Islamic Fiqh > Hajj and umra > The three forms of hajj: tamattu', qiran and ifrad > Tamattu': the conditions in detail
Contents
Updated on 24 September 2026 at 7:46 PM
Tamattu' (al-mut'ah) means performing the umra and then the hajj in the same season, and it is one of the three rites that Islamic law permits for performing umra and hajj. The jurists laid down a number of conditions for the validity of tamattu' and for the obligation of the sacrificial offering (hady). This page sets them out one by one, with the positions of the four schools, their differences, and the references of the classical works.
(The source resumes here mid-sentence, closing the previous passage:) fulfilling the obligation before its time is not prevented, like deferring the Ramadan fast in the case of travel or sickness, according to the word of Allah:
"... for a number of other days."
Surah al-Baqarah, 185
And because the fast is only incumbent upon its people once its cause exists, so that the makeup suffices him, like the fast of the traveler and the sick (al-Mughni, 5/109 ; al-Hawi al-Kabir, 4/56 ; al-Mabsut, 4/181 ; and the sources cited earlier).
The conditions of tamattu'. The jurists stipulated several conditions for the validity of tamattu'. They are set out as follows:
A. Performing the umra before the hajj. The jurists agreed that the mutamatti' (the one performing tamattu') is required to enter ihram for the umra before entering ihram for the hajj, and to perform the acts of the umra before entering ihram for the hajj. If he enters ihram for the umra and the hajj together from the miqat, or brings the hajj into the umra before starting the acts of either, he becomes a qarin (one who combines the two rites).
The Hanafis, however, said: if he performs four circuits of tawaf for the umra before entering ihram for the hajj, his tamattu' is valid (Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, 2/590 ; al-Fawakih al-Dawani, 1/433 ; Rawdat al-Talibin, 3/46 ; Hashiyat Qalyubi, 2/228 ; al-Mughni, 5/103 ; Kashshaf al-Qina', 2/411).
B. Performing the umra during the hajj months. Tamattu' requires that his umra take place during the hajj months (Shawwal, Dhul-Qa'dah and the first days of Dhul-Hijjah). If he performs umra outside the hajj months, comes out of its ihram before the hajj months, then enters ihram for the hajj, he is not a mutamatti', and this is agreed upon by the four schools.
The jurists, however, differed over the case of one who enters ihram for the umra outside the hajj months, then performs it or part of it during the hajj months, such as one who enters ihram on the last day of Ramadan and performs the pillars of his umra on the first day of Shawwal: is he a mutamatti' or not?
... and he is therefore not a mutamatti', just as if he had performed tawaf outside the hajj months; according to this view no offering is due from him.
According to the second view of the Shafi'is: if he enters ihram for the umra outside the hajj months and performs its acts during the hajj months, he becomes a mutamatti' and the offering of tamattu' becomes obligatory upon him, because his umra falls in the very month in which he performs tawaf, and continuing the ihram during the hajj months is equivalent to beginning it in them (Rawdat al-Talibin, 3/48 ; al-Majmu', 7/150 ; al-Muhadhdhab, 1/208 ; al-Mughni, 5/101 ; Kashshaf al-Qina', 2/413 ; al-Ifsah, 1/466).
C. The hajj and the umra in the same year. The jurists agreed that a condition of tamattu' is that the umra and the hajj be performed in one and the same year. If he performs umra during the hajj months and does not perform hajj that year, but the following year, he is not a mutamatti', even if he remained in ihram until the next year, according to the word of Allah the Most High:
"Whoever enjoys the umra up to the hajj, let him offer whatever offering is easily available to him."
Surah al-Baqarah, 196
This verse implies continuity (muwalah) between the two rites.
"The Companions of the Messenger of Allah used to perform umra during the hajj months; if they did not perform hajj that year, they offered no hady."Reported by Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib
And because the offering is only due for abandoning ihram for the hajj from the miqat, while this man did not abandon ihram for the hajj from the miqat: if he stays in Mecca, Mecca becomes his miqat; if he returns to his town and comes back, he will have entered ihram from the miqat.
Ibn Qudamah, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "If he performs umra during the hajj months and does not perform hajj that year, but the following year, he is not a mutamatti'. I know of no disagreement on this except an anomalous (shadh) view of al-Hasan (al-Basri): whoever performs umra during the hajj months is a mutamatti', whether he performs hajj or not. The majority (jumhur) disagree with this, because Allah the Most High said:"
"Whoever enjoys the umra up to the hajj, let him offer whatever offering is easily available to him."
Surah al-Baqarah, 196
"and this implies continuity between the two rites. And because the scholars agreed that whoever performs umra outside the hajj months and then performs hajj that same year is not in a state of tamattu'; this case is therefore even stronger, with a greater separation between the two rites (al-Mughni, 5/102 ; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, 2/590 ; Tabyin al-Haqa'iq, 2/45 ; al-Istidhkar, 4/99 ; Jawahir al-Iklil, 1/173 ; al-Fawakih al-Dawani, 1/434 ; al-Dhakhira, 3/292 ; al-Majmu', 7/150-151 ; Rawdat al-Talibin, 3/48 ; Kashshaf al-Qina', 2/413)."
D. Not traveling between the umra and the hajj. The jurists' formulations of this condition have varied.
The Hanafis said: it is required that all or most of the tawaf of the umra, and the tawaf of the hajj, take place in a single journey. If the mutamatti' returns to his country after the umra, no offering is due and his tamattu' is void, because he embraced his family in a valid embrace (ilmam), which breaks the rule of the first journey.
If he returned to his family before completing the tawaf, then went back and performed hajj: if most of the tawaf took place in the first journey, he is not a mutamatti'; if most of it took place in the second journey, he is a mutamatti'.
Ibn Abidin, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "This condition is specific to the view of Muhammad, according to what the best-known compendia (al-mashahir) report (Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, 2/590 ; al-Bahr al-Ra'iq, 2/395 ; al-Ikhtiyar, 2/159 ; al-Jawhara al-Nayyira, 2/133 ; Fath al-Qadir, 3/215 ; Ahkam al-Qur'an by al-Jassas, 1/359)."
The Malikis said: it is required that he not return, after his umra, to his country or to a place as far from Mecca as his country. If he returns, he is not a mutamatti', even if his country lies in the Hijaz. But if he returns to a shorter distance than his country and then performs hajj, he is a mutamatti'; unless his country is far away, such as Ifriqiyah: such a person, if he returns to Egypt after performing his umra and before his hajj, then goes back and enters ihram for the hajj, is not a mutamatti' (al-Fawakih al-Dawani, 1/234 ; Mawaheb al-Jalil, 4/82 ; al-Ishraf, p. 222).
The Shafi'is said: it is required that he not return to the miqat. If he returns to the miqat from which he entered ihram for the umra, or to an equivalent distance, and enters ihram for the hajj, he is not a mutamatti' and no offering is due from him, by consensus.
If he had entered ihram for it from Mecca, then went to the miqat in a state of ihram, the waiving of the offering in this case is disputed, like the dispute concerning one who passes the miqat without ihram and then returns to it in ihram.
They said: if he returns to a miqat closer to Mecca than the miqat of his umra and enters ihram from it, as in the case of one whose umra miqat was al-Juhfah and who returned to Dhat Irq, is this like returning to the miqat of his umra? Two views: the first: no, and the offering is due from him. An-Nawawi said: the sounder of the two is: yes, because he entered ihram from a place whose residents are not among the residents of the Sacred Mosque, and this is the choice of al-Qaffal and the verified jurists (al-mu'tabarun). And al-Furani ruled definitively that if he travels after his umra from Mecca on a journey in which prayer is shortened, then performs hajj that year, no offering is due from him (al-Muhadhdhab, 1/208 ; Rawdat al-Talibin, 3/48-49 ; al-Majmu', 7/151).
The Hanbalis said: it is required that he not travel between the umra and the hajj on a long journey whose distance brings the shortening of prayer.
Ibn Qudamah, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "According to what is reported from Umar, may Allah be pleased with him:"
"Whoever performs umra during the hajj months and then stays is a mutamatti'; if he returns, he is not a mutamatti'."Reported from Umar by Ibn Umar; cited by Ibn Hazm in al-Muhalla (7/159)
"And the like is reported from Ibn Umar, may Allah be pleased with both of them. And because, if he returns to the miqat or nearer, ihram becomes obligatory upon him from there; if it is far, he has undertaken a long journey for his hajj and derived no benefit from either of the two journeys, so no offering is due from him, like the case of staying (al-wifaq). The verse addresses the mutamatti', and this man is not a mutamatti', as shown by the saying of Umar (al-Mughni, 5/103 ; al-Ifsah, 1/465-466)." Ibn Hazm cites in al-Muhalla (7/159) the following wording from Ibn Umar, from Umar: "Whoever enters ihram for the umra during the hajj months, then stays until he performs hajj, is a mutamatti'; whoever returns to his family and then performs hajj is not a mutamatti'."
Al-Hasan (al-Basri) and Ibn al-Mundhir said: he is a mutamatti' even if he returns to his country, by the generality of the word of Allah the Most High: "Whoever enjoys the umra up to the hajj, let him offer whatever offering is easily available to him" (Surah al-Baqarah, 196) (al-Mughni, 5/103).
Via Ibn Abi Shaybah: Waki' and Hafs ibn Ghiyath reported it; Hafs said: from Yahya ibn Sa'id, from Nafi', from Ibn Umar; and Waki' said: from Yahya ibn Sa'id, from Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib; both reporters say collectively: whoever performs umra during the hajj months and then returns is not a mutamatti', and that refers to the one who stays without returning. Via Waki': Sufyan al-Thawri, from al-Mughirah; and Yahya ibn Sa'id al-Ansari reported: al-Mughirah said: from Ibrahim al-Nakha'i; and Yahya said: from Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib; both say collectively something like the saying of Umar (al-Muhalla, 7/159).
E. Coming out of the umra ihram before entering ihram for the hajj. The mutamatti' is required to come out of his umra ihram before entering ihram for the hajj. If he brings the hajj into the umra before coming out of it, he becomes a qarin and is not a mutamatti'. This point is agreed upon, in general, among the jurists.
Except that the Hanafis said: this condition applies to the one who does not drive the hady. As for the one who drives it, he does not come out of the umra ihram until he enters ihram for the hajj on the day of Tarwiyah (the 8th of Dhul-Hijjah) or before, as the people of Mecca do; then, when he shaves on the day of sacrifice (yawm al-nahr, the 10th), he comes out of both ihrams (al-Ikhtiyar, 1/158-159 ; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, 2/590 ; Mawaheb al-Jalil, 4/84 ; al-Fawakih al-Dawani, 1/434 ; Mugni al-Muhtaj, 1/514 ; al-Mughni, 5/103 ; al-Insaf, 3/313).
F. Not being among the residents of the Sacred Mosque. Ibn Qudamah, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "There is no disagreement among the people of knowledge that the offering of tamattu' is not due from the residents of the Sacred Mosque, for Allah the Most High stated it explicitly in His Book:"
"That is for those whose family are not present at the Sacred Mosque."
Surah al-Baqarah, 196
"And because the miqat of the resident of the Sacred Mosque is Mecca, so he obtained no enjoyment from either of the two journeys. And because he entered ihram for the hajj from his own miqat, which makes him resemble the mufrid (the one performing hajj alone) (al-Mughni, 5/103-104 ; al-Ikhtiyar, 1/171 ; al-Binaya, 30/657 ; al-Fawakih al-Dawani, 1/435 ; Mugni al-Muhtaj, 1/515)."
They differed, however: is an offering of compensation (jabr), that is, a penalty (jinayah), due or not?
The majority (jumhur), namely the Malikis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis, hold that no offering is due.
The Hanafis said: an offering of compensation (jabr), that is, a penalty (jinayah), is due from him, according to the word of Allah the Most High:
"Whoever enjoys the umra up to the hajj, let him offer whatever offering is easily available to him; but if he cannot find it, then a fast of three days during the hajj and of seven when he returns: those are ten days complete. That is for those whose family are not present at the Sacred Mosque."
Surah al-Baqarah, 196
The verse permitted tamattu' only to those whose family are not among the residents of the Sacred Mosque. And because the mutamatti' was legislated not to embrace his family, and this was not granted to him. And because the stranger (al-gharib), when he performs tamattu', owes an offering, while the Meccan who performs tamattu' owes none: this shows that his rite is deficient compared with the rite of the stranger, so his act is disliked (makruh) for him and the offering is due from him by way of compensation (Fath al-Qadir, 3/11, 14 ; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, 2/564, 595 ; Bada'i al-Sana'i, 3/172 ; al-Ishraf, p. 220 ; Ahkam al-Qur'an by al-Jassas, 1/358 ; al-Mughni, 5/105 ; al-Majmu', 7/143 ; al-Ikhtiyar, 1/171 ; al-Ifsah, 1/463 ; al-Dhakhira, 3/291).
The meaning of the residents of the Sacred Mosque. The jurists differed over who counts among the residents of the Sacred Mosque:
Ibn Hazm set out in al-Muhalla (7/146, 149) an overall demonstration: the resident of the Sacred Mosque is everything upon which the name of the Sacred Mosque falls. He said: as for our view, this ruling concerns the one whose family dwell in the Haram in Mecca; that is because Allah the Most High said: "That is for those whose family are not present at the Sacred Mosque" (Surah al-Baqarah, 196): Allah the Most High did not say the residents of Mecca, but He said the residents of the Sacred Mosque. So the consideration of Mecca falls away here, and it is established that what is meant is only the Sacred Mosque itself.
It is therefore necessary to seek what Allah the Most High intends by His saying the residents of the Sacred Mosque, in order to know upon whom Allah the Most High imposes the offering or the fast if he performs tamattu', and from whom He does not impose it. Now the expression the Sacred Mosque can only refer to one of three possibilities, with no fourth: either Allah the Most High intended the Ka'bah alone, or what its walls enclose only, or He intended the whole of the Haram; for the name of the Sacred Mosque falls only upon these three meanings.
The idea that Allah intended the Ka'bah alone is void: for if that were so, the offering would only be waived for one whose family dwell in the Ka'bah, and this does not exist and has never existed.
The idea that the Prophet, peace and blessings upon him, intended what the walls of the Sacred Mosque enclose only is also void: for the Sacred Mosque was enlarged time after time, and this ruling could then neither be transmitted nor remain stable. And moreover, the ruling would apply only to one whose family dwell in the Sacred Mosque, and this does not exist and has never existed. These two possibilities being void, the third is established of necessity, for nothing else remains.
Moreover, if the name of the Sacred Mosque applies to the whole of the Haram, it is not permissible to restrict this ruling to part of what this name applies to, excluding the rest, without proof. And moreover, Allah the Most High declared His will to us, saying: "Allah wishes to make clear to you" (Surah an-Nisa', 26): if Allah the Most High had intended part of what the name of the Sacred Mosque applies to, excluding another part, He would not have neglected it but would have made it clear; otherwise Allah the Most High would be, Allah forbid, one who burdens us without making clear what He imposes on us, and no Muslim could ever think this.
It is therefore established, since Allah the Most High has not made clear that He intended part of what the name of the Sacred Mosque applies to excluding another part, that beyond doubt He intended everything to which this name applies. And moreover, Allah the Most High says: "Indeed, the polytheists are unclean, so let them not approach the Sacred Mosque after this their year" (Surah at-Tawbah, 28): the scholars did not differ that He intended the whole of the Haram; so it is not permissible to restrict this by mere claim.
It is moreover authentically reported from the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings upon him, through Abu Hurayrah, Jabir and Hudhayfah:
"The earth has been made for me a place of prayer and a means of purification."Reported by Abu Hurayrah, Jabir and Hudhayfah
It is thereby established that the Haram is a mosque, for it is part of the earth: the whole of it is therefore a sacred mosque; it is without doubt the Sacred Mosque. And the residents are the dwellers, excluding those who leave: so it is established that those whose family are among the residents of the Sacred Mosque are those whose family dwell in the Haram.
From Ibrahim ibn Yazid al-Taymi, that his father told him: "I heard Abu Dharr say: I asked the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings upon him, about the first mosque to be established on earth, and he said:"
"The Sacred Mosque."Reported by Abu Dharr
It is therefore established with certainty, without any doubt, that it is the whole of the Haram: for the Ka'bah was not built at that time; rather Ibrahim and Isma'il, upon them be peace, built it afterwards: "And when Ibrahim and Isma'il were raising the foundations of the House" (Surah al-Baqarah, 127), and the mosque around the Ka'bah was only built long after that.
And no one of the ummah disagrees that, if the mosque were ever enlarged until it encompassed the whole of the Haram, it would be called a sacred mosque, and that if what were added were from the profane territory (al-hill), what was added would not be called a sacred mosque: every difficulty is thereby removed, and abundant praise be to Allah.
Ibn Qudamah, may Allah have mercy on him, said: if the outsider (al-afaqi, the one who comes from beyond the mawaqit) enters Mecca in a state of tamattu' intending to reside there after his tamattu', the offering of the mut'ah is due from him.
Ibn al-Mundhir said: all those whose statements we preserve among the people of knowledge agree on this; he explained: they agreed that whoever enters ihram for an umra during the hajj months from beyond the mawaqit, reaches Mecca, completes it, stays there, and then performs hajj that year, is a mutamatti': the offering is due from him if he finds it, otherwise the fast (al-Ijma', 182).
Even if a man's origin and birthplace is Mecca: if he left the city to settle elsewhere, then returns to it in a state of tamattu', whether intending to reside there or not, the offering of the mut'ah is due from him, because he left by breaking his belonging to its people. Such is the view of Malik, al-Shafi'i and Ishaq: presence at the Sacred Mosque is attained only by the intention of residing there and by doing so; and this man only intended to reside after finishing the acts of the hajj, for when he finished his umra he intended to go out for the hajj, so it is as if he only intended to reside after the offering had become due upon him.
But if the Meccan left as a traveler without transferring his residence, then returned, performed umra from the miqat, or entered ihram at the point of shortening (the prayer), and performed hajj that year, no offering is due from him, because this journey did not remove him and his family from the rank of the residents of the Sacred Mosque.
He then said (fasl): this condition is for the offering becoming due; it is not a condition for being a mutamatti': the tamattu' of the Meccan is valid, for tamattu' is one of the three rites and is valid from the Meccan like the other two rites; and because the reality of tamattu' is to perform umra during the hajj months and then perform hajj that year, and this exists in the case of the Meccan.
It is transmitted from Ahmad: "The people of Mecca have no tamattu'"; the meaning is: no offering of mut'ah is due from them, for the mut'ah is for them, not upon them, so his words must be taken in the sense we have mentioned.
He then said (fasl): if the outsider forgoes ihram from the miqat, or enters ihram below it for an umra, then comes out of it and enters ihram for the hajj from Mecca that same year, he is a mutamatti' owing two offerings: the offering of the mut'ah and an offering for entering ihram below his miqat.
Ibn al-Mundhir and Ibn Abd al-Barr said: the scholars agreed that whoever enters ihram during the hajj months for an umra, comes out of it, is not among the residents of the Sacred Mosque, stays in Mecca in a lawful stay, and then performs hajj that year, is a mutamatti' owing an offering.
The Qadi said: whoever passes the miqat until less than the distance of shortening remains between him and Mecca, then enters ihram from there, owes no offering of mut'ah, because he is among the residents of the Sacred Mosque. But this statement is not sound: for presence at the Sacred Mosque is attained only by dwelling there, and this man attained neither dwelling nor the intention of it. And because Allah the Most High said: "That is for those whose family are not present at the Sacred Mosque" (Surah al-Baqarah, 196), which implies that what waives the offering is dwelling there, and this man is not a dweller.
If the outsider entered ihram for an umra outside the hajj months, then stayed in Mecca, performed umra from al-Tan'im during the hajj months and performed hajj that year, he is a mutamatti' owing an offering, and Ahmad stated this explicitly.
His explicit statement of this form is an indication that the offering is due in the first form by the stronger argument (bi-tariq al-awla). The Qadi mentioned that among the conditions for the offering becoming due is intending, from the start of the umra or during it, to be a mutamatti'; the apparent meaning of the text indicates that this is not required, for he did not mention it; likewise the consensus we cited contradicts this view; and because he obtained the enjoyment through the lapse of one of the two journeys, the offering is due from him like one who has no intention (al-Mughni, 5/104-105).
G. Not spoiling the umra or the hajj. The Hanafis stated it explicitly, as did Ahmad in one narration: among the conditions of tamattu' is not spoiling the umra or the hajj. If he spoils either, he is not counted a mutamatti' and the offering of tamattu' is not due from him, because he obtained no enjoyment through the lapse of one of the two journeys.