The ruling on one who passes the miqat without entering ihram from it
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
Question:
So consider the case of a shaykh who was in the mosque and did not leave, and he was in the mosque of Hajj, then he reached the mosque, and when he was in the mosque he went to the other end of the mosque and did not go to the mosque he had passed through first; is there anything required of him?
Answer:
Yes, he owes a fidyah (ransom payment). Either he must return to the miqat he passed and enter ihram from it, or if he enters ihram from somewhere else, he owes a fidyah, because he left an obligatory act. It is not sufficient for him to go to al-Hal or at-Tan'īm; that is not sufficient. Yes.
So consider the case of a shaykh who was in the mosque and did not leave, and he was in the mosque of Hajj, then he reached the mosque, and when he was in the mosque he went to the other end of the mosque and did not go to the mosque he had passed through first; is there anything required of him?
Answer:
Yes, he owes a fidyah (ransom payment). Either he must return to the miqat he passed and enter ihram from it, or if he enters ihram from somewhere else, he owes a fidyah, because he left an obligatory act. It is not sufficient for him to go to al-Hal or at-Tan'īm; that is not sufficient. Yes.
Source
المرور بالميقات دون إحرام — alfawzan.live
The Arabic text is a machine transcription of the audio recording.