His words, “If someone other than a menstruating woman omits it, he must return to it,” apparently indicate that returning is obligatory, whether he is near or far, so long as this does not cause hardship; and that if he returns, even from a far distance, the sacrificial offering is waived. However, the established position of the school is that once he has gone beyond the distance permitting the shortening of prayer, the sacrificial offering becomes binding upon him, whether he returns or not. The same applies if he reaches his hometown: the sacrificial offering becomes binding upon him whether he returns or not.

Accordingly, if the people of Jeddah leave for Jeddah before performing the Farewell Tawaf, then return after the crowds have thinned and perform tawaf, the sacrificial offering is not waived from them, because it became binding once they travelled the distance permitting the shortening of prayer, or upon reaching one’s hometown. Even if it were assumed that people from a town nearer than Jeddah, such as the people of Bahrah, reached their own town, the sacrificial offering would become binding upon them.

His words, “Then he must offer a sacrificial animal”: The evidence that a sacrificial offering is obligatory is the well-known report from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, who said: “Whoever leaves out or forgets something from his rites, let him spill blood.” (1) This is an obligatory rite commanded by the Prophet ﷺ, so abandoning it entails a sacrificial offering. This report is well known among the scholars, who have cited it as evidence and based upon it the obligation of expiation for omitting a required rite. In explaining this proof, they said: This is a statement of a Companion in a matter not open to personal opinion, so it must be acted upon; for the statement of a Companion concerning that which is not open to personal opinion carries the ruling of being traced back to the Prophet.

Some scholars, however, said that it may have arisen from independent legal reasoning, and that personal opinion has scope in this matter. The basis for this is that he may have analogized omitting an obligation to committing a prohibition—that is, one of the prohibitions of ihram for which a sacrificial offering is due—because both matters involve violating the sanctity of the rites. Thus, omitting an obligation is a violation