The gist of this matter is that whoever passes the miqat intending to perform a ritual (nusuk) while not in a state of ihram is required to return to it in order to assume ihram from there, [if he is able to do so], whether he passed it knowingly or out of ignorance, and whether he knew that it was forbidden or was ignorant of it. If he returns to it and assumes ihram from there, then nothing is due upon him; we know of no disagreement regarding this. Jabir ibn Zayd, al-Hasan, Sa'id ibn Jubayr, al-Thawri, al-Shafi'i, and others hold this opinion, because he assumed ihram from the miqat from which he was commanded to assume it, so nothing became incumbent upon him, just as if he had not passed it. If he assumes ihram from closer than the miqat, a damm (sacrifice) is due upon him, regardless of whether he returns to the miqat or does not return. Malik and Ibn al-Mubarak hold this opinion. The apparent view of the Shafi'i school is that if he returns to the miqat, nothing is due upon him, unless he has already engaged in any of the acts of Hajj, such as the standing (wuquf) or the tawaf of arrival (tawaf al-qudum), in which case the damm becomes binding upon him; this is because he attained the state of ihram at the miqat before engaging in the acts of Hajj, so no damm was incumbent upon him, just as if he had assumed ihram from there. According to Abu Hanifa, if he returns to the miqat and recites the talbiyah, the damm is remitted; if he does not recite the talbiyah, it is not remitted. According to Ata, al-Hasan, and al-Nakha'i, there is nothing due upon one who misses the miqat. According to Sa'id ibn Jubayr, there is no Hajj for one who misses the miqat. Our evidence is what Ibn Abbas narrated from the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), that he said: "Whoever omits a ritual (nusuk), a damm is due upon him." It has been narrated both as a mauquf (attributed to a Companion) and a marfu' (attributed to the Prophet) report. This is because he assumed ihram from closer than his miqat, so the damm became incumbent upon him, just as if he had not returned, or as in the case of performing the tawaf according to al-Shafi'i, or as in the case of not reciting the talbiyah according to Abu Hanifa. Furthermore, he omitted assuming ihram from his miqat, so the damm became binding upon him, as we mentioned. Moreover, the damm became necessary due to his omission of assuming ihram from the miqat, and this does not cease by his returning nor by his reciting the talbiyah.