Islamic Fiqh > Hajj and umra > The pillars and obligations of hajj > The end of the stoning time and the first departure (an-nafar al-awwal)
Contents
Updated on 25 September 2026 at 3:23 PM
This part belongs to the full section: All sections of this part.
The end of the stoning time: according to the Hanafis, until the dawn of the second day; whoever passes that term owes a dam according to Abu Hanifa. According to Abu Yusuf and Muhammad: no dam, unless he delays until the sunset of the last day of Tashriq, the last of the days of the stoning ("Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil", 2/336; "ash-Sharh al-Kabir", 2/48). According to the Malikis, as stated above, passing the sunset entails a dam, as on the day of the sacrifice. According to the Shafi'is and Hanbalis, the time ends at the sunset of the fourth day of the days of slaughter, the last day of Tashriq.
An-nafar al-awwal: after stoning on the second day of Tashriq, the pilgrim may leave Mina for Makkah, if he wishes to hasten his departure, by the word of Allah: "Whoever hastens in 2 days commits no sin" (Surah al-Baqarah, 203): he departs after stoning 2 days of the days of Tashriq and abandons the stoning of the third, called the day of the first departure, and the stoning of that third day falls away by consensus. According to Malik, ash-Shafi'i and Ahmad, he may depart before sunset: if the sun sets before he leaves Mina, he may no longer depart, whether he has struck camp or is staying where he is. Abu Hanifa permits it until the dawn of the fourth day of the days of slaughter, for the time of the stoning of the last day has not yet entered. Ibn Qudama summarizes: the stoning of the second day is like that of the first in its time, its description and its manner, with no known disagreement; whoever wishes to hasten in 2 days leaves before sunset; if the sun sets while he is still there, he does not leave until he has stoned on the morrow after the decline, as he stoned the day before ("al-Mughni", 5/79-81; "Bada'i' as-Sana'i'", 3/89).
The people of science are agreed that whoever wants to leave Mina for outside the Sanctuary may depart after the decline on the second day of Tashriq. Ahmad said he does not approve of one departing on the first departure residing in Makkah. Malik used to say concerning the people of Makkah: whoever has an excuse may hasten in 2 days; but not one who merely wants to lighten his Hajj. One argues by the statement of Umar: "let whoever wishes among all the people depart on the first departure, except the family of Khuzaymah, who depart only on the second departure". Ahmad and Ishaq gave the meaning that "the family of Khuzaymah" are the people of the Sanctuary of Makkah; the madhhab is the permission of the first departure for everyone, the view of most of the scholars, by the word of Allah: "Whoever hastens in 2 days commits no sin, and whoever remains commits no sin, for him who fears" (Surah al-Baqarah, 203). Ata' said: "it is for all the people".
The days of Mina are 3: whoever hastens in 2 days commits no sin, and whoever remains commits no sin.Reported by Ahmad (4/335), Abu Dawud (1949), at-Tirmidhi (889) and Ibn Majah (3015), from Abd ar-Rahman ibn Ya'mur; al-Albani: "its isnad is sahih" ("Sahih Abi Dawud", 1703), also authenticated by Ibn al-Jarud, Ibn Hibban and al-Hakim, with adh-Dhahabi's agreement
Sufyan ibn Uyaynah used to say: "there is no hadith in Kufah nobler or finer than this one", and: "it is the best hadith Sufyan ever narrated". Waki' used to say: "this hadith is the mother of the rites, and it contains an addition I have abbreviated". Since it is a departure from a place, the people of Makkah are like the rest in it, as with the departure from Arafah and from Muzdalifah; and Ahmad's statement aims at recommendation, in agreement with Umar, nothing more. So: whoever wishes to hasten departs before sunset; if the sun sets before he leaves Mina, he may no longer depart, whether he has struck camp or stays: this is the view of Umar, Jabir ibn Zayd, Ata', Tawus, Mujahid, Aban ibn Uthman, Malik, ath-Thawri, ash-Shafi'i, Ishaq and Ibn al-Mundhir. Abu Hanifa permits it until the dawn of the third day, for the same reason as above. Our proof: the verse, the day being the name of the daytime; whoever is overtaken by the night has not hastened in 2 days. Ibn al-Mundhir reports from Ibn Umar: "whoever is overtaken by the evening on the second day, let him stay until the morrow and depart with the people"; and their analogy does not resemble our case, for this is a hastening in 2 days ("al-Mughni", 5/79-80).
Stoning the 3 jamarat is obligatory on this day for whoever has stayed and not performed the first departure; its time is after the decline according to the majority, as stated above; Abu Hanifa and Ahmad in one narration permit advancing it before the decline after dawn. They agree that the end of the time of the stoning on this day is sunset, and that the time of the stoning of this day and the makeup of what precedes also extends to the sunset of the fourth day, for the time of the rites ends at its sunset. Ibn Abd al-Barr writes: "the scholars are agreed that whoever does not stone the jamarat during the days of Tashriq until the sun sets on the last of them stones no more afterward, and is compensated by blood or food according to their differences" ("al-Istidhkar", 4/357; "at-Tamhid", 17/255-256). Ibn Rushd says the like.
On the compensation: Malik says that whoever abandons the stoning of all the jamarat, part of them or one of them owes a blood. Abu Hanifa: if he abandons them all, a blood; if he abandons one jamra or more, a feeding of half a sa' of wheat to a poor person for each jamra, up to a blood if he abandons all except the jamra al-'Aqaba, whose abandonment entails a blood. Ash-Shafi'i: a mudd of food per pebble, 2 mudds for 2 pebbles, and a blood for 3 pebbles ("Bidayat al-Mujtahid", 1/477; "al-Mudawwana al-Kubra", 2/419-420; "adh-Dhakhira", 3/277; "al-Majmu'", 1/213). Ahmad, for whoever leaves one pebble of the pebbles of the jamarat: a mudd; in another narration, a handful of food; in another, nothing is required of him ("al-Ifsah", 1/305; "al-Kafi", 1/453; "al-Mughni", 5/78; "al-Insaf", 4/47).
After stoning the 3 jamarat on the third day of Tashriq, the fourth of the days of slaughter, the pilgrim leaves Mina for Makkah; it is not sunnah for him to stay at Mina after the stoning. This is the day of the second departure, with which the rites of Mina end.
Delegation (niyabah) in the stoning: the excused person who cannot stone himself, such as the sick or the detained, must appoint someone to stone for him. The deputy should have stoned for himself; otherwise let him stone the whole stoning of the day for himself first, then for the one who appointed him. This delegated stoning suffices according to the Hanafis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis, with no dam, since delegation in the origin of the Hajj is permitted, all the more in its parts. If stones are thrown for him and he recovers after the days of Mina, the stoning suffices; if he recovers during the days of Mina, he must stone what remains, and it is recommended for him to repeat what was stoned for him, so as to be the direct performer in its time; nothing is obligatory upon him, the stoning having fallen away by the act of another. It is recommended for him to attend the stoning if he can at the time it is thrown for him, and to place the pebbles in the deputy's hand, the incapacitated one saying the takbir and the deputy throwing; omitting the handing over while able does not invalidate the delegation. The Hanafis: throwing 2 pebbles, one for oneself and one for another, is valid but disliked ("Sharh Fath al-Qadir", 2/498; "al-Bahr ar-Ra'iq", 2/375). The Shafi'is restrict the delegation to a sick man whose recovery before the end of the days of Tashriq is not hoped for; and among them one view recommends stoning the pebbles of the jamra for oneself first, then for one's principal until the stoning ends, a sound course for whoever fears the crush ("al-Hawi al-Kabir", 4/204; "al-Majmu'", 8/174; "Mughni al-Muhtaj", 1/508; "Nihayat al-Muhtaj", 3/314).
Whoever cannot even appoint someone, like the child or the unconscious person: the guardian stones for the child. Ibn al-Mundhir reports the consensus that stones are thrown for the child incapable of stoning ("al-Ijma'", 202). As for the unconscious man, his companions stone for him, with no fidyah according to the Hanafis. The Shafi'is add: if the muhrim falls unconscious before the stoning without having authorized stoning for him, the stoning during his unconsciousness is not valid by consensus; if he had authorized it, it is valid. An-Nawawi reports from ash-Shafi'i and his companions: the one prevented from stoning, by illness, detention or the like, appoints someone, whether the illness is expected to pass or not, for a wage or without, a man or a woman; it is recommended to hand the pebbles to the deputy if he can, the incapacitated one saying the takbir and the deputy throwing, and omitting the handing over while able does not invalidate the delegation. The Shafi'i companions of the 2 ways (the Iraqi and the Khurasanian) permit the delegation of the sick man without restriction, whether despairing of recovery or not; Imam al-Haramayn, ar-Rafi'i and their like restrict it to an incapacity whose end before the stoning time passes is not hoped for, specifying that hope of recovery after the time has lapsed does no harm; and if the incapacity ceases during the days of the stoning, the remainder of the stoning becomes obligatory for him. If the muhrim falls unconscious without having authorized the stoning, stoning for him during his unconsciousness is not valid by consensus; if he had authorized, it is valid, and the majority of the companions of the 2 ways cut off debate on it; ar-Rafi'i reports from them one weak odd view: that it is not permitted; Imam al-Haramayn reports from the Iraqis that if the incapacitated man appointed someone and then fell unconscious, the delegation continues, just as if a sick man who appointed someone to perform Hajj for him dies, the paid delegation is not severed, since hiring for a dead person after his death is possible; al-Mawardi adds: if he authorized while capable, stoning for him during his unconsciousness is not valid, delegation not being valid for the capable man; if he authorized while incapacitated, sick, and then fell unconscious, the delegation is valid and so is the deputy's stoning. All agree that authorization given in a state of unconsciousness is invalid, and stoning by such an authorization does not count. The insane person follows the same rule as the unconscious one ("al-Majmu'", 8/174-176).
According to the Malikis, delegation has no benefit except the falling away of the sin if it occurs at the time of performance; otherwise the dam is due, whether one delegates or not; the dam is due neither from the minor nor from the one assimilated to him, like the unconscious man, because only the legally addressed adult is bound by all the pillars. Ad-Dardir writes in "ash-Sharh al-Kabir": the incapacitated man appoints someone to stone for him, but the deputy's stoning does not remove the dam; the benefit of the delegation is the removal of the sin. The incapacitated man watches for the time of the stoning, says the takbir for each pebble as he watches for the time of his deputy's supplication and supplicates; if he recovers before the expiry of the time that comes with the sunset of the fourth day, he repeats: before the sunset of the first day, no dam; after it, a dam and the makeup of each jamra, including al-'Aqaba, until the sunset of the fourth; the night following each day is a makeup of that day entailing a dam. The bedridden sick man is carried to the stoning and stones of obligation himself; he does not place the pebble in another's palm for him to stone with it: that does not suffice him ("ash-Sharh al-Kabir", 2/48; "Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil", 2/336, 340; "al-Mudawwana al-Kubra", 2/419, 424; "al-Istidhkar", 4/352). Ibn Qudama summarizes: if he is sick, detained or excused, he may appoint someone to stone for him.
Al-Athram asked Ahmad whether the one for whom stones are thrown must attend: "I like him to attend if he can, at the time it is thrown for him; if he is too weak, let him stay where he is and be stoned for". The qadi said: it is recommended to place the pebbles in the deputy's hand; if the principal falls unconscious, the delegation is not severed, and the deputy stones for him, as if he had appointed him for the Hajj and then fell unconscious. Ash-Shafi'i said as we have mentioned, and Malik resembles him, except that he says: the sick man watches for the moment of their stoning and says 7 takbirs ("al-Mughni", 5/120; "Kashshaf al-Qina'", 2/381, 511; "Majmu' al-Fatawa", 26/245).
Stoning from the upper floors is a modern question of our era: the earlier scholars have no specific texts, but their texts allow deducing its permissibility. Al-Qari writes: if the pebble comes to rest on the marker of the jamra, it suffices; if it rests on the top of the marker without descending from it, the apparent view is that it does not suffice, given the distance ("Irshad as-Sari", p. 164). The "al-Mudawwana al-Kubra" transmits: Ibn al-Qasim asked Malik whether one may stone the jamra al-'Aqaba from above it; Malik replied that he prefers stoning it from below, and specifies that the statement of Qasim ibn Muhammad, stoning the jamra al-'Aqaba from wherever was easy, means "from below it, from wherever was easy"; but "if he stones it from above it, it suffices him" (2/421).
Al-Hattab cites al-Baji: the jamra is the name of the place of stoning; Ibn Farhun specifies that the standing structure is not the jamra: it stands in the middle of the jamra as a marker of its location, the jamra being the name of the whole ("Mawahib al-Jalil", 3/134). An-Nawawi reports from ash-Shafi'i: the jamra is the mass of pebbles, not what has rolled from it; hitting the mass with the throw suffices, hitting the pebbles that rolled away does not; what is meant is the mass at its known location, the one of the Prophet's time: if the spot is moved and the people stone elsewhere and the pebbles mass there, it does not suffice ("al-Majmu'", 8/140; "Asna al-Matalib", 1/498). Al-Haytami adds on this statement: al-Jamal at-Tabri defined the mass as what lies within 3 cubits of the base of the jamra, a definition from his own understanding, which observation supports; and the mass known today on all sides of the 2 first jamarat and beneath the marker of the jamra al-'Aqaba is the one of the Prophet's time, which is not far-fetched, the original being that what was remains as it was until the difference is known ("Sharh al-Iidah", p. 140). Al-Buhuti writes likewise that the target is the mass of pebbles, not the marker nor what rolls from it, and that stoning the jamra al-'Aqaba from above it is permitted by the act of Umar ("Kashshaf al-Qina'", 2/501). The author of "Shifa' al-Gharam" cites al-Azraqi: the jamra had been displaced, the ignorant among the people having moved it by their throws of pebbles, until it was shifted a little from its place; Ishaq ibn Salamah as-Sa'igh, sent by the caliph al-Mutawakkil, restored it to its place, built behind it a wall rising above it and a mosque adjoining that wall, so that whoever wished to stone could not reach its top ("Shifa' al-Gharam", 1/294).
On this basis, the Council of Senior Scholars of Saudi Arabia ruled that stoning from the top of the floor is permitted, by the act of Umar which none of the Companions disavowed, the words of Ibn Umar being carried to excellence, and because whoever owns ground owns its boundaries and its air; this is what is legally established. The athar of Umar is reported by Ibn Abi Shaybah (3/199, no. 13415): "I saw Umar ibn al-Khattab stone the jamra al-'Aqaba from above it"; but Ibn Hajar notes in "Fath al-Bari" (3/580) that it contains Hajjaj ibn Artaah and suffers a weakness ("Abhath Hay'at Kibar al-Ulama", 3/285).
The majority of the jurists (Hanafis, Malikis, Hanbalis) hold the shaving of the hair of the head or its shortening to be an obligation of the Hajj and the Umrah, compensated by a blood, according to the word of the Prophet: "release yourselves from your ihram by the tawaf of the House and the course between Safa and Marwah, and shorten" (Bukhari (1493), Muslim (1216)), the command there aiming at obligation; and: "whoever among you has no offering, let him circumambulate the House and between Safa and Marwah, shorten and release" (Bukhari (1606), Muslim (1227)). The Shafi'is, in the madhhab, make it a pillar of the Hajj and the Umrah without which they are not valid, not compensated by blood or anything else.
On the required amount, after agreement that the best is to shave the whole head for the man, by the word: "with heads shaved or shortened" (Surah al-Fath, 27), the head denoting the whole, and by the report that the Prophet shaved his whole head: the Malikis and Hanbalis require the whole head; the Hanafis suffice with a quarter of the head; the Shafi'is with the removal of 3 hairs or their shortening, which is the same disagreement as that on the extent of the wiping of the head in ablution. All agree that shaving is better than shortening, and that shortening dispenses with shaving, according to the following hadith.
May Allah have mercy on those who shave. They said: and those who shorten, O Messenger of Allah? He said: May Allah have mercy on those who shave. They repeated this twice more, then he said: and those who shorten.Reported by Bukhari (1640) and Muslim (1301)
They also agree that shaving is not prescribed for women, but the shortening, which is obligatory for them, according to the word of the Prophet: "no shaving for the women; for them the shortening" (sahih hadith: Abu Dawud (1984, 1985)).
On the time and place of shaving: the Shafi'is, the Hanbalis of the madhhab and Abu Yusuf hold that it has no defined time or place: whoever delays it beyond the days of slaughter owes nothing, for Allah showed the beginning of the time by His word: "and do not shave your heads until the offering reaches its place of slaughter" (Surah al-Baqarah, 196) without showing the end: performing it therefore suffices whenever one wishes, like the tawaf of visitation and the sa'y; and it is a rite deferred to a moment when its performance is permitted, thus resembling the sa'y. Abu Hanifa and Ahmad in one narration hold that deferring it beyond the days of slaughter entails a blood: it is a rite deferred from its place, and whoever abandons a rite owes a blood, with no difference between little and much, deliberate and forgetful; the Prophet shaved during the days of slaughter in the Sanctuary, so that his deed explains the general of the Book, and deferring an obligation is like abandoning it as to the obligation of the later performer. Malik: whoever defers it until departing (releasing himself) owes a blood, for it is a rite to be performed within the sanctuary of the Hajj like his other rites.
The bald man: the people of science agree that he passes the razor over his head. Ibn al-Mundhir affirms it: "they agreed that the bald man passes the razor over his head at the time of shaving" ("al-Ijma'", 197). It is not obligatory according to the majority, but recommended: shaving has hair as its seat, so it falls away with its absence, as the washing of a lost limb falls away in ablution; and passing the razor is such that had he done it in ihram no blood would be due, so nothing either at the releasing, like his passing over the hair without shaving. The Hanafis, however, require it, by the hadith: "when I command you a matter, do of it what you can": were he possessed of hair, he would have to remove it and pass the razor; one of the 2 being impossible, the other becomes obligatory; and if he cannot fulfill the shaving, he cannot fail to resemble the shavers, by the word of the Prophet: "whoever resembles a people is one of them" (sahih hadith: Abu Dawud (4031)) ("Bada'i' as-Sana'i'", 3/93, 97; "al-Majmu'", 8/151, 155; "al-Mughni", 5/49, 53).
The Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis of the madhhab hold obligatory the night spent at Mina during the nights of Tashriq; abandoning it without excuse entails a blood according to the Shafi'is and Hanbalis; the Malikis say it is obligatory even with an excuse. Evidence: the Prophet spent the nights of Mina there; and the fact that Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib asked the Messenger of Allah permission to spend the nights of Mina in Makkah because of his office of watering, and that he permitted him (Bukhari (1553), Muslim (1315)): this proves he was addressed by it, otherwise Abbas and others would have enjoyed it without a concession; confirmed by the practice of the imams after the Prophet, then by Umar's forbidding staying behind al-'Aqabah; and the Prophet did it as a rite, saying: Take your rites from me.
The required length is the greater part of the night. They then differ over whoever abandons one or 2 nights, after agreeing that he may leave the third night if he departs on the first departure. Malikis: one whole night abandoned, or the 3 nights, entails a single blood, not multiplied. Shafi'is: 3 famous opinions for one abandoned night, the most correct being a mudd per night, the second a dirham, the third a third of a blood; for 2 nights: 2 mudds on the most correct view, 2 dirhams on the second, 2 thirds of a blood on the third. Among the Hanbalis, Ibn Taymiyyah reports from al-Qadi, differing with him, and from Ibn Aqil, a single narration: no blood for abandoning one or 2 nights, unlike the night of Muzdalifah, which is a single rite whose abandonment entails the blood, while all the nights of Mina are a single rite whose part does not entail what its whole entails, as with one or 2 pebbles abandoned; they cite in support his disagreement with requiring a blood for a single night, where he ordered a charity, and draw from it 3 narrations: a dirham or half a dirham, which is what is explicit here; a mudd per night and 2 mudds for 2 nights; a handful of food per night and 2 handfuls for 2 nights, these last 2 being derived from the blood required for shaving one or 2 hairs ("Sharh al-Umdah", 3/646).
The Hanafis, the Shafi'is in one view, the Hanbalis in a narration and the Zahiris make it a sunnah, not an obligation: whoever abandons it has done ill but owes nothing, for the Prophet conceded to the water-carriers and the shepherds, as he conceded to the weak the departure from Muzdalifah by night; were it obligatory, it would not fall away except by necessity, like the farewell tawaf; Abbas would not have abandoned an obligation for the watering, nor would the Prophet have permitted him it. The Prophet's deed is carried to sunnah reconciling the 2 evidences, and the Law brought nothing on it; Ibn Abbas said: "when you have stoned the jamarat, sleep where you wish" (Ibn Abi Shaybah, 3/298); and it is one of the 2 night stays of Mina, without obligation like the night of Muzdalifah of the eve of the day of Tarwiyah ("Bada'i' as-Sana'i'", 3/145; "al-Majmu'", 8/176, 178; "al-Mughni", 5/71-72; "al-Insaf", 4/47; "Kashshaf al-Qina'", 2/510). Ibn Hazm writes: whoever does not spend the nights of Mina at Mina has done ill but owes nothing, except the shepherds and the water-carriers of Abbas, for whom staying elsewhere is not disliked; the shepherds may even stone one day out of 2. Abu al-Baddah ibn Adiyy reports from his father that the Messenger of Allah permitted the shepherds to stone one day and leave one (Abu Dawud (1976), Ibn Majah (3036)): by this report it is established that the stoning of each day of Mina is not an obligation (fard). Ibn Umar reports that Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib asked the Messenger of Allah permission, because of his watering, to spend the nights of Mina in Makkah, and that he permitted him (Bukhari (1634, 1745), Muslim (3238)): the water-carriers are excused for the watering, and he himself slept at Mina without being commanded the stay: the stay there is therefore sunnah and not obligation, the binding one being only the command of the Prophet. If it is objected that his permissions to the shepherds and to Abbas prove that the others are commanded, we answer: only had he first commanded the stay and the stoning, these then being exceptions; without a prior command we know only that they were excused, without the others being addressed by a command or a prohibition: they are therefore upon permission. Umar used to say: "let no one stay behind al-'Aqabah during the days of Mina", established from him and the like from Ibn Abbas; Ibn Umar disliked sleeping outside Mina during the days of Mina, and none of them prescribed any compensation for it. Ibn Abbas also said: "there is no harm in whoever has goods at Makkah spending the nights of Mina in Makkah"; and: "when you have stoned the jamarat, sleep where you wish" ("al-Muhalla", 7/184, slightly altered).
The farewell tawaf is also called the tawaf of as-sadr and the tawaf of the last covenant. The jurists differ: is it obligatory, falling away only for excuse and entailing a blood on whoever abandons it without excuse, or a sunnah whose abandonment is permitted without anything required? Abu Hanifa, Ahmad and ash-Shafi'i in his most correct view hold it obligatory, its abandonment without excuse entailing a blood, by Ibn Abbas: the people were departing in every direction, and the Prophet said: "let no one depart until his last covenant is with the House" (Muslim (1327)); and by: "the people were commanded that their last covenant be with the House, except that the menstruating woman was relieved of it" (Bukhari (1668), Muslim (1328)); Ibn Umar said likewise: "whoever performs the pilgrimage of the House, let his last covenant be with the House, except the menstruating woman, whom the Messenger of Allah relieved" (sahih hadith: at-Tirmidhi (944)). It is a command and an unrestricted command, aiming at obligation; only the menstruating woman was withdrawn from this generality, without the Prophet ordering her to perform anything in its place, which would be the blood: this is a principle for every rite whose abandonment is permitted for excuse, namely that no compensation is due from the excused. Ibn Qudama adds: its falling away for the excused does not permit its falling away for others, as prayer falls away from the menstruating woman and remains due on the others; rather her being singled out proves its obligation on the others, for were it to fall away from all, singling her out would have no meaning ("al-Mughni", 5/86).
Malik and ash-Shafi'i in his second view make it a sunnah, not an obligation, with nothing on whoever abandons it: it does not weigh on the menstruating woman nor on the woman in childbed, so it is not obligatory like the tawaf of visitation; it falls away from the menstruating woman, so it is not obligatory like the tawaf of arrival; and it is like the greeting of the House, resembling the tawaf of arrival.
They then differ: one who performs this farewell tawaf and then stays for a purchase, a visit to a sick man, waiting for a caravan or the like: does his tawaf suffice him or must he repeat another tawaf? Ash-Shafi'i, Ahmad and Abu Yusuf: he repeats, for his last covenant must be with the House; staying afterward removes it, by custom, from being a farewell, as if he had performed the tawaf before the permission of departure. Abu Hanifa: he does not repeat, even were he to stay a month, for he came to Makkah for the rite and, it being completed, the time of departure came; his tawaf at that moment therefore counts for him as farewell, since he is resolved upon return. Malik: there is no harm in one who has bidden farewell to the House with the farewell tawaf buying some of his needs and passing the night with his hirer, with no repetition; but repeating would be dearer to me. All those who obligate it agree that it is due only upon the people of the provinces, not upon the people of Makkah; and were he to complete his rites and wish to reside in Makkah, the farewell tawaf is not due upon him, except Abu Hanifa, for whom the intention to reside after the permission of the first departure does not cause the farewell tawaf to fall away ("Mukhtasar Ikhtilaf al-'Ulama", 2/164; "al-Mabsut", 4/24, 35; "Bada'i' as-Sana'i'", 3/100; "al-Ikhtiyar", 1/208-209; "al-Mudawwana al-Kubra", 2/402; "Bidayat al-Mujtahid", 1/499; "al-Majmu'", 8/184; "al-Mughni", 5/85, 90; "Kashshaf al-Qina'", 2/512).
The dependent obligations of the Hajj are matters whose performance is required within a pillar of the Hajj or within an original obligation of its obligations. Three groups.
First, the obligations of ihram: entering ihram from the territorial miqat, not after it, already explained; the talbiyah, whose ruling has already been explained; and avoiding the prohibited matters of ihram, which will be discussed in detail later, Allah willing.
Second, the obligations of the standing at Arafah: the extension of the standing past the maghrib is obligatory according to the Hanafis and Hanbalis; the Shafi'is make it a sunnah; the Malikis make the standing after the maghrib the pillar, and before it an obligation.
Third, the obligations of the tawaf: the Hanafis make the last 3 circuits obligatory, which are a pillar according to the majority; and they obligate, where the majority sees conditions of validity, 5 matters: purity from legal impurities and filth; covering the 'awrah; beginning the tawaf from the Black Stone; the counterclockwise motion, that is, that the one circumambulating be on the right of the House (it on his left); and including the Hijr (al-Hatim) within the tawaf. Finally, the Hanafis and others obligate what is sunnah with the others: walking for the one able, obligatory with the Hanafis and Malikis, sunnah with the Shafi'is and Hanbalis; the 2 rak'ahs of the tawaf, obligatory with the Hanafis and the Malikis of the madhhab and the Shafi'is in one view, sunnah with the Hanbalis, the Shafi'is (most correct view) and the Malikis in one view; and the obligation, according to Abu Hanifa, of performing the tawaf of visitation during the days of slaughter: deferring it remains valid but entails a blood.