Problem # 27 If, after the performance of all the rites of Hajj  the money meant to meet the expenses of his return to his hometown is lost, or the money which was sufficient to meet the expenses in his hometown is lost, then, if the rule of condition requiring sufficient funds for return in declaring one's capability is accepted, it shall not be sufficient to declare his Hajj an Islamic Hajj, not to speak of the case when the money is lost before the completion of all the rites of Hajj  particularly when he has not enough money to meet his expenses during the remaining rites of Hajj.

Problem # 28 If a person attains capability through a valid and incontrovertible transfer of property, Hajj shall be obligatory on him. But if a person bequeaths some property to another that is sufficient to make the latter capable. Hajj shall not become obligatory on him just after the death of the legator, as also it shall not be obligatory on him to accept the legacy

Problem # 29 If, before attaining capability, a person vows, suppose, to go on a pilgrimage to the shrine of Imam Abu 'Abdillah al-Husain, PBUH, on every 'Arafah day, and later he attains the capability, Hajj shall be obligatory on him without any hesitation or difficulty. The same shall be the case if a person vows, suppose something that is in conflict with Hajj, or is opposed to obligatory Hajj , or necessitates the commission of something forbidden, he shall observe what is more important according to the holy legislator (i.e., Allah).

Problem # 30 If a person has no travel expenses or transport, but someone promises to pay the expenses for him and his family, or offers some money to perform Hajj, and the amount were sufficient to meet the two expenses for him and his family, Hajj shall be obligatory on him, regardless whether the money is delivered to him or is allowed by transfer, whether it is paid in cash or kind, and whether it is repayable or not, and whether the offer is made by an individual or several persons. Of course, there must be surety that the person shall not fall upon his back. If a person has part of the expenses, and he is paid the rest, even then Hajj shall be obligatory on him. If a person is not paid full expenses for him and his family, Hajj shall not be obligatory on him. In such case, a debt does not preclude the obligation of Hajj, If the debt has matured and the creditor demands its repayment, and the debtor would be able to repay it if he does go on Hajj, then whether the debt shall preclude the performance of Hall, there are two opinions, It is not a condition to apply the rule of sufficiency in this case, Of course, it is a condition that Hajj should not upset the programs of his future life due to his absence.

Problem # 31 If a person is offered freely so much as would meet his expenses of Hajj according to the stronger opinion, he shall be bound to accept it, The same shall be the case if he is made a free gift and given the option to perform or not perform Hajj If, however, Hajj is not mentioned while making the offer, then, apparently, Hajj shall not be obligatory, Similarly, if a person bequeaths something that is sufficient to meet Hajj expenses with the condition that the legatee must perform Hajj, then Hajj shall be obligatory on the legatee after the legator's death. If a person pays another Khums or Zakat and stipulates performance of Hajj, the condition shall be declared null and void, and Hajj shall not be obligatory on the recipient. If a person pays something out of the portion to be spent in the way of Allah, it shall not be lawful to spend it in any other way, but its acceptance is not obligatory on the person to whom it is offered, It is neither a case of pecuniary capability nor that of a capability for payment. If the person becomes capable subsequently, Hajj shall be obligatory on him.

Problem # 32 It is lawful for the payer to withdraw from payment before tying Ihram. According to the stronger opinion, the same shall be the rule even after tying Ihram. If a person makes a free gift to another, and the latter accepts, it shall be governed by the same rules as applicable to other cases of free gifts, If the person offering the gift withdraws his offer on the way, he shall be bound to pay the person fare for his return. If the person making the offer withdraws his offer after tying Ihram, payment of the expenses for completing the Hajj shall not be far from being likely.

Problem # 33 Apparently the person making the offer shall pay for the sacrificial animal, but not for the expiations, even if they have been due to emergency, ignorance or forgetfulness, as they shall be payable by the performer of Hajj himself.

Problem # 34 A Hajj performed by a person whose expenses are borne by another is sufficient to be considered an Islamic Hajj regardless whether the expenses have been fully paid by another or they have been partly paid by him, If a person making offer withdraws his offer on the way, and the person performing Hajj is capable to perform Hajj with his own money from that place onward, Hajj shall still be obligatory on him, and it shall be considered an Islamic Hajj  provided that it fulfils all the conditions required for Hajj before tying Ihram; otherwise, there shall be difficulty in considering it an Islamic Hajj .

Problem # 35 If a person specifies an amount of money for another to perform Hajj  who considers it sufficient for the purpose, but later it turns out to be insufficient, apparently it shall not be obligatory on that person to complete the Hajj  regardless whether it is lawful for him to return or not. If a person donates money to another for the performance of Hajj and after the performance of Hajj it turns out to be usurped money, according to the stronger opinion, it shall not be sufficient to be called an Islamic Hajj Similar shall be the case when a person says to another: "Perform Hajj and your expenses shall be borne by me", and the money turns out to be usurped.

Problem # 36 If a person says to another: "Borrow money, and perform Hajj and I shall pay your debt", the obligation of Hajj on the person (addressed) shall be open to question. If, however, a person says to another: "Borrow money on my behalf and perform Hajj with it", Hajj shall be obligatory on the person (addressed), provided that there is such a lender.

Problem # 37 If a person engages himself to serve on the way to Hajj in a way that thereby he becomes capable (to perform Hajj ), Hajj shall be obligatory on him, If, however, a person is asked to offer himself for service by which he becomes capable (to perform Hajj), its acceptance shall not be obligatory on him, If a person engages himself on behalf of another, becoming capable with that money, he shall prefer the Hajj for another if engaged for the first year. If, however, the capability subsists for the next year, Hajj for himself shall also be obligatory on him. If he performs Hajj by hire, or for himself or another person voluntarily, without his being capable (to perform Hajj), it shall not be sufficient to be considered an Islamic Hajj.

Problem # 38 For capability, it is a condition there must be sufficient money for the maintenance of his family until his return. By family here is meant those whom he is obliged to maintain by custom, even if, according to the stronger opinion, he may not be obliged to support them as required by Shari'ah.

Problem # 39 According to the stronger opinion, for capability on his return, it is a condition that he must own some object of trade, agriculture, industry, or (a source of) benefit, like a garden, a shop or the like, so that, on his return, he may not be forced to beg and may not face some trouble or discomfort, and it must be sufficient to enable him to earn something suitable to his position or engage in trade according to his dignity and honour, while it is not sufficient for him to live upon Zakat and Khums. The same shall be the rule if a person begs for help like the poor who have such habit and are not able to work. According to the stronger opinion, the same shall be the case with persons whose position does not change before and after Hajj so that even if they have the expenses required for return passage and maintenance of their family, they shall not be considered capable, and their Hajj shall not be sufficient to be considered an Islamic Hajj.

Problem # 40 It is not lawful for a father or a son to take out the property of each other and perform Hajj with it, It is also not obligatory on either to donate it to the other. According to the stronger opinion, Hajj is not obligatory if a person is poor and his maintenance is another's liability, even if his maintenance during the journey is not higher than that within his hometown.

Problem # 41 If a person attains capability, it shall not be obligatory on him to perform Hajj with his own money, so that if he performs it in penury, or with another's money, even if it were usurped, Hajj shall be valid and shall be considered an Islamic Hajj. Of course, according to the more cautious opinion, it shall not be valid to offer the prayer for circumambulation with the usurped garments. If a person has purchased his garments or the sacrificial animal on credit intending to pay their price from the usurped money, there shall be difficulty (in its validity) otherwise not. There is difficulty in its invalidity in case usurped money is used in Ihram and Sa'y, though it is more cautious to abstain from it.

Problem # 42 Physical capability is also a condition for Hajj. So it is not lawful for a sick person who is not able to ride, or riding is harmful for him, regardless whether it is on a camel's back, or in a vehicle or an aeroplane. Similarly, capability of time is also a condition, so that Hajj is not obligatory if time is so short that it is not possible to perform Hajj, or it is not possible without extreme hardship. Capability of the passage is also a condition so that there must neither be any hurdle on the way that may render arrival at the Miqat or performance of all the rites of Hajj impossible. Otherwise, Hajj shall not be obligatory. The same shall be the case if a person is afraid of damage to his person, body, honour, or property, or the dangerous route is the sole route, or all the routes were dangerous. If the farthest route were safe, it would be obligatory to go by that route. If all the routes are dangerous, but one may reach by roundabout passing through distant places that is not considered a Hajj route, according to the stronger opinion, in that case, Hajj shall not be obligatory.

Problem # 43 If going to Hajj would mean a considerable wastage of money in his place that would be harmful for him, Hajj shall not be obligatory on him, or it would mean giving up something more important or committing something forbidden, he must prefer what is more important. If, however, he defies it and performs Hajj, it would be valid and shall except be considered an Islamic Hajj. If on the way there lies a tyrant who cannot be avoided except by payment of money, so if he obstructs the passage, and usually the passage is not clear, but it can be cleared by paying money, it shall not be obligatory. If it is not so, and he charges something from every passer-by, it shall be obligatory, except when the payment is troublesome for him.

Problem # 44 If a person believes that he has attained maturity, and performs Hajj, but later it turns out to be otherwise, his Hajj shall not be considered an Islamic Hajj. The same shall be the rule, if a person considers himself having pecuniary capability, but later it transpires to be otherwise. If a person believes there is no harm or trouble (for him in Hajj), but later its transpires otherwise, then if it were a personal or pecuniary loss amounting to actual trouble, or the Hajj was troublesome, then there is difficulty in considering it sufficient (for being an Islamic Hajj), rather, contrary to it shall not be devoid of force. However, a monetary loss not amounting to actual trouble is not a hurdle in the obligation of Hajj. Of course, if a person bears a loss and trouble until he reaches Miqat and there both disappear, and he attains capability, then, according to the stronger opinion, it shall be sufficient (to be considered an Islamic Hajj). If a person believes there is no important legal hitch and so performs Hajj, but it turns out to be otherwise, his Hajj shall be valid. If he believes himself to be a minor, and so performs an approved Hajj but later it transpires to be otherwise, it has a detailed rule whose similar case has already been mentioned. If a person abandons Hajj despite fulfilling conditions for all its rites, its obligation shall be established on him. There is, however, possibility of its subsistence until the time of his return to his native place, but there is difficulty (in accepting it). If a person believes that his money shall not suffice for Islamic Hajj and so he abandons it, but later it transpires to be otherwise, its obligation shall be established on him, provided that there are all the requisite qualifications. If a person believes that there is a hurdle created by the enemy, or some trouble or loss due to Hajj, and so he abandons it, but later it transpires to be otherwise, then apparently its obligation shall be established on him, particularly in case of belief about the existence of a real trouble. If a person believes that there is an important legal hitch, and so he abandons Hajj, but later it transpires to be otherwise, its obligation shall be established on him.

Problem # 45 If a person deliberately abandons Hajj despite the fact that all its conditions are there, obligation for Hajj shall be established on him provided that the conditions subsist until the performance of all its rites, If he performs Hajj despite the absence of any condition, so that if it were the condition of maturity, it would not be considered sufficient (for being an Islamic Hajj ), except when he attains maturity before reaching either of the Mawqifain (namely, 'Arafat or Mash'ar), in which case it would suffice (for being called an Islamic Hajj), Similarly, if he performs Hajj despite absence of pecuniary capability, absence of a safe passage, physical incapacity or existence of a distress, and attains capability before tying Ihram and the excuse is removed his Hajj shall be valid and suffice (to be called an Islamic Hajj), contrary to the case when he fails to fulfill a condition from tying the Ihram to the performance of all the rites of Hajj  If Hajj itself is a source of distress, or some of its rites were a source of distress or harm for his person, then apparently it shall not be sufficient to be considered an Islamic Hajj.

Problem # 46 If the clearance of the route amounts to declaration of war with the enemy, Hajj shall not be obligatory on him, even if there is surety of overcoming the enemy. If the passage is clear, but the enemy creates hurdles in his way to Hajj then a fight against the enemy is not far from being obligatory provided that there is surety, confidence and certainty of overcoming the enemy and maintenance of peace and security, though the Problem is not free from ambiguity.

Problem # 47 If the sole Hajj route is by sea or air, it shall be obligatory to travel except for a reasonable fear of being drowned, plane crash or sickness or a sure disturbance in prayer itself, not by change in its conditions. But if it would require eating or drinking unclean things, even then it is not far from being obligatory (to travel) and as far as possible to abstain from (eating or drinking) unclean things and confine it to the amount needed, so that even if he fails to abstain from it, his Hajj shall be valid, but he shall be considered to have committed a sin, as if he rides some usurped means of transport upto the Miqat, rather upto Mecca, Mina or Arafat, in which case too he shall be considered to have committed a sin, but his Hajj shall be valid. Similarly, if obligation of Hajj is established on a person, but he was liable to pay Zakat or Khums, any other dues, the payment of which is obligatory on him, then if he proceeds on Hajj despite all that, he shall be considered to have committed a sin, but his Hajj shall be valid. If, however, the obligations are to be fulfilled from his property itself, then his case shall be similar to the case of usurpation, which has already been mentioned.

Problem # 48 It is obligatory to perform Hajj personally, so that its performance by another person whether voluntarily or against hire is not sufficient. Of course, if its obligation is established on a person, but he is not able to perform it personally due to sickness from which he does not hope to recover, or is confined in the same way, or is too old to go for Hajj or it is troublesome for him, it shall be obligatory on him to perform it through an agent. If it is not established on him, and it is also not possible for him to perform it personally due any of the excuses mentioned, then there are two opinions on its obligation, while the second (favoring non-obligation) is not devoid of force. In case of obligation, a prompt appointment of an agent for Hajj is more cautious. The Hajj through an agent shall be sufficient, provided that the excuse subsists till his death; rather, even if it is removed after the performance, contrary to its removal during its performance, not to speak of its removal before it. Apparently, the hire shall terminate (in case the excuse is removed before or during the performance of Hajj). If a person is not able to appoint an agent to perform Hajj on his behalf, the obligation shall drop, and it has to be compensated (on his behalf). It is not sufficient to appoint an agent with the hope that the excuse shall be removed, and he shall be bound to perform if after the removal of the excuse. If, after the performance of Hajj through an agent, one loses hope (of removal of the excuse), apparently it would be sufficient. In case a person is bound to appoint an agent, a Hajj performed voluntarily on his behalf shall not be sufficient. There is difficulty in declaring the appointment of an agent from Miqat as valid, though, according to the opinion closer to the traditional authority, it is so.

Problem # 49 If a person on whom obligation of Hajj is established dies, then, if he dies after tying Ihram and entering the Haram, his Hajj shall be sufficient to be considered an Islamic Hajj. If he dies before it, it shall have to be compensated, even if, according to the stronger opinion, he dies after tying Ihram, as it is not sufficient to enter the Haram before tying the Ihram, as when he forgets it and enter the Haram and dies. There is no difference in its sufficiency whether he dies while still tying lhram or after he has untied it, as when he dies between the two Ihrams (namely, for Hajj and 'Umrah). If, after entering the Haram in lhram, he dies outside the Haram, there shall be difficulty in declaring his Hajj sufficient (to be considered an Islamic Hajj). If a person dies during the performance of 'Umrah-i Tamattu', apparently it shall be sufficient to be considered an Islamic Hajj. Apparently this rule shall not apply if a person dies during the performance of a votive Hajj or Mufradah 'Umrah. As regards an invalid Hajj, there are detailed rules concerning it. The rule mentioned above shall not apply to a person on whom Hajj is not established, so that, if he dies, it shall neither be obligatory nor approved for him to compensate.

Problem # 50 Hajj is also obligatory on an infidel, but it is not valid in his case. If he embraces Islam, and he loses capability before it, it would no more be obligatory on him. If he dies while still an infidel, he shall not be bound to compensate. If he ties Ihram and then embraces Islam, his Hajj shall not be considered an Islamic Hajj, and he shall be required to repeat it from Miqat, if possible, or from his own place. Of course, if he were within the Haram when he embraces Islam, then it would be more cautious for him, if possible, to go outside the Haram, and tie Ihram. As regards an apostate, Hajj is obligatory on him regardless whether he were capable while still a Muslim or after his apostasy, but his Hajj shall not be valid. If he dies before his repentance, he shall have (divine) punishment for not performing Hajj, though, according to the stronger opinion, he shall not be bound to compensate it. In case of his repentance, Hajj shall become obligatory on him, and, according to the stronger opinion, his Hajj shall be valid, regardless whether his capability (to perform Hajj) subsists or has been lost before his repentance. If he ties Ihram while still an apostate, then he shall be treated at par with a born infidel. If he performs Hajj while still a Muslim, and then apostatizes, then, according to the stronger opinion, he shall not be bound to repeat it. If he ties Ihram while still a Muslim, apostatises, and then repents (while still tying Ihram), according to the more valid opinion, his Ihram shall not be declared invalid.

Problem # 51 If an opponent (i.e., a Sunni) performs Hajj, and then becomes a Shi'ah, he shall not be bound to repeat Hajj provided that his Hajj  was valid according to his own sect, though it may not be so according to the Shi'ah sect, as there is no difference among the sects (of Islam) in this respect.

Problem # 52 There is no need for a wife to obtain the permission of her husband for Hajj provided that she possesses capability (to perform Hajj ), and it is also not permissible for the husband to forbid her from Hajj . The same rule shall apply in case of a votive Hajj or the like, if the time is short. In case of an approved Hajj, there is a condition of husband's permission. According to the stronger opinion, the same rule applies in case of a Muwassa' Hajj (in which there is ample time) before its time becomes short. In case of an Islamic Hajj a husband may prevent his wife from proceeding with the first Caravan, provided that there is another Caravan available before the time for Hajj becomes short. A revocably divorced woman is at par with a wife as long as she has not completed her 'Iddah, contrary to an irrevocably divorced woman or one observing the 'Iddah for her husband's death, as the latter two are allowed to perform even an approved Hajj. Apparently a temporary wife is at par with a permanent one. There is no difference in the condition for (husband's) permission whether enjoyment of the wife is forbidden due to sickness or the like or not.

Problem # 53 There is no condition of a Mahram to accompany a woman in Hajj regardless whether she is married or not, provided her life and honour are safe; otherwise, it shall be obligatory for her to be accompanied by a Mahram or a trust-worthy person even if hired. In case of unavailability of such a person, she shall not be considered capable (to perform Hajj). Similarly, in case of availability and her inability to pay for his hire, she shall still not be considered capable. If the woman has a husband who claims the existence of danger (on the way), while she claims otherwise; then it shall be a case of a mutual claim, and there are many solutions to it. (Briefly speaking), in the case mentioned, the husband shall have the authority to forbid her; rather he shall be bound to do so. If the case is decided by her oath, or she adduces the evidence of two witnesses, and the judge gives his judgment in favour of the wife, then the husband's right shall drop. If a woman performs Hajj despite absence of peace and security, her Hajj shall be valid, particularly when peace had been restored before her tying Ihram.

Problem # 54 If Hajj is established on a person due to the completion of all the conditions, but he dilly-dallies until the cessation of all or some of the conditions, he shall be bound to perform Hajj how so ever possible. If he dies, it shall be compensated on his behalf, provided that he has left some legacy. It would also be valid if someone volunteers to do it on his behalf. According to the stronger opinion, the obligation of Hajj shall subsist until the time it becomes possible for the person to return to his hometown as regards his pecuniary, physical or passage capability. But as regards his capability of sanity, its subsistence until the last rites of Hajj is sufficient. If the obligation of only 'Umrah or Hajj is established on a person, as in case of a person who is liable to perform Hajj al-Ifrad or Hajj al-Qiran, and later loses its capability, then, as mentioned earlier, he shall be bound to perform how so ever possible, and if he dies, it shall have to be compensated on his behalf.

Problem # 55 The Islamic Hajj shall be compensated out of the legacy itself if a person has not mentioned it in his will, regardless whether it were Hajj al-Tamattu', Hajj al-Qiran, Hajj al-Ifrad or 'Umrah of either type. If he has mentioned it in his will without specifying whether it is to be compensated out of the (total) legacy itself or its one-third, action shall be taken in the same way. If, however, he has mentioned in his will that it should be deducted from one-third (of the legacy), it shall have to be extracted from it. It shall be preferred to his approved bequests, even if they have been mentioned subsequent to the former. If the one-third (of the legacy) is not sufficient, the rest shall be deducted from the legacy itself. The expenses on the votive Hajj shall also likewise be deducted from the legacy itself. If a person owes some debt, Khums, or Zakat, and the legacy falls short, then, if the property of Khums and Zakat exists, both Khums and Zakat shall be given preference, and it shall not be permissible to spend it except on both of them. If a person is liable to pay Khums and Zakat, according to the stronger opinion, the legacy shall be divided proportionately. If it suffices for the portion of Hajj well and good, if not, then apparently it shall be dropped. If the portion suffices only for any of the Hajj rites, like circumambulation, it shall be spent on the other items. If all the other items (namely, debt, Khums and Zakat) are there, it shall be divided among them. If, suppose, it suffices for only Hajj or 'Umrah, then in case of Hajj al-Qiran or Hajj al-Ifrad it is not far from being obligatory to prefer Hajj, but in case of Hajj al- Tamattu', according to the stronger opinion, Hajj shall be dropped, and its portion shall be spent on the repayment of debt.

Problem # 56 It is not permissible for the heirs to. make any change in the legacy before hiring for Hajj or payment of its amount to the deceased's representative, if its expenses overwhelm the whole legacy, rather, according to the more cautious opinion, in all circumstances, even if the legacy were quite extensive, and the heirs intended to pay for the expenses on Hajj from a source other than subject to the change, though legality of effecting change is not free from being close to traditional authority, nevertheless caution must not be given up.

Problem # 57 If any of the heirs acknowledges the obligation of Hajj on the deceased while others deny it, only that much shall be bound to be paid as is his share after distribution of the legacy, in case it suffices for Hajj even if from the Miqat, otherwise, it is not obligatory to pay it. It is, however, more cautious to keep his share with the hope that the other heirs may also agree or some one may be found who volunteers to complement it. Rather, if there is such a hope, according to the stronger opinion, it shall be obligatory to keep the share, and according to the more cautious opinion, it must be paid to the Wali of the deceased. If the deceased is liable only to perform Hajj and his legacy does not suffice its expenditure, then apparently, the legacy shall belong to the heirs. Of course, if subsequently it is likely to suffice for Hajj or there is a volunteer to complement it, it shall be obligatory to keep it. If a person has performed Hajj voluntarily on behalf of the deceased, the amount earmarked for hiring for that purpose shall revert to the heirs, regardless whether the deceased has specified it for that purpose or not. It is more cautious for the elders to spend their shares in charity.

Problem # 58 According to the stronger opinion, if possible, it is obligatory to hire a person to perform Hajj on behalf of the (deceased from the Miqat nearest to Mecca; otherwise, the Miqat that is as close as possible. In case of a considerable property, the person hired must belong to the place of the deceased, otherwise, to a place as close as possible. However, whatever wages exceed the amount required for Hajj from Miqat shall not be charged from minor heirs. If the deceased has specifically mentioned in his will that the agent must be employed from his hometown, it is obligatory to do so, and whatever exceeds the wages for Hajj from Miqat shall be deducted from the one-third. If he has mentioned Hajj in his will, but has not specified anything, Hajj from Miqat shall be sufficient. If, however, there is an aversion to the agent being from his home -town, or the context so demands, then the excess shall be deducted from the one-third. If the amount mentioned in the will exceeds the amount required for Hajj from Miqat, but falls short of the one required from the hometown, then, according to the more cautious opinion, an agent shall be hired from a place as close as possible. If it is not possible to hire a person except from the place of the deceased, it shall be obligatory to do so, and the total expenses shall be defrayed from the full legacy.