We have been afflicted by domestic workers in our homes. When a worker comes, one of the conditions in the contract is that she performs the obligatory Hajj. So what should one who is her guarantor do?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner says: O esteemed Shaykh, we have been afflicted by domestic workers in our homes. When a worker comes, one of the conditions is that she performs the obligatory Hajj. So what should one who is her guarantor do? Does he carry out this condition even if it involves a violation of the commands of Allah and His Messenger, or does he ask her to bring a mahram for her to perform Hajj with her, or does he pay her money in exchange for not fulfilling this condition?
The Shaykh : Yes, the questioner mentioned three matters, but there is a fourth matter he did not clarify, which is the obligatory duty from the outset. The obligatory duty is that if the worker stipulates that he should take her for Hajj, he says, “Yes, I commit to this on the condition of a mahram.” But if you do not have a mahram with you, it is not permissible for you to perform Hajj, and it is not permissible for me to allow you to do so as long as the matter is in my hands. Then, these poor women consider Hajj more precious than anything else. If she had been informed from the beginning that there is no Hajj without a mahram, she would have entered into the contract with full knowledge. Then we reassure this poor woman by telling her that Hajj is an obligation, but it is an obligation on whom? On the one who is able. And you are not able right now without a mahram, so there is no Hajj obligation on you. Be at ease; there is no sin on you. And if you meet your Lord, you will meet Him without being a disobedient or sinful person. We make the matter easy for her. If she refuses to do anything but fulfill the condition, we say, “It is not possible, it is not possible. But choose: either we wait until one of your mahrams comes, or we give you compensation for the Hajj you stipulated upon us.”
But here is an issue: if there is a worker who does not have a mahram, then there is no harm in her performing Hajj with them, because her presence in the house is like her presence with them on the journey, and there is no difference; it is the same. And because if she remains in the house, it is more dangerous for her than if she goes with them, without a doubt. And the obligatory duty is to choose the lesser of two harms by removing the greater of the two harms. Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, the questioner mentioned three matters, but there is a fourth matter he did not clarify, which is the obligatory duty from the outset. The obligatory duty is that if the worker stipulates that he should take her for Hajj, he says, “Yes, I commit to this on the condition of a mahram.” But if you do not have a mahram with you, it is not permissible for you to perform Hajj, and it is not permissible for me to allow you to do so as long as the matter is in my hands. Then, these poor women consider Hajj more precious than anything else. If she had been informed from the beginning that there is no Hajj without a mahram, she would have entered into the contract with full knowledge. Then we reassure this poor woman by telling her that Hajj is an obligation, but it is an obligation on whom? On the one who is able. And you are not able right now without a mahram, so there is no Hajj obligation on you. Be at ease; there is no sin on you. And if you meet your Lord, you will meet Him without being a disobedient or sinful person. We make the matter easy for her. If she refuses to do anything but fulfill the condition, we say, “It is not possible, it is not possible. But choose: either we wait until one of your mahrams comes, or we give you compensation for the Hajj you stipulated upon us.”
But here is an issue: if there is a worker who does not have a mahram, then there is no harm in her performing Hajj with them, because her presence in the house is like her presence with them on the journey, and there is no difference; it is the same. And because if she remains in the house, it is more dangerous for her than if she goes with them, without a doubt. And the obligatory duty is to choose the lesser of two harms by removing the greater of the two harms. Yes.