in Medina, when that person told him of an obstacle that had prevented them from travelling for Hajj. He explained that Hajj is part of the cause of Allah and that an Umrah in Ramadan is equivalent to a Hajj. This is clear: if someone who performs Umrah in Ramadan returns home, they will have made a complete journey for Umrah, outward and back, during the revered month of Ramadan. They thus combine the sanctity of Ramadan with the sanctity of Umrah. The distinction of both time and place makes it fitting that this should be equivalent to Hajj, which likewise enjoys the distinction of its time—the months of Hajj—and its place. Nevertheless, the two things being compared are not alike in every respect, especially in this particular instance, as Muslims unanimously agree.
If, instead, that person remains in Mecca until performing Hajj that year, they will also have gained a rite that expiates sins. This differs from someone who performs tamattuʿ (Umrah followed by Hajj) during the months of Hajj: such a person is solely a Hajj pilgrim, even though performing tamattuʿ. Hence, they are engaged in Hajj from the moment they enter ihram for Umrah.
This is clarified by one version of the hadith in the Sahīh, in which he said to the woman:
“An Umrah in Ramadan is equivalent to a Hajj with me.”
It is clear that he meant, “Your Umrah in Ramadan is equivalent to a Hajj with me.” She had intended to perform Hajj with him but had been unable to do so, so he told her what would take its place. The same applies to any of the Companions whose circumstances were like hers.
No reasonable person would say what some ignorant people imagine: that an Umrah performed by one of us, whether beginning at the prescribed boundary or in Mecca, is equivalent to a Hajj with him. It is self-evident that a complete Hajj is superior to an Umrah in Ramadan. Even if one of us performed the obligatory Hajj, it would not be like performing Hajj with him—so how could an Umrah be? The most the hadith establishes is that an Umrah performed by one of us in