Islamic Fiqh > Hajj and umra > The pillars and obligations of hajj > Conditions of validity and the mawaqit
Contents
Updated on 24 September 2026 at 7:46 PM
This dossier covers the fourth condition for the validity of Hajj: the spatial miqat, that is, the places whose time the Lawgiver has fixed, with the five stations of ihram, their evidence from the Sunna and the consensus, and their rulings in the four schools: the obligation of ihram upon crossing the miqat, entering the Haram for a purpose other than the nusuk, the miqat of the miqati, the harami and the makki, and then that of the Umrah. The dossier continues with intention on behalf of another, and then Hajj performed for another: its legitimacy and the conditions of the obligation to have it performed.
… of the reports: he deleted the mudaf and established the mudaf ilayh in its place, and once it is established that it is its time, it is not permitted to bring ihram forward to it, just as with the times of the prayers (Mughni al-Muhtaj 2/238; Sharh al-Muhalli 2/91; al-Wasit 2/606; Asna al-Matalib 1/458; al-Majmu' 7/105).
The fourth condition is the spatial miqat: the mawaqit and their rulings. There are places whose time the Lawgiver has fixed, that is, he designated them for performing the pillars of Hajj and Umrah, which are not valid elsewhere: the tawaf takes place in circumambulating the Kaaba, and the sa'i takes place in the course between Safa and Marwa, as will be detailed in its place, Allah willing.
As for the spatial mawaqit of ihram and their rulings, they are as follows in detail. The spatial miqat divides into two: a spatial miqat for ihram for Hajj, and a spatial miqat for ihram for Umrah; the two agree in rulings regarding the afiqi and the miqati, and differ regarding the harami and the makki.
First: the spatial miqat for ihram for Hajj. It varies with the places of residence of people; with respect to the mawaqit, people fall into four categories: the first is the afiqi; the second, the miqati; the third, the harami or makki.
The first category is the miqat of the afiqi, that is, one whose residence is outside the zone of the mawaqit. The jurists agreed that these mawaqit are those that a person may not cross except in ihram, for whoever intends the nusuk, and that they apply to their own people and to whoever passes by them from other than their people. They are:
The evidence for their being fixed as mawaqit of ihram is the Sunna and the consensus. As for the Sunna, it includes:
The people of Medina enter ihram from Dhu al-Hulayfa, the people of Sham from al-Juhfa, and the people of Najd from Qarn. Ibn Umar added: it reached me that the Messenger of Allah said: the people of Yemen enter ihram from Yalamlam.reported by Bukhari 1535 and 1533, and Muslim 1182; "yuhillu" means that he enters ihram raising his voice
The two shaykhs also reported from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them both, that the Prophet:
fixed for the people of Medina Dhu al-Hulayfa, for the people of Sham al-Juhfa, for the people of Najd Qarn al-Manazil, and for the people of Yemen Yalamlam. They are for these people and for whoever comes to them from other than them, of those who intend [Hajj or Umrah]; and whoever is closer than that enters ihram from the place from which he sets out, until the people of Mecca enter ihram from Mecca.reported by Bukhari 1524, 1526 and 1529, and Muslim 1181
Muslim reported from Abu al-Zubayr that he heard Jabir ibn Abdallah, may Allah be pleased with them both, asked about the muhill; he said: I heard him, I think he attributed it to the Prophet:
The place of ihram of the people of Medina is Dhu al-Hulayfa; the other road is al-Juhfa; the place of ihram of the people of Iraq is Dhat Irq, that of the people of Najd is Qarn, and that of the people of Yemen is Yalamlam.reported by Muslim 1183; besides other hadiths
As for the consensus, al-Nawawi, may Allah have mercy on him, said: Ibn al-Mundhir and others said: the scholars agreed on these mawaqit (al-Majmu' 7/171; al-Mughni 4/354; al-Ifsah 1/467; al-Ikhtiyar 1/179; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 2/522; al-Qawanin al-Fiqhiyya 88).
1. The jurists agreed that ihram from these places is obligatory upon whoever passes the miqat intending one of the two nusuk, Hajj or Umrah, and that delaying ihram beyond it is forbidden. Al-Nawawi said: when the afiqi reaches the miqat intending Hajj, Umrah or qiran, it is forbidden for him, by consensus, to cross it other than in ihram; if he crosses it, he is at fault, whether he is from the people of that region or from another, like the Syrian who passes the miqat of the people of Medina (al-Majmu' 7/181; al-Ifsah 1/467).
2. Whoever crosses the miqat intending Hajj, Umrah or qiran while not in ihram has sinned, and it is obligatory upon him to return to it and enter ihram from it. If he returns, no sacrificial animal (dam) is due from him according to the Shafi'is and Abu Yusuf among the Hanafis. Malik said: the return does not cause the sacrificial animal to fall away from him. Abu Hanifa, may Allah have mercy on him, said: if he returns while reciting the talbiyah, the sacrificial animal falls away, otherwise not. If he does not return to the miqat, the sacrificial animal is obligatory upon him by agreement, whether he abandoned the return with an excuse or without one, whether he was knowledgeable and deliberate, or ignorant, or forgetful; but whoever abandons the return for an excuse does not sin by not returning. Among the excuses: fear of missing the standing at Arafah because of the tightness of time, or a painful illness, or fear of missing the caravan, or fear of the road (al-Majmu' 7/181-182; al-Mughni 4/369).
3. Whoever passes two miqats, like the Syrian arriving from Medina, or the Medini who passes Dhu al-Hulayfa and then al-Juhfa: from which of the two does he enter ihram?
The Shafi'is and the Hanbalis held that it is obligatory upon him to enter ihram from the farther miqat: such as the people of Sham, Egypt and the Maghreb, whose miqat is al-Juhfa; if they pass by Medina, it is obligatory upon them to enter ihram from Dhu al-Hulayfa, the miqat of the people of Medina; and if they cross it without ihram until al-Juhfa, they have the ruling of one who crosses a miqat without ihram, by the Prophet's words: "they are for these people and for whoever comes to them from other than them", and because it is a miqat whose crossing without ihram is not permitted for one intending the nusuk, like the other mawaqit.
The Malikis held that, for one who passes two miqats of which the second is his miqat, ihram from the first is recommended to him and not obligatory, because his miqat is ahead of him. The Hanafis held that ihram from the first is preferable for him, and that his delaying to the second, the closer to Mecca, is disliked for him; and, according to the most correct opinion among them, they did not condition that this second miqat be a miqat for him.
The Malikis and the Hanafis argued from the generality of fixing the mawaqit for the peoples of the mentioned regions, and they permitted ihram from either of the two miqats; evidence for this is what is established from Ibn Umar: "he entered ihram from al-Fur'", a place between Dhu al-Hulayfa and Mecca. Ibn Umar, may Allah be pleased with them both, is the narrator of the hadith of the mawaqit: he passed by Dhu al-Hulayfa, the miqat of the people of Medina, without entering ihram from it, and he entered ihram afterwards from al-Fur' (reported by Malik in al-Muwatta 727, with a sahih chain).
The Malikis restricted this rule to anyone other than the Medini, and the practice of the Prophet and the Companions testifies for them: they entered ihram from Dhu al-Hulayfa; according to the Hanafis this is interpreted as doing the preferable (al-Muwatta 1/331; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 2/522; al-Hawi al-Kabir 4/76; al-Umm 2/140; al-Istidhkar 4/42; al-Mughni 4/363-364; Bada'i al-Sana'i 3/162).
4. Ihram before the spatial mawaqit: there is no disagreement that whoever enters ihram before the miqat becomes muhrim, and the rulings of the miqat apply to him. Ibn al-Mundhir, may Allah have mercy on him, said: the people of knowledge agreed that whoever enters ihram before the miqat is muhrim (al-Ijma' 138). But they differed: is ihram from the miqat preferable, or from his town, that is, his homeland?
The Hanafis, and the Shafi'is according to one of the two opinions among them, held that ihram from his homeland is preferable if he feels safe from violating the rulings of ihram, because of what Umm Salama, may Allah be pleased with her, narrated, that she heard the Messenger of Allah say:
Whoever enters ihram for a Hajj or an Umrah from al-Masjid al-Aqsa to al-Masjid al-Haram, his past and future sins will be forgiven, or Paradise becomes obligatory for him.weak hadith, reported by Abu Dawud 1741 and al-Daraqutni 2/283
"Ibn Umar, may Allah be pleased with them both, entered ihram from Iliya" (reported by Abu Malik in al-Muwatta 728, and al-Bayhaqi 2/30; Ibn al-Mundhir said: it is established that Ibn Umar entered ihram from Iliya, meaning Bayt al-Maqdis; Tarh al-Tathrib 5/6). And because of what Abu Dawud and al-Nasa'i reported from al-Su'ib ibn Ma'bad:
I was an Arab Christian man; I became Muslim and came to a man of my clan called Hudhaym ibn Thurmala, and I said to him: here I am, I am eager for jihad, and I have found Hajj and Umrah written upon me: how can I combine them? He said: combine them and slaughter what is easy for you of the hady. So I entered ihram for both together. When I came to al-Udhayb, Salman ibn Rabi'a and Zayd ibn Suhhan met me while I was in ihram for both; one of them said to the other: this is no farther than his mount. It was as if a mountain had been thrown upon me, until I came to Umar ibn al-Khattab. I said to him: O Commander of the Faithful, I was an Arab Christian man, I became Muslim while I was eager for jihad, and I found Hajj and Umrah written upon me; I came to a man of my people who said to me: combine them and slaughter what is easy for you of the hady, and I entered ihram for both together. Umar said to me: you have been guided to the sunnah of your Prophet.sahih hadith, reported by Abu Dawud 1799, al-Nasa'i 2719, and Ibn Khuzaymah in his Sahih 4/357
This is an ihram entered before the miqat. And from Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, concerning the word of Allah, Most High:
"And complete the Hajj and the Umrah for Allah."
Surah al-Baqarah, 196
he said: "their completion is that you enter ihram for both from the outskirts of your home", that is, that you set out on the journey for both from the outskirts of your home (reported by al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan al-Kubra 5/30, Ibn Abi Shaybah 3/125, and al-Hakim 2/303, who said: a sahih hadith according to the condition of the two shaykhs, though they did not publish it; al-Dhahabi agreed; and al-Albani said in al-Da'ifah 1/376: its men are trustworthy; al-Ikhtiyar 1/180; al-Ishraf 1/224; al-Majmu' 7/176).
The Malikis, the Hanbalis and the Shafi'is according to the chosen sahih opinion held that the preferable is ihram from the miqat, because the Prophet performed Hajj and entered ihram from the miqat, and he performed Hajj only once; if ihram from his residence had been preferable, he would have shown it by his action. And because the miqat is one of the two kinds of mawaqit, ihram brought forward before it was disliked, like ihram for Hajj before its months. And because it is deception (taghrir) through ihram and exposure to committing its prohibitions, and it involves hardship for oneself, it was disliked like al-wisal in fasting.
Ibn Qudamah, may Allah have mercy on him, said: our argument is that the Prophet and his Companions entered ihram from the miqat, and they would only do the preferable. If it is said: he only did this to explain the permissibility, we say: the explanation of the permissibility had already taken place by his words, as with the other mawaqit. And if it were so, the Companions of the Prophet and their successors would have entered ihram from their houses, and they would not have agreed to abandon the preferable and choose the lesser, they who are the people of taqwa and virtue, the best of creation, and whose eagerness for merits and degrees is well known (al-Mughni 4/366; see al-Ishraf 1/224; al-Majmu' 7/176; Sharh al-Umdah 2/363; Sharh al-Zarkashi 1/467; Kashshaf al-Qina' 2/405; al-Mudawwanah 2/363; Mawahib al-Jalil 3/18; al-Ifsah 1/468; Sharh Ibn Batal 4/198; Tafsir al-Qurtubi 2/366).
Whoever passes the mawaqit wanting to enter the Haram for a need other than the nusuk: the people of knowledge differed over whether ihram is required of him or not. The majority of jurists, the Hanafis, the Malikis, the Hanbalis according to the madhhab, and the Shafi'is according to one opinion, held that ihram with one of the two nusuk is obligatory upon him and that it is not permitted for him to cross the miqat without ihram; for if he had vowed to enter it, ihram would be required of him, and if entering were not obligatory, the vow of entering would not obligate, as with other lands. This is the summary; the detail is as follows.
The Hanafis said: the afiqi who wants to enter the Haram for other than the nusuk, such as merely seeing the place, an excursion or trade, may not cross the miqat except in ihram; for the benefit of fixing the miqat here is that ihram before the mawaqit is permitted by agreement. If the afiqi crosses them without ihram, a sheep is due from him; if he returns and enters ihram from there, the sacrificial animal falls away. If he heads for a place of the halal, such as Khulays or Jeddah, he is permitted to cross without ihram; when he reaches it, he joins its people, and he may then enter the Haram without ihram. They said: this is the device (hila) for one who wants that with a primary intention, as when his aim is Jeddah, for example, to sell or buy; when he is done, he enters Mecca at another time. For if his primary intention were to enter Mecca, and necessity made him pass by the halal, it would not be permitted for him to cross the miqat without ihram (al-Ikhtiyar 1/152; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 2/525; al-Bahr al-Ra'iq 2/343; al-Inayah, Sharh al-Hidayah 3/403; Bada'i al-Sana'i 3/165).
The Malikis said: every legally responsible, free person who wants to enter Mecca enters it only in ihram with one of the two nusuk, obligatorily, and it is not permitted for him to pass beyond the miqat without ihram, unless he is one of those who shuttle back and forth, or returns to Mecca after leaving it for a nearby place, that is, less than the distance of qasr, without staying there long: then it is not obligatory upon him. Likewise, it is not obligatory upon the non-responsible, such as a child and an insane person (al-Sharh al-Saghir 2/15).
The Hanbalis, according to the madhhab, said: it is not permitted for one who wants to enter Mecca or the Haram, or intends a nusuk, to cross the miqat without ihram, except for lawful fighting, given the Prophet's entry into Mecca on the day of the Conquest "with the helmet on his head" (reported by Bukhari 1749), or out of fear, or for a recurring need like the woodcutter and the carrier of provisions, and for hunting, seeking shelter and the like, and for the Makki who shuttles to his village in the halal (Kashshaf al-Qina' 2/402-403; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 1/526).
The Shafi'is according to the madhhab, and the Hanbalis according to one opinion, held that it is permitted for the afiqi to enter the Haram without ihram, but that it is recommended for him to enter ihram, without its being obligatory; for the Haram is one of the two sacred precincts, so ihram is not required for entering it, like the Haram of Medina; and because obligation comes from revealed Law, and the Lawgiver did not state obligating that upon every entrant: the original rule remains. Al-Nawawi, may Allah have mercy on him, said: whoever wants to enter Mecca for a need that does not repeat, such as a visit, trade or a letter, or is a Makki returning from his journey and the like, it is recommended for him to enter ihram; according to one opinion, ihram is obligatory upon him.
Then he said: this is the ruling of one whose entry does not repeat; as for one whose entry repeats, such as the woodcutter, the gatherer of firewood, the hunter, the water-carrier and their like: if we say, for the one whose entry does not repeat, that ihram is not required of him, that is then more preferable; otherwise there are two ways, the madhhab being that it is not required of him. Then he said: the sum is that the madhhab is that ihram for entering Mecca is not obligatory upon one who enters for trade and the like, which does not repeat, nor upon one who enters for a recurring matter like the woodcutter, nor upon the mail carrier and the like. In any case, they stated explicitly that if he crossed the miqat without ihram and then intended the nusuk, his miqat is the place where he is, and he is not charged with returning to the miqat (al-Majmu' 7/10-12, with slight adaptation; al-Tanbih 1/66; al-Mughni 4/372; Mughni al-Muhtaj 1/474).
To this view went Imam al-Bukhari, who said: chapter on entering the Haram and Mecca without ihram; Ibn Umar entered it, and the Prophet only ordered the ihram (ihlal) for one who intends it, and he did not mention it for the woodcutters and others. Then he cited the hadith of Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them both:
The Prophet fixed for the people of Medina Dhu al-Hulayfa, for the people of Najd Qarn al-Manazil, and for the people of Yemen Yalamlam: they are for these people and for every comer who comes to them from other than them, of those who intend [Hajj or Umrah]; and whoever is closer than that enters ihram from the place from which he sets out, until the people of Mecca enter ihram from Mecca.Bukhari 1748
And the hadith of Anas ibn Malik, may Allah be pleased with him:
The Messenger of Allah entered Mecca on the day of the Conquest with his helmet on his head; when he removed it, a man came and said: Ibn Khatal is clinging to the covers of the Kaaba. He said: kill him.Bukhari 1749
Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, said: its sum is that he restricted ihram to whoever intends it, and he argued from the implied meaning (mafhum) of his words in the hadith of Ibn Abbas: "of those who intend", whose implied meaning is that the one who shuttles to Mecca for another purpose is not required ihram (Fath al-Bari 4/59).
The miqati is one who lives in the regions of the mawaqit, or what lies parallel to them, or a place below them up to the Haram surrounding Mecca, such as Qadid, Asfan and Marr al-Zahran. The jurists differed over where he enters ihram.
The Malikis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis held that his spatial miqat for Hajj is his place; if he enters ihram from farther away, he is at fault. The Malikis, however, said: "he enters ihram from his house or his mosque, and he does not delay that", and the better course is that he enter ihram from whichever of the two is farther from Mecca. The Shafi'is and the Hanbalis said: his miqat is the village he lives in, or the halting place (hilla) where he camps if he is a bedouin; if he crosses the village and leaves the settled area toward Mecca and then enters ihram, he is a sinner and the sacrificial animal is upon him for this fault; if he returns to it, the sacrificial animal falls away; likewise if he passes the tents toward Mecca without ihram; and if he is alone in an open wilderness, he enters ihram from his residence. It is recommended for him to enter ihram from the side of the village or the halting place farthest from Mecca, and if he enters ihram from the nearer side, it is permitted.
The Hanafis held that his miqat is the zone of the halal, that is, the whole distance from the miqat to the end of the halal: he may enter ihram from the outskirts of his home, or from any place he wishes of the halal that lies between the outskirts of his home and the Haram. For the halal that lies between the outskirts of his home and the Haram is like one single thing, and his ihram is permitted up to the last parts of the halal, just as it is permitted for the afiqi to enter ihram from the outskirts of his home up to the last parts of his miqat; no compensation is required of him as long as he has not entered the land of the Haram without ihram; and his ihram from the outskirts of his home is preferable.
All of them argued from his words in the hadith of the mawaqit: "and whoever is closer than that enters ihram from the place from which he sets out" (reported by Bukhari 1452 and Muslim 1181). The Malikis interpreted it as his residence and said: "if it is the mosque, it is spacious for ihram, because it is the place of prayer, and because the people of Mecca come to the mosque and enter ihram from it, just as the people of Dhu al-Hulayfa come to their mosque". The Shafi'is and the Hanbalis interpreted it as the village and the halting place he lives in, because he sets out from there. The Hanafis said: everything outside the Haram is like one single place for the miqati, and the Haram is like the miqat for the afiqi; so he does not enter the Haram, if he wants Hajj or Umrah, except in ihram (Bada'i al-Sana'i 3/165; al-Hidayah 2/134; Tabyin al-Haqa'iq 2/8; Radd al-Muhtar 2/526; Mawahib al-Jalil 3/34; Sharh al-Zarqani 2/252; Sharh al-Risalah 1/459; Rawdat al-Talibin 3/40; al-Majmu' 7/171; Nihayat al-Muhtaj 2/392; al-Mughni 2/373; al-Kafi 1/524; Matalib Uli al-Nuha 2/297).
The jurists of the four schools and others agreed that whoever belongs to these two categories, his residence being in the Haram or in Mecca, whether resident or non-resident, that is, staying temporarily, enters ihram for Hajj from the place from which he sets out, by the Prophet's words: "whoever is closer than that enters ihram from the place from which he sets out, until the people of Mecca enter ihram from Mecca" (a sahih hadith, cited above). And because the Companions of the Prophet, when they had annulled their Hajj, received his order and entered ihram from Mecca. Jabir said:
The Prophet ordered us, when we had exited ihram, to enter ihram as soon as we headed for Mina; so we entered ihram from al-Abtah.reported by Muslim 1214
This indicates that there is no difference between the residents of Mecca and others who are in it, such as the mutamatti' who has exited ihram, and one who annulled his Hajj there.
The jurists, however, differed in some details. The Hanafi madhhab: whoever is Makki or whose residence is in the Haram, like the inhabitants of Mina, his miqat for Hajj and qiran is the Haram, and the mosque is preferable, because ihram is an act of worship and performing worship in the mosque is more fitting, like prayer; or the outskirts of his home, or any place he wishes of the Haram: this is an opinion among the Shafi'is for the Makki only.
They argued with the hadith of Jabir cited above, in which: "we entered ihram from al-Abtah"; and with his hadith: "until, on the day of al-Tarwiyah, when we had Mecca behind us, we entered ihram for Hajj" (reported by Muslim 1214 and 1216; al-Mabsut 4/31; Bada'i al-Sana'i 3/168; Sharh Fath al-Qadir 2/428).
The Malikis and the Shafi'is, according to one opinion, distinguished between one who enters ihram for Hajj and one who enters ihram for qiran: they made the miqat of qiran the miqat of the Umrah, whose detail follows. As for one who enters ihram for Hajj while being of the people of Mecca or of the Haram, whether settled there or an afiqi staying temporarily: the settled one, it is recommended for him to enter ihram from Mecca, and from the Sacred Mosque is preferable; if he leaves it and enters ihram from the Haram or the halal, it is contrary to the preferable, with no sin upon him. As for the afiqi: if he has latitude of time, which they expressed as "dhu al-nafas", it is recommended for him to go out to his miqat and enter ihram from it; if he has no latitude of time, he is like the settled one (Mawahib al-Jalil 3/27; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 2/301; Hashiyat al-Adawi 2/45; Hashiyat al-Dasuqi upon al-Sharh al-Kabir 2/230; Minh al-Jalil 2/225; al-Majmu' 7/192; Mughni al-Muhtaj 2/240).
The madhhab of the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis: the harami who is not in Mecca has the ruling of the miqati, that is, he enters ihram from the place where he is.
As for the Makki, that is, the one residing in Mecca, even if not Makki by origin, the Shafi'is have two opinions regarding his miqat for Hajj, whether he is alone (mufrid) or combined (qarin). The sahih of the two: his miqat is Mecca itself, by the Prophet's words: "until the people of Mecca enter ihram from Mecca" (a sahih hadith, cited above). The second: his miqat is the whole Haram, because Mecca and the rest of the Haram are equally inviolable; if he entered ihram after leaving the built-up area of Mecca and did not return to Mecca until after the standing [at Arafah], he would be at fault according to the first opinion, not the second. According to the Hanbalis, he enters ihram for Hajj from Mecca, from the mosque, from beneath the water spout (mizab), and that is the preferable; it is permitted and valid that the one in Mecca enter ihram from the rest of the Haram according to the Hanbalis, as with the Hanafis (al-Majmu' 7/192; Mughni al-Muhtaj 2/240; Hashiyat Umayrah 2/162; Nihayat al-Muhtaj 2/389; al-Mughni 4/358 and 360; Ghayat al-Muntaha with Sharh Matalib Uli al-Nuha 2/397-398).
The spatial miqat of the Umrah is the spatial miqat of Hajj for the afiqi and the miqati. As for whoever is in Mecca, of its people or otherwise, his miqat is the halal, from any place, even beyond the Haram, even by a step: there is no disagreement among the scholars on this. If he entered ihram from the Haram and did not return to the halal before his tawaf, a sacrificial animal is due from him.
Ihram from the halal was required only to combine, in the nusuk, the halal and the haram; for it is of the nature of ihram that the halal and the haram combine in its acts. If the Makki entered ihram for the Umrah from Mecca, and the acts of the Umrah are performed in Mecca, the halal and the haram would not combine in its acts, for all the acts of the Umrah take place in the Haram, unlike Hajj, which requires going out to Arafah, where the halal and the haram combine for him; the Umrah is the opposite, all its acts being in the Haram. Such is the wisdom of legislating ihram.
The jurists, however, differed over the most preferable place for ihram for the Umrah: is it al-Ji'ranah, or al-Tan'im, or are they equal? The majority of jurists, the Malikis according to the madhhab, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis, held that ihram from al-Ji'ranah is preferable, because the Prophet "performed Umrah from al-Ji'ranah" (reported by Bukhari 1901 and 3917), and because it is farther from Mecca (al-Sharh al-Kabir 2/231; Mawahib al-Jalil 3/28; Mughni al-Muhtaj 2/245; al-Mughni 4/4 and 358). The Hanafis held that the preferable is ihram from al-Tan'im, called today the mosque of Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her, because of the hadith of Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her, in which she said: "O Messenger of Allah…".
… part of it is ihram with the intention of nafl, like prayer, unlike fasting, for the time of performing the fast does not accommodate a nafl. This is because Hajj is worship known by acts, not by time: time is therefore its setting, not its criterion; and in such a case, the obligatory is not distinguished from the nafl except by specification.
The Shafi'is and the Hanbalis according to the madhhab held that whoever performs Hajj with the intention of nafl, while the Hajj of obligation or a vow is upon him, his Hajj falls upon the obligatory or the vow; for the intention of nafl is futile, being an addition inconceivable before the original; and once the intention of nafl is void, the unrestricted intention of Hajj remains, and the obligatory is discharged by the unrestricted intention. This is indicated by the fact that the intention of nafl is a kind of folly (safh) before performing the Hajj of Islam, and the prodigal (safih) deserves interdiction (hajr): the intention of nafl was therefore declared futile to realize the meaning of interdiction. The unrestricted intention remains, and the Hajj of Islam may be discharged even without intention, as with the unconscious person whose companions enter ihram for him; the intention of nafl is therefore better (al-Mabsut of al-Sarakhsi 4/151-152; Bada'i al-Sana'i 3/107; Usul al-Bazdawi 1/351; Usul al-Sarakhsi 2/277; al-Fatawa al-Hindiyyah 1/223; Kashf al-Asrar 4/132; al-Furu' 3/269; al-Insaf 1/101).
D. The absence of intention for another: this is a matter of agreement when the one in ihram for Hajj has already performed Hajj for himself; if he intends it for another, his Hajj falls for another by agreement. But if he has not performed for himself the Hajj of Islam and intends it for another, the jurists differed: does his Hajj fall for himself or for another?
The Hanafis, the Malikis and Ahmad, according to one narration, held that it falls for another, though disliked, by the Prophet's words: "each person has only what he intended" (a sahih hadith, cited above). And because the Prophet permitted the Khath'amiyyah woman to perform Hajj for her father without asking whether she had performed for herself or not; likewise the Jahniyyah woman, permitted to perform Hajj for her mother's vow, and another woman, and Abu Razin al-Uqayli and others, as has preceded, without questioning any of them, nor ordering any of them to begin with Hajj for himself.
As for the Khath'amiyyah, although it is apparent that he knew she had performed for herself, because she asked him on the morning of the sacrifice, when he moved from Muzdalifah to Mina, and she was in mufaddah with him, the state of one who had already performed Hajj that year; the other, nothing in her question indicates that he had performed. And because he likened it to repaying a debt by his words: "Do you see: if your father had a debt, would you repay it? He said: yes. He said: the debt of Allah is more worthy of being repaid" (a sahih hadith, cited above), and a man may repay the debt of another before his own.
Furthermore, it is an act that admits deputyship: he may therefore act as deputy for another before performing it for himself, like the repayment of debts, the payment of zakat and the expiations. And because whoever can validly perform Hajj for himself can, in that state, perform it for another, provided no equal obligation is upon him, he may do it for another even though an equal obligation is upon him; its origin is the repayment of debt. And because he has entered ihram for Hajj for a specific person, it does not revert to another; its origin: if he enters ihram for himself, it does not revert to another, for the persistence of an obligation upon him does not prevent him from doing what is not obligatory of its kind; its origin is the fast and the prayer.
They answered the hadith of Ibn Abbas mentioned below, in which: "have you performed Hajj for yourself?", by its being contradictory (mudtarib) between its being stopped at Ibn Abbas and its being raised to the Prophet. And even if the hadith were sound, its sum is that the command to perform Hajj for oneself is a recommendation, given his unrestricted statement in the hadith of the Khath'amiyyah and others: "perform Hajj for your father", without asking her about her own Hajj beforehand; and leaving off questioning in the events of situations takes the place of the generality of address: it therefore indicates its permissibility for another absolutely. The hadith of Shubrumah, mentioned below, indicates the recommendation of giving precedence to one's own Hajj; the reconciliation is thereby achieved, and the priority of the obligatory over the nafl is established along with its permissibility (Mukhtasar Ikhtilaf al-Ulama 2/94-95; al-Mabsut of al-Sarakhsi 4/151; Sharh Fath al-Qadir 3/159; Tabyin al-Haqa'iq 2/88; al-Istidhkar 4/169; al-Dhakhirah 3/197; al-Ishraf upon the questions of disagreement, p. 217; al-Ifsah 1/453-454; al-Mughni 4/345; al-Kafi 1/387).
The Shafi'is and the Hanbalis according to the madhhab held that whoever intends Hajj for another without having performed for himself, his Hajj falls for himself, because of what Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them both, narrated:
The Messenger of Allah heard a man saying: here I am, for Shubrumah. The Messenger of Allah said: who is Shubrumah? He said: my brother or a relative. He said: have you ever performed Hajj? He said: no. He said: then make this one for yourself, and then perform Hajj for Shubrumah.sahih hadith, reported by Abu Dawud 1811, Ibn Majah 2903, Ibn Khuzaymah in his Sahih 4/345, and Ibn Hibban in his Sahih 9/299
A sahih hadith, in that if it is stopped (mawquf), Ibn Abbas has no opponent. Furthermore, Hajj is obligatory in the first year of ability: if his performing it for himself becomes possible, he may not perform it for another, for the first is an obligation and the second a nafl, like one who has a debt being claimed from him and possesses dirhams equal to it: he may spend them only on his debt; likewise everything that must be spent upon an obligation due from him, he may not do it for another.
Furthermore, when he reaches the sacred sites (masha'ir), Hajj becomes fixed upon him, so he may not perform it for another, like one who reaches the line of battle and wants to fight for another.
Ibn Qudamah, may Allah have mercy on him, said: and because he performed Hajj for another before the Hajj for himself, it does not fall for the other, just as if he were a child; and like the one who sets aside zakat, to whom deputyship for another is permitted even though some of it remains due upon him. Here, by contrast, one who has begun the Hajj before completing it may not perform it for another, nor may one who has not circumambulated for himself circumambulate for another; once this is established, he must return what he took of the provision, for the Hajj was not discharged for him, and he is therefore like one who did not perform Hajj (al-Mughni 4/345).
From Imam Ahmad, a narration holds that the ihram is void: it falls neither for himself nor for another. Abu Hafs al-Ukbari said: the ihram is concluded for the one for whom it is made, then the pilgrim reverts it to himself (al-Ifsah 1/453-454; al-Mughni 4/345; Sharh al-Umdah 2/290 and 294; al-Majmu' 7/85; Mukhtasar Khilafiyyat al-Bayhaqi 3/120).
The jurists differed over the ruling of the legitimacy of Hajj on behalf of another: is it permitted for a person to perform Hajj for another who is incapable or deceased, or not? The majority of jurists, the Hanafis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis, held its legitimacy and its admissibility to deputyship. They argued for its legitimacy from the established, well-known Sunnah, and from reason.
As for the Sunnah, among it is the hadith of Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them both:
A woman of Khath'am came in the year of the Farewell Hajj and said: O Messenger of Allah, the obligation of Allah upon His servants in Hajj has overtaken my father, an old man who cannot keep steady on his mount; may I discharge it by performing Hajj for him? He said: yes.sahih hadith, whose takhrij has preceded
And also from Ibn Abbas:
A woman of Juhaynah came to the Prophet and said: my mother vowed to perform Hajj and died before performing it; may I perform it for her? He said: yes, perform Hajj for her. Do you see: if your mother had a debt, would you repay it? Repay the debt of Allah, for Allah is more worthy of being repaid.sahih hadith, whose takhrij has preceded
Besides other hadiths, such as that of Abu Razin al-Uqayli, whose account has preceded.
As for reason: acts of worship are of several kinds: purely financial, like zakat; purely bodily, like prayer; and combining both, like Hajj. Deputyship applies to the first kind in both situations of choice and necessity, the aim being attained by the act of the deputy; it does not apply at all to the second kind, for the aim, which is tiring oneself, is not attained by it. It applies to the third kind in case of incapacity, for the second meaning, which is hardship (mashaqqah) coupled with spending; it does not apply in case of ability, since tiring oneself is absent (al-Hidayah, Sharh al-Bidayah 1/183).
Al-Kamal Ibn al-Humam, may Allah have mercy on him, said: the requirement of analogy would have been that deputyship not apply to Hajj, which contains the two hardships, bodily and financial, and the first is not fulfilled by delegation; but Allah, Most High, granted a concession in its discharge in exchange for bearing the other hardship, namely spending, in case of incapacity persisting until death, as mercy and grace: to pay the expenses of Hajj to one who performs it for him, unlike the state of ability, where he was not excused, for his neglecting it is nothing but preferring his own ease over his Lord's command, deserving thereby punishment, not leniency in discharge. The persistence of the excuse until death was made a condition, for Hajj is an obligation once in a lifetime (Fath al-Qadir 2/310).
Ibn Qudamah, may Allah have mercy on him, said: this is a worship whose corruption requires an expiation: the act of another may therefore stand in place of his act in it, like the fast, which is discharged by a ransom in case of incapacity, unlike prayer (al-Mughni 4/318; Mughni al-Muhtaj 1/468; al-Ifsah 1/453).
The Malikis, according to the adopted opinion, held that Hajj does not admit deputyship, neither for the living nor for the dead, excused or not; for Allah, Most High, said:
"…for whoever can find a way to it."
Surah Ali Imran, 97
and this one is not capable. And because this worship does not admit deputyship in case of ability, it does not admit it in case of incapacity either, like the fast and the prayer. Al-Qarafi, may Allah have mercy on him, said: Malik notes that wealth in it is incidental, as shown by the Makki who performs Hajj without wealth; rather, the presence of wealth in Hajj is like its presence in the Friday prayer for one whose home is far from the mosque, and who buys a mount to reach it; and since the Friday prayer on behalf of another is not permitted, so is Hajj (al-Furuq 3/338-339).
They said: the preferable is that his guardian devote something for him without Hajj, such as giving a gift or charity on his behalf, or supplicating for him (Mawahib al-Jalil 2/543; Hashiyat al-Dasuqi upon al-Sharh al-Kabir 2/18).
The conditions of the Hajj of obligation on behalf of another include first the conditions of the original person for whom Hajj is performed as an obligation. For the obligation of having Hajj performed for a legally responsible person, the majority, contrary to the Malikis, require incapacity to perform the obligation upon him; for if he is able to perform it himself, being sound in body and possessing wealth, the Hajj of another for him is not permitted. Ibn al-Mundhir, may Allah have mercy on him, said: the people of knowledge agreed that whoever owes the Hajj of Islam while able to perform Hajj, the Hajj of another for him does not suffice (al-Ijma' 209). The vowed Hajj is like the Hajj of Islam: it admits deputyship, and it is forbidden in case of ability, for it is an obligatory Hajj (al-Mughni 4/323). And because, if he is able to perform it with his body and possesses wealth, the obligation attaches to his body, not his wealth: wealth is only a condition; the obligation attaching to his body, deputyship does not suffice in it, like purely bodily acts of worship.
Likewise, if he is poor and sound in body, the Hajj of another for him is not permitted, for wealth is one of the conditions of obligation; having no wealth, nothing is obligatory upon him in the first place, so no one acts as deputy for him in performing a duty, since no duty is upon him (Bada'i al-Sana'i 3/287).
Having Hajj performed for the legally responsible person incapable of performing his obligatory Hajj includes the following: