Yahya related to me from Malik from Abdullah ibn Abdullah ibn Jabir ibn Atik that Atik ibn al-Harith, the grandfather of Abdullah ibn Abdullah ibn Jabir on his mother's side, told him that Jabir ibn Atik had told him that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, came to visit Abdullah ibn Thabit and found him in his death-throes. He called to him but he did not reply. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "We belong to Allah, and to Him we are returning," and added, "You are being taken from us, Abur-Rabi`." The women cried out and wept, and Jabir began to silence them. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Leave them, and when the necessary time comes, none of the women should cry." They said, "Messenger of Allah, what is the necessary time?" and he replied, "When he dies." The dying man's daughter said, "By Allah, I hope that you will be a martyr, for you have completed your preparations for battle," and the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Allah has made his reward fall according to his intention. What do you consider dying a martyr to be?" They said, "Death in the way of Allah." The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "There are seven kinds of martyr other than those killed in the way of Allah. Someone who is killed by the plague is a martyr, someone who drowns is a martyr, someone who dies of pleurisy is a martyr, someone who dies of a disease of the belly is a martyr, someone who dies by fire is a martyr, someone who dies under a falling building is a martyr and a woman who dies in childbirth is a martyr."

Yahya related to me from Malik that Humayd ibn Oays al-Makki told him, "I was with Mujahid while he was performing tawaf around the Kaba, and a man came to him and asked whether the days (of fasting) for kaffara had to be fasted consecutively, or could they be split up. I said to him, 'Yes, they can be split up, if the person so wishes.' Mujahid said, 'He should not split them up, because in Ubayy ibn Kab's recitation they are referred to as three consecutive days.' "

Malik said, "What I like most is what Allah has specified in the Qur'an, that is, that they are fasted consecutively."

Malik was asked about a woman who began the day fasting in Ramadan and though it was outside of the time of her period, fresh blood (i.e. not menstrual blood) flowed from her. She then waited until evening to see the same, but did not see anything.Then, on the next day in the morning she had anotherflow, though less than the first. Then, some days before her period, the flow stopped completely. Malik was asked what she should do about her fasting and prayer, and he said, "This blood is like menstrual blood. When she sees it she should break her fast, and then make up the days she has missed. Then, when the blood has completely stopped, she should do ghusl and fast."

Malik was asked whether someone who became muslim on the last day of Ramadan had to make up all of Ramadan or whether he just had to make up the day when he became muslim, and he said, "He does not have to make up any of the days that have passed. He begins fasting from that day onwards. What I like most is that he makes up the day on which he became muslim."

Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that Uthman ibn Affan would sometimes never get down from the animal he was riding on when he was doing umra, until he had returned .

Malik said, ''Umra is a sunna, and we do not know of any muslim who has ever said that it is permissible not to do it."

Malik said, "I do not think that anyone can do more than one umra in any one year."

Malik said that someone doing umra who had sexual intercourse with his wife had to sacrifice an animal and do a second umra, which he had to begin when he had finished the one that he had spoiled. He should go into ihram at the same place where he went into ihram for the umra which he had spoiled, except if he had entered into ihram at a place further away than his miqat. This was because he only had to go into ihram from his miqat.

Malik said, "Someone who entered Makka to do umra, and does tawaf of the House and say between Safa and Marwa while he is junub, or not in wudu, and afterwards has intercourse with his wife, and then remembers, should do ghusl, or wudu, and then go back and do tawaf around the House and say between Safa and Marwa and do another umra and sacrifice an animal. A woman should do the same if her husband has intercourse with her while she is in ihram. "

Malik said, "As for beginning umra at at-Tanim, (it is not the only alternative). It is permissible if Allah wills for some one to leave the Haram and go into ihram if he wishes, but the best way is for him to go into ihram at the miqat which the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, used (i.e. at-Tanim), or one which is further away."

Yahya related to me from Malik from Zayd ibn Aslam from Ata ibn Yasar that a certain man kissed his wife while he was fasting in Ramadan. This made him very anxious, and so he sent his wife to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, to ask him about that for him. She went in and saw Umm Salama, the wife of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and mentioned the matter to her, and Umm Salama told her that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, used to kiss while he was fasting. So she went back and told her husband that, but it only made him find fault all the more and he said, "We are not like the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. Allah makes permissible for the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, whatever He wishes."

His wife then went back to Umm Salama and found the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, with her. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "What's the matter with this woman?", and Umm Salama told him. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Didn't you tell her that I do that myself?" and she said, "I told her, and she went to her husband and told him, but it only made him find fault all the more and say, 'We are not like the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. Allah makes permissible for His Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, whatever He wishes.' " The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, got angry and said, "By Allah, I am the one with the most taqwa of Allah of you all, and of you all the one who best knows His limits."

Yahya related to me from Malik from Yahya ibn Said that he heard Said ibn al-Musayyab asking a group of people, "What do you think about someone who has intercourse with his wife while he is in ihram?" and none of them answered him. Said said, "There is a man who has had intercourse with his wife while in ihram who has sent a message to Madina asking about it." Some of them said, "They should be kept apart until a future year," and Said ibn al-Musayyab said, "They should carry on and complete the hajj which they have spoiled, and then return home when they have finished. If another hajj comes upon them, they must do hajj and sacrifice an animal. They should go into ihram at the same place where they went into ihram for the hajj that they spoiled, and they should keep apart until they have finished their hajj."

Malik said, "They should both sacrifice an animal."

Malik said, about a man who had intercourse with his wife during hajj after he had come down from Arafa but before he had stoned the Jamra, "He must sacrifice an animal and do hajj again in another year. If, however, he had intercourse with his wife after he stoned the Jamra, he only has to do an umra and sacrifice an animal and he does not have to do another hajj."

Malik said, "What spoils a hajj or an umra and makes sacrificing an animal and repeating the hajj necessary is the meeting of the two circumcised parts, even if there is no emission. It is also made necessary by an emission if it is the result of bodily contact. I do not think that a man who remembers something and has an emission owes anything, and if a man were to kiss his wife and no emission were to occur from that, he would only have to sacrifice an animal. A woman in ihram who has intercourse with her husband several times during hajj or umra out of obedience to him only has to do another hajj and sacrifice an animal. That is if her husband has intercourse with her while she is doing hajj. If he has intercourse with her while she is doing umra, she must repeat the umra she has spoiled and sacrifice an animal."

Malik spoke to me about a man who wrote a kitaba for his slave for gold or silver and stipulated against him in his kitaba a journey, service, sacrifice or similar, which he specified by its name, and then the mukatab was able to pay all his instalments before the end of the term.

He said, "If he pays all his instalments and he is set free and his inviolability as a free man is complete, but he still has this condition to fulfil, the condition is examined, and whatever involves his person in it, like service or a journey etc., is removed from him and his master has nothing in it. Whatever there is of sacrifice, clothing, or anything that he must pay, that is in the position of dinars and dirhams, and is valued and he pays it along with his instalments, and he is not free until he has paid that along with his instalments."

Malik said, "The generally agreed-on way of doing things among us about which there is no dispute, is that a mukatab is in the same position as a slave whom his master will free after a service of ten years. If the master who will free him dies before ten years, what remains of his service goes to his heirs and his wala' goes to the one who contracted to free him and to his male children or paternal relations."

Malik spoke about a man who stipulated against his mukatab that he could not travel, marry, or leave his land without his permission, and that if he did so without his permission it was in his power to cancel the kitaba. He said, "If the mukatab does any of these things it is not in the man's power to cancel the kitaba. Let the master put that before the Sultan. The mukatab, however, should not marry, travel, or leave the land of his master without his permission, whether or not he stipulates that. That is because the man may write a kitaba for his slave for 100 dinars and the slave may have 1000 dinars or more than that. He goes off and marries a woman and pays her bride-price which sweeps away his money and then he cannot pay. He reverts to his master as a slave who has no property. Or else he may travel and his instalments fall due while he is away. He cannot do that and kitaba is not to be based on that. That is in the hand of his master. If he wishes, he gives him permission in that. If he wishes, he refuses it."

Yahya related to me from Malik that it reached him that a slave of Abdullah ibn Umar escaped and one of his horses wandered off, and the idol worshippers seized them. Then the Muslims recaptured them, and they were returned to Abdullah ibn Umar, before the division of the spoils took place.

I heard Malik say about muslim property that had been seized by the enemy, "If it is noticed before the distribution, then it is returned to itsowner. Whatever has already been distributed is not returned to anyone."

Malik, when asked about a man whose young male slave was taken by the idol worshippers and then the Muslims re-captured him, said, "The owner is more entitled to him without having to pay his price or value or having to incur any loss before the distribution takes place. If the distribution has already taken place then I think that the slave belongs to his master for his price if the master wants him back."

Regarding an umm walad of a Muslim man who has been taken by the idol worshippers and then recaptured by the Muslims and allotted in the distribution of spoils and then recognised by her master after the distribution, Malik said, "She is not to be enslaved. I think that the Imam should pay a ransom for her for her master. If he does not do it, then her master must pay a ransom for her and not leave her. I do not think that she should be made a slave by whoever takes her and intercourse with her is not halal. She is in the position of a free woman because her master would be required to pay compensation if she injured somebody and so she is in the same position (as a wife). He must not leave the mother of his son to be enslaved nor may intercourse with her be made halal."

Malik was asked about a man who went to enemy territory to pay ransom or to trade, and he bought a free man or a slave, or they were given to him. He said, "As for the free man, the price he buys him for is a debt against the man and he is not made a slave. If the captive is given to him freely, he is free and owes nothing unless the man gave something in recompense for him. That is a debt against the free man, the same as if a ransom had been paid for him. As for a slave, his former master can choose to take him back and pay his price to the man who bought him or he can choose to leave him, as he wishes. If he was given to the man, the former master is more entitled to him, and he owes nothing for him unless the man gave something for him in recompense. Whatever he gave for him is a loss against the master if he wants him back."

Yahya related to me from Malik that Yahya ibn Said said that Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad ibn Amr ibn Hazm informed him that he had taken a Nabatean who had stolen some iron rings and jailed him in order to cut off his hand. Amra bint Abd ar-Rahman sent a girl mawla to him called Umayya. Abu Bakr said that she had come to him while he was among the people and said that his aunt Amra sent word to him saying, "Son of my brother! You have taken a Nabatean for something insignificant which was mentioned to me. Do you want to cut off his hand?" He had said, "Yes." She said, ''Amra says to you not to cut off the hand except for a quarter of a dinar and upwards."

Abu Bakr added, "So I let the Nabatean go."

Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things among us about the confession of slaves is that if a slave confesses something against himself, the hadd and punishment for it is inflicted on his body. His confession is accepted from him and one does not suspect that he would inflict something on himself."

Malik said, "As for the one of them who confesses to a matter which will incur damages agains this master, his confession is not accepted against his master."

Malik said, "One does not cut off the hand of a hireling or a man who is with some people to serve them, if he robs them, because his state is not the state of a thief. His state is the state of a treacherous one. The treacherous one does not have his hand cut off."

Malik said about a person who borrows something and then denies it, "His hand is not cut off. He is like a man who owes a debt to another man and denies it. He does not have his hand cut off for what he has denied."

Malik said, "The generally agreed-on way of dealing among us, with the thief who is found in a house and has gathered up goods and has not taken them out, is that his hand is not cut off. That is like the man who places wine before him to drink it and does not do it. The hadd is not imposed on him. That is like a man who sits with a woman and desires to have haram intercourse with her and does not do it and he does not reach her. There is no hadd against that either."

Malik said, "The generally agreed-on way of doing things among us is that there is no cutting off the hand for what is taken by chance, openly and in haste, whether or not its price reaches that for which the hand is cut off."

Ibn ‘Umar said. `Umar (رضي الله عنه) told us: We were sitting with the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and he mentioned the same hadeeth, except that he said: No signs of travel were to be seen on him. And he- said: `Umar said: 1 waited for three (days), then the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: “oʻUmar...”

Yahya related to me from Malik from Zayd ibn Aslam that Umar ibn al-Khattab asked the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, about someone who died without parents or offspring, and the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said to him, "The ayat which was sent down in the summer at the end of the Surat an-Nisa (Sura 4) is enoughfor you."

Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things among us, in which there is no dispute, and which I saw the people of knowledge in our city doing, is that the person who leaves neither parent or offspring can be of two types. As for the kind described in the ayat which was sent down at the beginning of the Surat an-Nisa in which Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted! said, 'If a man or a woman has no direct heir, but has a brother or a sister by the mother, each of the two has a sixth. If there are more than that, they share equally in a third.' (Sura 4 ayat 12) This heirless one does not have heirs among his mother's siblings since there are no children or parents. As for the other kind described in the ayat which comes at the end of the Surat an-Nisa, Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, said in it, 'They will ask you for a decision. Say, "Allah gives you a decision about the indirect heirs. If a man perishes having no children, but he has a sister, she shall receive a half of what he leaves, and he is her heir if she has no children. If there are two sisters, they shall receive two-thirds of what he leaves. If there are brothers and sisters, the male shall receive the portion of two females. Allah makes clear to you that you might not go astray. Allah has knowledge of everything" ' " (Sura 4 ayat 176).

Malik said, "If this person without direct heirs (parents) or children has siblings by the father, they inherit with the grandfather from the person without direct heirs. The grandfather inherits with the siblings because he is more entitled to the inheritance than them. That is because he inherits a sixth with the male children of the deceased when the siblings do not inherit anything with the male children of the deceased. How can he not be like one of them when he takes a sixth with the children of the deceased? How can he not take a third with the siblings while the brother's sons take a third with them? The grandfather is the one who overshadows the half-siblings by the mother and keeps them from inheriting. He is more entitled to what they have because they are omitted for his sake. If the grandfather did not take that third, the half-siblings by the mother would take it and would take what does not return to the half-siblings by the father. The half-siblings by the mother are more entitled to that third than the half-siblings by the father while the grandfather is more entitled to that than the half- siblings by the mother."

Malik related to me that he heard that Abu Salama ibn Abd ar- Rahman and Sulayman ibn Yasar were both asked, "Does one pronounce judgement on the basis of an oath with one witness?" They both said, "Yes."

Malik said, "The precedent of the sunna in judging by an oath with one witness is that if the plaintiff takes an oath with his witness, he is confirmed in his right. If he draws back and refuses to take an oath, the defendant is made to take an oath. If he takes an oath, the claim against him is dropped. If he refuses to take an oath, the claim is confirmed against him."

Malik said, "This procedure pertains to property cases in particular. It does not occur in any of the hadd-punishments, nor in marriage, divorce, freeing slaves, theft or slander. If some one says, 'Freeing slaves comes under property,' he has erred. It is not as he said. Had it been as he said, a slave could take an oath with one witness, if he could find one, that his master had freed him.

"However, when a slave lays claim to a piece of property, he can take an oath with one witness and demand his right as the freeman demands his right."

Malik said, "The sunna with us is that when a slave brings somebody who witnesses that he has been set free, his master is made to take an oath that he has not freed him, and the slave's claim is dropped."

Malik said, "The sunna about divorce is also like that with us. When a woman brings somebody who witnesses that her husband has divorced her, the husband is made to take an oath that he has not divorced her. If he takes the oath, the divorce does not proceed . "

Malik said, "There is only one sunna of bringing a witness in cases of divorce and freeing a slave. The right to make an oath only belongs to the husband of the woman, and the master of the slave. Freeing is a hadd matter, and the testimony of women is not permitted in it because when a slave is freed, his inviolability is affirmed and the hadd punishments are applied for and against him. If he commits fornication and he is a muhsan, he is stoned. If he kills a slave, he is killed for it. Inheritance is established for him, between him and whoever inherits from him. If somebody disputes this, arguing that if a man frees his slave and then a man comes to demand from the master of the slave payment of a debt, and a man and two women testify to his right, that establishes the right against the master of the slave so that his freeing him is cancelled if he only has the slave as property, inferring by this case that the testimony of women is permitted in cases of setting free. The case is not as he suggests (i.e. it is a case of property not freeing). It is like a man who frees his slave, and then the claimant of a debt comes to the master and takes an oath with one witness, demanding his right. By that, the freeing of the slave would be cancelled. Or else a man comes who has frequent dealings and transactions with the master of the slave. He claims that he is owed money by the master of the slave. Someone says to the master of the slave, 'Take an oath that you don't owe what he claims'. If he draws back and refuses to take an oath, the one making the claim takes an oath and his right against the master of the slave is confirmed. That would cancel the freeing of the slave if it is confirmed that property is owed by the master."

Malik said, "It is the same case with a man who marries a slave-girl and then the master of the slave-girl comes to the man who has married her and claims, 'You and so-and-so have bought my slave-girl from me for such an amount of dinars. The husband of the slave-girl denies that. The master of the slave-girl brings a man and two women and they testify to what he has said. The sale is confirmed and his claim is considered true. So the slave-girl is haram for her husband and they have to separate, even though the testimony of women is not accepted in divorce."

Malik said, "It is also the same case with a man who accuses a free man, so the hadd falls on him. A man and two women come and testify that the one accused is a slave. That would remove the hadd from the accused after it had befallen him, even though the testimony of women is not accepted in accusations involving hadd punishments."

Malik said, "Another similar case in which judgement appears to go against the precedent of the sunna is that two women testify that a child is born alive and so it is necessary for him to inherit if a situation arises where he is entitled to inherit, and the child's property goes to those who inherit from him, if he dies, and it is not necessary that the two women witnesses should be accompanied by a man or an oath even though it may involve vast properties of gold, silver, live-stock, gardens and slaves and other properties. However, had two women testified to one dirham or more or less than that in a property case, their testimony would not affect anything and would not be permitted unless there was a witness or an oath with them."

Malik said, "There are people who say that an oath is not acceptable with only one witness and they argue by the word of Allah the Blessed, the Exalted, and His word is the Truth, 'And call in to witness two witnesses, men; or if the two be not men, then one man and two women, such witnesses as you approve of.' (Sura 2 ayat 282). Such people argue that if he does not bring one man and two women, he has no claim and he is not allowed to take an oath with one witness."

Malik said, "Part of the proof against those who argue this, is to reply to them, 'Do you think that if a man claimed property from a man, the one claimed from would not swear that the claim was false?' If he swears, the claim against him is dropped. If he refuses to take an oath, the claimant is made to take an oath that his claim is true, and his right against his companion is established. There is no dispute about this with any of the people nor in any country. By what does he take this? In what place in the Book of Allah does he find it? So if he confirms this, let him confirm the oath with one witness, even if it is not in the Book of Allah, the Mighty, the Majestic! It is enough that this is the precedent of the sunna. However, man wants to recognise the proper course of action and the location of the proof. In this there is a clarification for what is obscure about that, if Allah ta'ala wills."

Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that Sulayman ibn Yasar said, ''Umar ibn al-Khattab, Uthman ibn Affan, andZayd ibn Thabit gave the grandfather a third with full siblings". Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things among us and what I have seen the people of knowledge in our city doing is that the paternal grandfather does not inherit anything at all with the father. He is given a sixth as a fixed share with the son and the grandson through a son. Other than that, when the deceased does not leave a mother or a paternal aunt, one begins with whoever has a fixed share, and they are given their shares. If there is a sixth of the property left over, the grandfather is given a sixth as a fixed share."

Malik said, "When someone shares with the grandfather and the full siblings in a specified share, one begins with whoever shares with them of the people of fixed shares. They are given their shares. What is left over after that belongs to the grandfather and the full siblings. Then one sees which is the more favourable of two alternatives for the portion of the grandfather. Either a third is allotted to him and the siblings to divide between them, and he gets a share as if he were one of the siblings, or else he takes a sixth from all the capital. Whichever is the best portion for the grandfather is given to him. What is left after that, goes to the full siblings. The male gets the portion of two females except in one particular case. The division in this case is different from the preceding one. This case is when a woman dies and leaves a husband, mother, full sister and grandfather. The husband gets a half, the mother gets a third, the grandfather gets a sixth, and the full sister gets a half. The sixth of the grandfather and the half of the sister are joined and divided into thirds. The male gets the share of two females. Therefore, the grandfather has two thirds, and the sister has one third."

Malik said, "The inheritance of the half-siblings by the father with the grandfather when there are no full siblings with them, is like the inheritance of the full siblings (in the same situation). The males are the same as their males and the females are the same as their females. When there are both full siblings and half-siblings by the father, the full siblings include in their number the number of half-siblings by the father, to limit the inheritance of the grandfather, i.e., if there was only one full sibling with the grandfather. They would share, after the allotting of the fixed shares, the remainder of the inheritance between them equally. If there were also two half-siblings by the father, their number is added to the division of the sum, which would then be divided four ways. A quarter going to the grandfather and three-quarters going to the full siblings who annex the shares technically allotted to the half-siblings by the father. They do not include the number of half-siblings by the mother, because if there were only half-siblings by the father they would not inherit anything with the grandfather and all the capital would belong to the grandfather, and so the siblings would not get anything after the portion of the grandfather.

"It belongs to the full siblings more than the half-siblings by the father, and the half-siblings by the father do not get anything with them unless the full siblings consist of one sister. If there is one full sister, she includes the grandfather with the half-siblings by her father in the division, however many. Whatever remains for her and these half-siblings by the father goes to her rather than them until she has had her complete share, which is half of the total capital. If there is surplus beyond half of all the capital in what she and the half-siblings by the father acquire it goes to them. The male has the portion of two females. If there is nothing left over, they get nothing."

Yahya related to me from Malik from Yahya ibn Said from Sulayman ibn Yasar that Said ibn Huzaba al-Makhzumi was thrown off his mount while he was in ihram on the road to Makka. He asked after the person in charge of the relay station where he was injured and he found Abdullah ibn Umar, Abdullah ibn az-Zubayr and Marwan ibn al-Hakam there. He told them what had happened to him and all of them said that he should take whatever medicine he had to take and pay compensation for it. Then, when he got better again, he should do umra and come out of his ihram, after which he had to do hajj another year and to offer whatever sacrificial animal he was able to in the future.

Malik said, "This is what we do here (in Madina) if someone is detained by something other than an enemy. And when Abu Ayyub al- Ansari and Habbar ibn al-Aswad came to the day of the sacrifice and had missed the hajj, Umar ibn al-Khattab told them to come out of ihram by doing umra and then to go home free of ihram and do hajj some time in the future and to sacrifice an animal, or, if they could not find one, to fast three days during the hajj and seven days after they had returned to their families."

Malik said, "Anyone who is detained from doing hajj after he has gone into ihram, whether by illness or otherwise, or by an error in calculating the month or because the new moon is concealed from him is in the same position as some one who is hindered from doing the hajj and must do the same as he does."

Yahya said that Malik was asked about the situation of someone from Makka who went into ihram for hajj and then broke a bone or had severe stomach pain, or of a woman who was in labour, and he said, "Someone to whom this happens is in the same situation as one who is hindered from doing the hajj, and he must do the same as people from outlying regions do when they are hindered from doing the hajj."

Malik said, about someone who arrived in the months of the hajj with the intention of doing umra, and completed his umra and went into ihram in Makka to do hajj, and then broke a bone or something else happened to him which stopped him from being present at Arafa with everybody else, "I think that he should stay where he is until he is better and then go outside the area of the Haram, and then return to Makka and do tawaf of the House and say between Safa and Marwa, and then leave ihram. He must then do hajj again another year and offer a sacrificial animal ."

Malik said, about someone who left ihram in Makka, and then did tawaf of the House and say between Safa and Marwa, and then fell ill and was unable to be present with everybody at Arafa, "If the hajj passes someone by he should, if he can, go out of the area of the Haram and then come back in again to do umra and do tawaf of the House and say between Safa and Marwa, because he had not intended his initial tawaf to be for an umra, and so for this reason he does it again. He must do the next hajj and offer a sacrificial animal.

If he is not one of the people of Makka, and something happens to him which stops him from doing the hajj, but he does tawaf of the House and say between Safa and Marwa, he should come out of ihram by doing an umra and then do tawaf of the House a second time, and say between Safa and Marwa, because his initial tawaf and say were intended for the hajj. He must do the next hajj and offer a sacrificial animal."