of this usurpation. This is the assumption a person may entertain. The author thus explained that the depositary may claim against the usurper of the property, saying: “Yes, I am not its owner, but it has been entrusted to me.”

By virtue of this trust, the depositary must either pursue the claim himself or immediately inform the owner of the deposited property. He may not remain silent while seeing the usurper take it, for that would betray the trust. An exception is made when the owner of the property is present and knows of the usurpation: in that case, those mentioned are not required to pursue the claim, because if its owner is present and aware of the usurpation, then he is responsible for it.

The lām is used in the statements of the jurists in this sense. For example, some scholars, speaking of a pilgrim performing Hajj alone and one combining Hajj and Umrah—if they have not brought sacrificial animals—said: “The pilgrim performing Hajj alone and the one combining Hajj and Umrah may annul their intentions in favor of an Umrah, so that they become pilgrims performing tamattuʿ.” From this wording, one might understand that the lām denotes permissibility, but this is not so. For those who expressed it in this way said that it is recommended. Thus, the lām here serves to dispel the assumption that it is prohibited, and the view that it is impermissible.

This is not to say that converting Hajj—or Hajj together with Umrah—into tamattuʿ is merely permissible, with the two alternatives equally balanced. Rather, converting Hajj into an Umrah so that one becomes a pilgrim performing tamattuʿ is an emphatically established sunnah, either obligatory or emphatically recommended. The correct view is that converting Hajj into an Umrah is not obligatory, but it is emphatically recommended. Nor does the view that it is recommended conflict with the fact that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ became angry with the Companions when they delayed carrying it out (1), because addressing them directly