and her religion and property, and that she cannot be ordered to remain in ihrām and return despite her inability, with repeated journeys and continuing harm through no negligence on her part. Nor is release from ihrām sufficient, nor does it discharge the obligation.

The same applies to the other conditions, such as covering oneself and avoiding impurity, which are more emphatically required in prayer. At most, tawaf may be likened to prayer. Unlike prayer, however, there is no scriptural text denying the acceptance of tawaf in the absence of ritual purity or bodily covering. There are, nevertheless, texts indicating that these are obligatory.

For this reason, scholars have disagreed over whether this is a condition of validity or an obligation that is not a condition of validity. They have not disputed that it is a condition for the validity of prayer, and that this entails ordering her to forgo Hajj. Yet she cannot be ordered to forgo Hajj except on the basis we have mentioned. This is what was to be established.

The second proof:

It may be said that, at most, ritual purity is a condition for tawaf. It is well known that its status as a condition for prayer is more firmly established than its status as a condition for tawaf. It is also well known that ritual purity is comparable to covering oneself and avoiding impurity. Indeed, covering oneself during tawaf is more emphatically obligatory than tawaf itself, because covering the private parts is obligatory both during tawaf and outside it, and because exposing them is among the practices of the polytheists that Allah and His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited in general terms. Furthermore, a woman experiencing non-menstrual bleeding, a person suffering from urinary incontinence, and others in similar circumstances may perform tawaf and pray by the consensus of the Muslims, and the ritual impurity affecting them is of the same kind as that affecting