was not eligible for Hajj at the time he stood at ‘Arafah, unless he renews his state of ihram and returns to stand there before the time for standing has elapsed.

Second: he must be in a state of ihram, because one who is not in ihram is not eligible for Hajj; he has not entered ihram, such that his standing may be valid.

Third: he must be of sound mind. If he is insane, his standing is not valid.

Fourth: he must not be intoxicated.

Fifth: he must not be unconscious.

Thus, five qualities are required: three affirmative conditions and two negative ones.

An example of an unconscious person is one who has an accident while heading towards ‘Arafah and loses consciousness before reaching it, remaining unconscious until the people depart, and they take him away with them.

We say: This man’s standing is not valid because he is unconscious, and we say that he has missed the Hajj. Once he regains consciousness, he exits ihram by performing ‘umrah; then, if it was his obligatory Hajj, he must make it up the following year. This is the well-known position of the madhhab. The second view is that his standing is valid, because his mind remains intact and has not departed. This is the stronger view.

His statement, “Otherwise, it is not valid”: its original form is in lā. Here, in is conditional, while lā is negative; the verb of the condition is omitted. It is not the exceptional particle illā; rather, it consists of two particles, in and lā, one having been assimilated into the other. The intended meaning is: If the matter is not so, then his Hajj is not valid.

His statement, “otherwise,” encompasses three matters:

First: that he does not stand at all.

Second: that he does not stand within the time prescribed for standing.