between the miqat and Mecca. The Qadi said: "His action does not count for the person who commanded it, and he must return the entire expense, because he performed something other than what he was ordered to do." This is the school of Abu Hanifah. Our position is that when he enters ihram from the miqat, he has performed the Hajj correctly from its miqat, and if he enters ihram for it from Mecca, he has only fallen short in that which the blood sacrifice (damma) compensates for, so his expenses are not forfeited, just as if he had passed the miqat without being in the state of ihram and then entered ihram after it. If he ordered him to perform ifrad (single Hajj) and he instead performed qiran (combining Hajj and Umrah), he is not liable for anything. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifah said: "He is liable, because he is in violation." Our position is that he performed what he was ordered to do and more, so it is valid and he is not liable, just as if he ordered him to buy a sheep for a dinar, and he bought with it (23) two sheep, one of which is worth a dinar. Then, if he ordered him to perform the Umrah after the Hajj and he did so, he is not liable for anything, and if he did not do so, he must return part of the expenses equivalent to it.

Section: If he ordered him to perform tamattu' and he instead performed qiran, it counts for the person who commanded it, because he ordered both of them, and he only violated the instruction in that he ordered him to enter ihram for the Hajj from Mecca, but he entered ihram for it from (24) the miqat. The apparent opinion of Ahmad is that he does not return any of the expenses. This is the school of al-Shafi'i. The Qadi said: "He must return half of the expenses, because his intent was for a separate Umrah and to obtain the virtue of tamattu', and he violated him in that and caused him to miss it." If he performed ifrad, it also counts for the person who appointed him as a substitute, but he must return half of the expenses, because he failed to enter ihram for the Umrah from the miqat, although he had ordered him to do so, and his entering ihram for the Hajj from the miqat is an addition for which he is not entitled to anything.

Section: If [it is that] (25) he ordered him to perform qiran and he instead performed ifrad or tamattu', it is valid, and the rites count for the person who commanded it, and he must return from the expenses an amount equivalent to what he omitted of the ihram for the rite he left from the miqat. In all these cases, if he ordered him to perform two rites and he performed one of them without the other, he must return from the expenses an amount equivalent to what he left, and the performed rite counts for the person who commanded it, and the substitute is entitled to the expenses corresponding to it.