permissible, and there is no harm in it, because he has moved to what is superior.

Issue: If a person exits the state of ihram from Hajj and makes it an ʿumrah, so that he may perform tamattuʿ and then Hajj, but later decides not to perform Hajj, are we to require him to perform Hajj?

There are now two scenarios before us. The first is that of a man who initially enters ihram for ʿumrah, intending tamattuʿ followed by Hajj, but then decides not to perform Hajj. This is permissible, and there is no difficulty in it, because he entered ihram for ʿumrah intending Hajj, but later decided not to perform Hajj.

But consider a man who entered ihram for Hajj and then converted it into an ʿumrah in order to perform tamattuʿ followed by Hajj: may he then forgo Hajj or not? There is a difference between the two scenarios.

Should we say: Since you converted from the Hajj that became binding upon you by commencing it, you are required to perform Hajj this year?

In my view, there are two possible opinions:

The first is that he must be required to perform Hajj, unless he abandons it due to an excuse; that is a different matter. For we only permitted him to convert it so that he could perform Hajj.

The second is that nothing is binding upon him, because he did not commence the rite.

If a woman menstruates and fears missing Hajj, she enters ihram for it and becomes one performing qirān.

His statement, “If a woman menstruates and fears missing Hajj, she enters ihram for it and becomes one performing qirān,” is general wording intended to refer to a specific case. What is meant by “woman” here is a woman performing tamattuʿ: that is, one who entered ihram for ʿumrah in order to exit ihram after it, and then perform Hajj in the same year. She arrives in Makkah on the fifth of Dhu al-Hijjah, then menstruates, and her usual period lasts six days, so that she becomes pure on the eleventh day—that is: