And if old age or an illness from which recovery is not expected prevents him, he is obligated to appoint someone to perform Hajj and 'Umrah on his behalf.

The Shaykh : Then the author (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "And if old age or an illness from which recovery is not expected prevents him, he is obligated to appoint someone to perform Hajj and 'Umrah on his behalf." If old age prevents him, this implies that he has sufficient wealth; he is able with his money but not with his body. That is why he said "old age prevented him" and did not say "poverty prevented him," but rather "old age." So he is a wealthy man, but he cannot perform Hajj himself because he is old. He cannot perform Hajj himself because he is ill, but his illness is one from which recovery is not expected. In that case, he is obligated to appoint someone to perform Hajj and 'Umrah on his behalf. Now, from his statement "recovery is not expected," we understand that if recovery were expected, he would not be obligated to appoint someone to perform Hajj on his behalf. But is he obligated to perform Hajj himself? No, because he is prevented, but since his illness is one from which recovery is expected, it is permissible for him to delay Hajj here, because the immediacy is dropped from him due to his inability. What is it? Due to his inability. And he is obligated to perform Hajj himself. The parallel to this is what we said regarding fasting: what does a person with an illness from which recovery is not expected do? He feeds a poor person for every day. And a person with an illness from which recovery is expected waits and makes up the fast. This is also similar: for the person with an illness from which recovery is not expected, we say, appoint someone to perform Hajj and 'Umrah for you. And for the one from whom recovery is expected, we say, wait until Allah the Exalted heals you and you are able to perform Hajj yourself. He says: "He is obligated to appoint someone to perform Hajj and 'Umrah on his behalf."
Attendance: That he appoints

The Shaykh :"He is obligated to appoint, he is obligated to appoint someone to perform Hajj and 'Umrah on his behalf, insofar as they are obligatory." He says: "To appoint someone to perform Hajj." The word "someone" here is a relative pronoun that includes everyone whose Hajj is valid. However, it must be in the manner in which the obligatory Hajj is valid for him. It must be in the manner in which the obligatory Hajj is valid for him. So if he appoints a child? It is not valid, because the child's obligatory Hajj is not valid for himself, so it is even less valid for another. If he appoints a slave, according to the opinion that Hajj is not valid for him, it is not valid for him either. So his statement "someone to perform Hajj" is general, but the specific is intended, and the meaning is to appoint someone to perform Hajj on his behalf from among those for whom Hajj would be valid if they performed it for themselves. And a condition for this position, where one is appointed for another, is that the obligatory Hajj must not be upon him. If the obligatory Hajj is upon him, it is not valid for him to be a deputy for another. Pay attention: if he appoints a poor person to perform Hajj on his behalf, is it valid or not?

The questioner : If he performs Hajj for himself, it is valid.

The Shaykh : If he appoints a poor person, the phrase I said is: it is a condition that the deputy whom the man appointed does not have the obligatory Hajj upon him. So if he appoints a poor person to perform Hajj on his behalf?

The questioner : It is permissible, O Shaykh, because the poor person does not have the obligatory Hajj upon him.

The Shaykh : Yes, you did not understand the phrase well. It is a condition for the one he appoints that the obligatory Hajj is not upon him. And the poor person who has no wealth does not have the obligatory Hajj upon him. And on this basis, if he appoints a poor person who has not performed Hajj, it is valid for him, because this poor person does not have the obligation of Hajj, so he is like the wealthy person who performed Hajj for himself. Now, if he appoints a wealthy person who has not performed the obligatory Hajj for himself, it is not valid for him. The evidence is the hadith of Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him and him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) heard a man saying the talbiyah, saying "Labbaik for Shubrumah." So the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to him: And in some wordings of the hadith: And in some wordings of the hadith: The scholars differed regarding whether this hadith is marfu' (traced to the Prophet) or mawquf (stopping at a Companion), and they differed regarding its authenticity and weakness. Some said it is weak because it is disturbed due to the variation in its wordings; in some it is: and in some: and in some: They said this is a disturbance that changes the ruling. And some said that its being marfu' is an error and that it is not valid except as mawquf upon Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him and him). And they said there is no reason for the prohibition, meaning the prohibition of one who has not performed Hajj for himself from performing Hajj for another. That is, there is no reason to prevent him from performing Hajj for another, by the proof that if a person pays zakah by agency for another before paying his own zakah, that would be permissible. So what is the barrier? But we say, without doubt, the better and more appropriate thing for a person is not to be a deputy for another in what is obligatory upon him until he first performs his own obligation. Whether this hadith is authentic as marfu', or authentic as mawquf, or not authentic, the consideration requires that a person prioritize himself over others, due to the generality of "Begin with yourself," and "Yourself is more deserving than others." But according to the madhhab, this condition is required: that the deputy has not performed the obligatory Hajj. If he appoints someone who has not performed the obligatory Hajj, that is not valid. Now, suppose that this person who was appointed, and who has not performed the obligatory Hajj, performed Hajj and said "Labbaik for so-and-so," the one who appointed him. What is the ruling? We say the Hajj belongs to this man who performed it, and he returns the money, i.e., the dirhams that the one who appointed him gave him, because that work for which he was appointed was not valid for him, so he returns his compensation. Is that clear, everyone? Now, the author (may Allah have mercy on him) says: "He is obligated to appoint someone to perform Hajj and 'Umrah on his behalf." And the generality of his statement (may Allah have mercy on him) indicates that it is permissible for a man to appoint a woman, and for a woman to appoint a man. Where do we take this from? From the generality of the relative pronoun "someone." And on this basis, a man may appoint a woman, and a woman may appoint a man. And the evidence for this is the hadith of Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him and him) that a woman said: "O Messenger of Allah, my father has been overtaken by the obligation of Allah upon His slaves in Hajj, an old man who cannot remain on the mount. Shall I perform Hajj for him?" He said: So he permitted her to perform Hajj for her father, and she was a woman. So that indicates that it is permissible for a woman to perform Hajj for a man, and it is even more so for a man to perform Hajj for a woman.