As for making the rites up, Mālik is of the view that no repetition is required. Others held that he must make them up. Abū Ḥanīfah maintains that if the pilgrim had entered iḥrām for Hajj alone, he must later perform both a Hajj and an ʿUmrah; if he was performing the two together (qirān), he owes one Hajj and two ʿUmrahs; and if he was in iḥrām for ʿUmrah only, he must complete that ʿUmrah. According to Abū Ḥanīfah and Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan, no shortening of the hair is required, whereas Abū Yūsuf preferred that he do the shortening.

Mālik’s principal evidence for not obligating a make-up is the report that “the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) and his Companions exited iḥrām at al-Hudaybiyah: they slaughtered the sacrificial animals, shaved their heads, and came out of every restriction before they circumambulated the House and before the animals had reached it.” Moreover, it is not known that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) instructed any of the Companions who were with him to make up or repeat anything.

Those who oblige a make-up rely on the fact that “the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) performed an ʿUmrah in the year following al-Hudaybiyah as compensation for that ʿUmrah,” and for that reason it came to be called ʿUmrat al-Qaḍāʾ. They also cite the consensus that a person prevented by illness or something similar must make the rite up.

Hence the crux of the disagreement is: Did the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) actually perform a compensatory rite or not? And can such a duty be established by analogy? The majority of scholars hold that a make-up becomes obligatory only through a fresh command distinct from the original instruction to perform the rite.

Those who make the hady obligatory do so on the premise that the Qur’ānic verse was revealed about someone prevented by an enemy—or that the wording is general—because the obligation of the hady is explicitly stated therein. They further cite the Prophet’s (peace and blessings be upon him) slaughter of the hady with his Companions at al-Hudaybiyah when they were prevented. The opposing camp replies that this was not a hady of release from iḥrām but an offering that had been brought along from the outset, arguing that the default is that no hady is due unless specific evidence establishes it.

Their disagreement over where the hady must be slaughtered—among those who deem it obligatory—rests on their divergent reports as to where the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) performed the slaughter in the year of al-Hudaybiyah. Ibn Isḥāq said that he slaughtered within the Sacred Precinct, whereas others said he did so outside the sanctuary, adducing the Almighty’s words: “They are the ones who disbelieved and barred you from the Sacred Mosque and prevented the offering from reaching its place of sacrifice” (al-Fath 48:25).

Abū Ḥanīfah’s reason for requiring both a Hajj and an ʿUmrah of one prevented from Hajj is that such a pilgrim has effectively turned his Hajj into an ʿUmrah and completed neither of the two.

Such, then, is the ruling for someone prevented by an enemy according to the jurists.

With regard to a pilgrim prevented by illness, al-Shāfiʿī and the scholars of the Hijaz hold that he is not released from iḥrām until he circumambulates the Kaʿbah and performs saʿy between Ṣafā and Marwah, and that in effect he disengages through an ʿUmrah; for if a prolonged illness causes him to miss the Hajj, the rites revert to an ʿUmrah. This is also the position of Ibn ʿUmar, ʿĀʾishah, and Ibn ʿAbbās. The scholars of Iraq dissented, saying that he releases himself where he is, and that his ruling is the same as that of one prevented by an enemy—that is, he sends off his hady, estimates the day it will be slaughtered, and comes out of iḥrām on that day.