regard that vow of consecration as valid does not allow the pilgrim who has missed the Hajj to remain in iḥrām until the following year, whereas the one who permits assuming iḥrām outside the days of Hajj permits him to remain consecrated. The Qāḍī said: We have already discussed the expiations that the textual evidence makes obligatory during Hajj, the manner of making up missed rites, the rules governing a missed or invalidated pilgrimage, and the way one who has missed the Hajj is to terminate his consecration. Before that we treated the expiations expressly mentioned in the sources and what the jurists have attached to them in the case of the pilgrim who corrupts his own Hajj. What remains is to address those expiations over which the scholars disagreed when a particular rite of the pilgrimage is omitted and for which no explicit text exists. Concerning Expiations on Which the Law Is Silent We say: The majority hold that the rites (nusuk) are of two kinds: (1) rites that are an emphatically established Sunnah and (2) rites that are merely recommended. Whoever omits an emphatically established Sunnah must offer a blood sacrifice, for his Hajj is deficient; the precedent for this ruling is found in the pilgrim performing tamattuʿ or qirān. Ibn ʿAbbās is reported to have said: “Whoever misses any part of his rites must offer a sacrifice.” As for what is merely recommended, they rule that no sacrifice is due. Yet they disagreed widely, rite by rite, over whether a sacrifice is required, because they differ as to whether each specific act is a Sunnah or merely recommended. With respect to obligatory acts, they all agree that they cannot be compensated by a sacrifice; their dispute concerns only whether a given act is itself obligatory. The Ẓāhirīs, however, require a sacrifice only where a textual proof so stipulates, for they reject analogy—especially in matters of worship. They are likewise unanimous that if a pilgrim commits an act whose avoidance is an established Sunnah, he must pay the fidyat al-adhā, whereas no compensation is due for violating an avoidance that is only recommended. They also differed over the omission of an act for the same reason—namely, their disagreement over whether that act is a Sunnah. The Ẓāhirīs do not impose fidyah except where the text explicitly requires it. We shall now cite the well-known disagreements among the jurists concerning the omission of each rite—whether a blood sacrifice is obligatory or not from the first rite to the last—as well as their differences over the commission of each prohibited act. The first matter over which they differed is the case of one who passes the miqāt without entering iḥrām: is a sacrifice required? • Some said no sacrifice is due. • Others held that a sacrifice is due even if he returns to the miqāt; this is the view of Mālik, Ibn al-Mubārak, and a report from al-Thawrī. • A third group said: If he returns to the miqāt there is no sacrifice, but if he does not return, then a sacrifice is obligatory; this is the opinion of al-Shāfiʿī, Abū Yūsuf, Muḥammad, and the well-known view of al-Thawrī. • Abū Ḥanīfah said: If he goes back pronouncing the talbiyah, no sacrifice is required; if he returns without talbiyah, then a sacrifice is due. • Yet others argued that entering iḥrām at the miqāt is an obligation that cannot be made good by a sacrifice at all. They also disagreed about a pilgrim who washes his head with khitmī (marsh-mallow powder). Mālik and Abū Ḥanīfah ruled that he must pay fidyah, whereas al-Thawrī and others held that nothing is due. Mālik further considered that entering a bathhouse incurs fidyah, while the majority permitted it; an authentic report from Ibn ʿAbbās records his entering one. The majority say that any pilgrim who wears an item of clothing forbidden to him must pay fidyat al-adhā. They differ, however, if he wears trousers because he lacks a lower wrapper: must he pay fidyah or not? • Mālik and Abū Ḥanīfah held that he must pay. • Al-Thawrī, Aḥmad, Abū Thawr, and Dāwūd maintained that nothing is due if he cannot find an izār. The principal evidence of those who exempt him