send the offering, or its price to buy an animal that will be slaughtered on his behalf (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 3/196 ; Lubab al-Manasik and its commentary al-Maslak al-Muntaqat, p. 276).
The majority of jurists, the Hanafis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis, together with the more numerous position among the Malikis, hold that slaughtering the offering is obligatory upon the blocked pilgrim so that he may leave his state of ihram; if he sends only its price and buys the animal, he does not leave until he has slaughtered it, by Allah's words: "If you are prevented, then...". The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), on the day of Hudaybiyyah, neither left the state of ihram nor shaved his head until he had slaughtered his offering, which shows that slaughtering an available offering is among the conditions of the blocked pilgrim's exit.
The Malikis, according to the madhhab position, hold that the blocked pilgrim leaves by intention alone, as mentioned, and that slaughtering the offering is not due from him: it is a sunnah, not a condition. This leaving is indeed sanctioned, free of negligence and of the introduction of a deficiency, so no offering is entailed, an offering being in principle the consequence of completing the Hajj. Moreover, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) left his blockage in the year of Hudaybiyyah without an offering: the offering he had driven was for his Umrah, not for his blockage; he slaughtered it upon the original intention and left the blockage without a blood offering, which shows that the blocked pilgrim may leave without an offering.
In support of this: in the hadith of the truce of Hudaybiyyah it is not reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) slaughtered two offerings, but only one; had the blocked pilgrim been unable to leave except by a slaughter, he would have slaughtered two offerings, which is inconceivable. Al-Kasani (may Allah have mercy on him) replies, however, that the hadith contains nothing showing that the Prophet left his blockage without an offering: it is inconceivable of him that he leave his blockage without one, Allah, the Most High, having commanded the blocked pilgrim, by explicit text of the Noble Book, not to leave until he slaughters his offering.
The sound meaning, and Allah knows best, which is the meaning of the report of the truce of Hudaybiyyah, is that the offering the Prophet drove was an offering of tamattu' or of qiran: when he was prevented from the House, the blood of the qiran fell from his charge, and it became permissible for him to count it as the offering of his blockage. What confirms that the Prophet assigned his offering to his blockage is that he did not shave until he had slaughtered it, and his words: "O people, slaughter and leave the state of ihram" (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 3/197-198 ; cf. al-Hidayah, 2/297 ; Mawahib al-Jalil, 3/198 ; Hashiyat al-Dasuqi, 2/94 ; Tafsir al-Qurtubi, 2/351 ; al-Muntaqa, 2/273 ; al-Majmu', 8/267 ; al-Mughni, 4/506).
Stipulating a condition in ihram means that the pilgrim states, upon entering it: "Here I am for Hajj, O Allah, here I am for a Hajj or an Umrah, unless something I cannot overcome prevents me; my leaving the state of ihram will be wherever You hold me back." The jurists have differed over the validity of this stipulation in ihram.
The Hanafis and the Malikis hold that the stipulation in ihram is invalid: the one who makes it proceeds with his ihram and must complete it to its term according to the sunnah, and the formula "my leaving will be wherever You hold me back" avails him nothing. Salim ibn Abdallah ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) reported from his father that he disapproved of stipulations in the Hajj and said:
"Is the sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) not enough for you? If one of you is prevented from the Hajj, let him perform the tawaf of the House and between Safa and Marwah, then leave the state of ihram entirely; he will perform the Hajj the following year, offering a sacrifice, or fasting if he finds no animal to slaughter."Reported by al-Bukhari (1715)
This report and its discussion are cited in Mukhtasar Ikhtilaf al-Ulama (2/96), Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari by Ibn Batal (7/185-186), al-Istidhkar (4/410), al-Sharh al-Kabir (2/97) and Tafsir al-Qurtubi (2/375).
The Shafi'is, according to the soundest view of their school, and the Hanbalis hold that whoever stipulates at the outset of his ihram that he will leave if he falls ill, loses his funds or they run out, falls into ritual impurity or the like, or who says: "If a withholder holds me back, my leaving the state of ihram will be wherever You hold me back," may leave as soon as that condition occurs, with nothing due from him: no offering, no making-up, nor anything else. The condition does indeed take effect in acts of worship; the proof is that if he said: "If Allah heals my sick one, I shall fast a month, consecutively or separately," he would be bound by what he stipulated. What spares him the offering and the making-up is that whoever stipulates a condition, his ihram, performed while the condition exists, places him in the position of one who has completed the acts of the Hajj in full.
The basis of all this is the hadith of Duba'ah bint al-Zubayr. Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) reported that:
The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) entered upon Duba'ah bint al-Zubayr and said to her: "Do you wish to perform the Hajj?" She said: "By Allah, I am never without pain." He said to her: "Perform the Hajj and stipulate a condition; say: O Allah, my leaving the state of ihram will be wherever You hold me back."Reported by al-Bukhari (4801) and Muslim (1207)
This hadith and the rulings surrounding it are cited in Al-Umm (2/158), al-Hawi al-Kabir (4/360), al-Majmu' (8/236-247), Sharh Sahih Muslim (8/137), Mukhtasar Khilafiyat al-Bayhaqi (3/259), Mughni al-Muhtaj (1/534), Nihayat al-Muhtaj (2/475), al-Mughni (4/511), Sharh al-Zarkashi (1/478) and al-Insaf (4/72).
The jurists agree that the blocked pilgrim must make up the rite he was prevented from, if that rite was obligatory; ihsar does not remove this obligation, it only granted him permission to leave the state of ihram. As for one blocked from a voluntary rite, the majority of jurists, contrary to the Hanafis, hold that he owes no making-up. The Hanafis, and Imam Ahmad according to one narration, hold that making up the voluntary rite from which the pilgrim was blocked is due.
The cause of the disagreement is the question of whether the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) made up the Umrah of Hudaybiyyah. The majority answer: when he returned from the House in the year of Hudaybiyyah, he ordered no one among his Companions or those with him to make anything up or to return for anything, and nothing of the sort was transmitted from him; nor did he say the following year that his Umrah was a making-up of the one in which he had been blocked, nor was that reported from him. That Umrah was called the Umrah of making-up (umrat al-qada) because the Messenger of Allah settled with Quraysh and made peace with them that year on returning from the House, firmly intending to come back the following year.
The Hanafis answer that the Prophet's Umrah in the year following Hudaybiyyah was indeed the making-up of that blocked Umrah, which is why it was called the Umrah of making-up (Sharh Fath al-Qadir, 3/138 ; Mawahib al-Jalil, 2/205 ; Sharh al-Zurqani, 2/351 ; Ahkam al-Quran by Ibn al-Arabi, 1/174 ; al-Tamhid, 15/212 ; al-Hawi al-Kabir, 4/353 ; Tafsir al-Qurtubi, 2/376 ; al-Majmu', 8/231 ; al-Mughni, 4/493 ; al-Kafi, 1/462).
Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) adds a synthesis: "As for ihsar, whoever meets with what prevents him from completing his Hajj or his Umrah, whether he is a qarin or a mutamatti', be it an enemy, an illness, a fracture, taking a wrong road, an error in sighting the crescent, imprisonment or anything else, is a blocked pilgrim. If he stipulated upon entering ihram, as we have mentioned, that his place of leaving would be wherever Allah held him back, let him leave his ihram and nothing is due from him, whether he began the acts of the Hajj or the Umrah or had not yet begun them, whether near or far, whether more than half of their obligations passed him or less; all of that is the same, with no offering nor anything else in it, and no making-up is due from him in any of it, unless he has never performed Hajj or Umrah at all, in which case he must perform both. If he did not stipulate, as we have mentioned, he leaves as well, all the same and without difference, but an offering is necessarily due from him, as with the offering of tamattu'; fasting or anything else cannot substitute for this offering, and whoever does not find it owes it as a debt until he finds it; no making-up is due from him either, unless he has never performed Hajj or Umrah, in which case he must perform both" (al-Muhalla, 7/203).