A Jurisprudential Study of a Valid Interval between Two Journeys of Umrah al-Mufradah

One of the controversial issues in the Umrah rulings is the valid interval between the two performances of Umrah al-Mufrada which is due to the differences in narratives. “The necessity of a one-year interval”, “the necessity of a one-month interval”, “the necessity of a ten-day interval” and “the unnecessary interval” are the four theories that jurists point out based on jurisprudential evidence. The examination of the evidence makes it clear that most of Imamiyyah jurists reject the arguments of the first theory (a one-year interval). On the other hand, the proofs of the third theory (a ten-day interval) are weak in terms of the relevant documents. Therefore, it is surely legitimate to carry out the Umrah once a month and the research is to investigate the legitimacy of conducting the Umrah for the second time in less than a month. The resultant of the arguments of the second theory (a one- month interval) and the fourth theory (unnecessary interval) is that a certain interval is not valid to conduct the Umrah for the second time; and the expression of different times (ten days, one month, and one year) in the traditions is, in fact, the expression of the virtues of conducting the Umrah. That is, the longer interval between two performances of Umrah, the more intense one can conduct the Umrah. Therefore, the pilgrim of the Bayt al-Allah al- ḥarām is permitted to conduct the Umrah as much as he wishes on behalf of himself or others.