Continuation of the explanation of the author's statement: "After discharging the obligatory duties, the prescribed expenses, and the basic needs"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : If he pays the debt with it, he cannot afford the Hajj, and if he performs the Hajj, he cannot pay the debt with it. So do we say that this person is capable? No, he is not considered capable until after discharging the debts, expiations, and other such obligations.
Now, if someone asks, "What if the creditor gives him permission to perform the Hajj? Would he then be considered capable?" The answer is no, because the issue is not a matter of permission; the issue is whether the liability is occupied or not. It is well known that if the creditor gives the debtor permission to perform the Hajj, his liability is not cleared of the debt; the debt remains in his liability. Therefore, we say that the Hajj is not obligatory upon him at this time. Pay the debt first, then perform the Hajj. If you were to meet your Lord before performing the Hajj, and the only thing preventing you from doing so was discharging the debt, you would meet your Lord with complete faith. This is because the Hajj did not become obligatory upon him in this state. Just as it is not obligatory for a poor person to pay zakat, and if he were to meet his Lord, he would meet him in a state of complete Islam, so too is this debtor who does not have the funds to both discharge the debt and perform the Hajj; he meets his Lord in a state of complete Islam. Now, what some debtors currently believe—that the operative cause is the lack of permission from the creditor—has no reality and no basis. The operative cause is not whether the creditor gives permission or not; the operative cause is that the liability remains occupied or is cleared. This is the operative cause. And it is well known that if he gives him permission to perform the Hajj, does he become cleared of any part of the debt? Never. Now, if someone asks, "What if it is possible for him to perform the Hajj through a financial benefit, such that he is paid a wage? For example, this man is a good worker, so someone hires him to accompany them on the Hajj, either by caravan or with family, and pays him, say, one thousand riyals per month or for ten days. And if he stayed in the city, he would not earn one thousand riyals, neither in a month nor in ten days. Is he allowed to perform the Hajj in this case?" He is allowed to perform the Hajj, and the debt does not prevent the obligation of the Hajj if the debt is less than what he will be paid. However, if the debt is more, it remains in his liability and prevents the obligation. Now, suppose he finds someone who will take him on the Hajj for free and give him nothing. Does this harm him regarding the debt if he performs the Hajj, or does it not harm him?
Interjection: There is a distinction, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : There is a distinction in that if he were to stay and work and obtain a wage, then staying is better than performing the Hajj. And if he would not obtain anything even if he stayed, then in his case, performing the Hajj and not performing it are equal. In any case, the Hajj is not obligatory upon him as long as even one dirham remains in his liability. Similarly, we say regarding expiations: if he is required to free a slave and he has ten thousand riyals, he can either free the slave for ten thousand riyals or perform the Hajj. We tell him, "Do not perform the Hajj; free the slave, which is the expiation upon you, because its obligation preceded the obligation of the Hajj. The Hajj is not obligatory except with the ability to perform it, and there is no ability for one who has a debt in his liability."
The second thing that must be present for the obligation of the Hajj is the prescribed expenses, meaning those that the Shari'ah approves and permits. This includes the expenses for himself and his dependents in a manner that does not involve extravagance. If he has ten thousand riyals, and performing the Hajj with them would reduce the expenses, while spending them would make the Hajj impossible, does he perform the Hajj even if the expenses are reduced, or does he not perform it? He does not perform it. However, the author stipulated that the expenses must be prescribed. If they are not prescribed, being expenses of extravagance or expenses on things that are not needed, they are not considered, and the Hajj takes precedence over them. For example, a man whose prescribed expenses befitting his status are ten thousand riyals, and he currently has fifteen thousand riyals, from which he can perform the Hajj with five thousand. But he says, "I want to spend like kings or like the rich who are richer than me, because I am in a neighborhood where everyone is a minister or a wealthy person, so I want my car parked at my door to be like theirs, even though he could do with a much cheaper car." Do we say here that the expenses he spends are prescribed? No, rather they are expenses of extravagance in his case and are not considered. So we say that whatever exceeds the expenses befitting you, you are obligated to perform the Hajj with it. Now, the author says "what remains after the prescribed expenses." To what extent do we estimate these prescribed expenses? Meaning, the expenses that suffice him for his Hajj and return, or for his year, or permanently, or what? The jurists, may Allah have mercy on them, say that it must be after the expenses that suffice him and his family permanently. Do you understand? That they suffice him and his family permanently. If we said this, the Hajj would not become obligatory upon anyone, because if a person has the wealth of Qarun, he cannot say that this wealth will suffice him permanently, because circumstances change; wages and living expenses may increase, or their lifespans may lengthen. He might estimate his life at fifty years, and Allah might make it a hundred years, meaning he needs twice what he expected. But they said that the meaning of our saying "permanently" is not what you imagine, that a person must have cash that suffices him permanently. What is meant by "permanently" is what is the result of a craft, or the rent of a property, or something similar, such that he says, "My craft earns me exactly what is needed for the expenses, no more," or "My properties yield an investment that is exactly what is needed for the expenses, no more." Now, are the expenses permanent or not? They are permanent, based on the assumption that this investment will remain as it is, and so with the craft. This is what is meant. It is not meant that he must have cash or goods that suffice him permanently, because this cannot be regulated, and if we said that, no one would have an obligatory Hajj. But what is meant by "permanently" is what comes from the investment of a property, or the wages of a craft, or something similar. So the meaning of their statement, may Allah have mercy on them, "permanently" is now clear. And some scholars said, "what suffices him and his family until he returns from the Hajj". If he has expenses that suffice him and his family until he returns from the Hajj, and there is something extra that suffices him for the Hajj, the Hajj becomes obligatory upon him. Because when he returns to his family, provision is from whom? From Allah, Mighty and Majestic, who provides for them. As long as he can perform the Hajj now and leave expenses with his family to suffice them upon his return, then he is capable. If someone says, "We estimate the expenses for the year as they were estimated in what? In the chapter of zakat, where the poor person is one who does not find his sufficiency for a year, the poor and the needy." If someone said this, it would not be far-fetched to say that if he has cash that suffices him and his family for a year, and there is something extra, he is obligated to perform the Hajj. If it is less than that, he is not obligated, because he does not cease to be a poor person if he does not have more than what suffices him for the year.
The third: he says "the original needs". It is necessary that what he has be in excess of the original needs. By original needs, we mean those that a person needs frequently, because there are original needs and secondary needs. Examples of original needs are books, pens, watches, a car, and the like. These are original needs; they are not essential, but they are original, and a person’s life requires them. For example, a student of knowledge has books he needs for review and reading, so we do not tell him to sell his books and go on Hajj. Now, if he has two copies, do we tell him to sell one of the copies so he can go on Hajj, or not? Yes, we tell him to sell one of the copies. If they are different, we say: choose what you see as most suitable for you and sell the other, because what exceeds one copy is not considered part of the original needs. So if they are different, we say: look at what you choose and keep it, and sell the other. He also has two cars but only needs one; we say: sell one and go on Hajj with it, and keep the other. If they are different, let him sell one of them. He keeps the one he chooses for himself and sells the one he does not choose for himself. Now, does the craftsman sell his tools to go on Hajj? It is not obligatory for him. But if he has large tools by which he can earn a living with smaller tools, is he obligated to sell? We say he is obligated to sell what exceeds his expenses, unless we say that Hajj is not obligatory immediately. In that case, he may keep these large tools and go on Hajj from their investment, because the investment from large tools is significant. Thus, he may go on Hajj even if we say Hajj is immediate. What is directed to me is that he may keep the large tools because their investment is greater, and because he may think the small tools are sufficient at this time, then another time comes when they are not sufficient, and that would be harm to him. The craftsman’s tools are considered part of the capital he needs. So what appears to be the case is that if he has two tools, a large one from which he invests more, and a small one that suffices him for his sustenance, we do not tell him to sell the large tools and buy the small ones. Rather, we say: keep them, and there is no harm. Their investment will be significant, and it is possible that if he does not go on Hajj this year, he can go on Hajj next year.
Now, if someone asks, "What if the creditor gives him permission to perform the Hajj? Would he then be considered capable?" The answer is no, because the issue is not a matter of permission; the issue is whether the liability is occupied or not. It is well known that if the creditor gives the debtor permission to perform the Hajj, his liability is not cleared of the debt; the debt remains in his liability. Therefore, we say that the Hajj is not obligatory upon him at this time. Pay the debt first, then perform the Hajj. If you were to meet your Lord before performing the Hajj, and the only thing preventing you from doing so was discharging the debt, you would meet your Lord with complete faith. This is because the Hajj did not become obligatory upon him in this state. Just as it is not obligatory for a poor person to pay zakat, and if he were to meet his Lord, he would meet him in a state of complete Islam, so too is this debtor who does not have the funds to both discharge the debt and perform the Hajj; he meets his Lord in a state of complete Islam. Now, what some debtors currently believe—that the operative cause is the lack of permission from the creditor—has no reality and no basis. The operative cause is not whether the creditor gives permission or not; the operative cause is that the liability remains occupied or is cleared. This is the operative cause. And it is well known that if he gives him permission to perform the Hajj, does he become cleared of any part of the debt? Never. Now, if someone asks, "What if it is possible for him to perform the Hajj through a financial benefit, such that he is paid a wage? For example, this man is a good worker, so someone hires him to accompany them on the Hajj, either by caravan or with family, and pays him, say, one thousand riyals per month or for ten days. And if he stayed in the city, he would not earn one thousand riyals, neither in a month nor in ten days. Is he allowed to perform the Hajj in this case?" He is allowed to perform the Hajj, and the debt does not prevent the obligation of the Hajj if the debt is less than what he will be paid. However, if the debt is more, it remains in his liability and prevents the obligation. Now, suppose he finds someone who will take him on the Hajj for free and give him nothing. Does this harm him regarding the debt if he performs the Hajj, or does it not harm him?
Interjection: There is a distinction, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : There is a distinction in that if he were to stay and work and obtain a wage, then staying is better than performing the Hajj. And if he would not obtain anything even if he stayed, then in his case, performing the Hajj and not performing it are equal. In any case, the Hajj is not obligatory upon him as long as even one dirham remains in his liability. Similarly, we say regarding expiations: if he is required to free a slave and he has ten thousand riyals, he can either free the slave for ten thousand riyals or perform the Hajj. We tell him, "Do not perform the Hajj; free the slave, which is the expiation upon you, because its obligation preceded the obligation of the Hajj. The Hajj is not obligatory except with the ability to perform it, and there is no ability for one who has a debt in his liability."
The second thing that must be present for the obligation of the Hajj is the prescribed expenses, meaning those that the Shari'ah approves and permits. This includes the expenses for himself and his dependents in a manner that does not involve extravagance. If he has ten thousand riyals, and performing the Hajj with them would reduce the expenses, while spending them would make the Hajj impossible, does he perform the Hajj even if the expenses are reduced, or does he not perform it? He does not perform it. However, the author stipulated that the expenses must be prescribed. If they are not prescribed, being expenses of extravagance or expenses on things that are not needed, they are not considered, and the Hajj takes precedence over them. For example, a man whose prescribed expenses befitting his status are ten thousand riyals, and he currently has fifteen thousand riyals, from which he can perform the Hajj with five thousand. But he says, "I want to spend like kings or like the rich who are richer than me, because I am in a neighborhood where everyone is a minister or a wealthy person, so I want my car parked at my door to be like theirs, even though he could do with a much cheaper car." Do we say here that the expenses he spends are prescribed? No, rather they are expenses of extravagance in his case and are not considered. So we say that whatever exceeds the expenses befitting you, you are obligated to perform the Hajj with it. Now, the author says "what remains after the prescribed expenses." To what extent do we estimate these prescribed expenses? Meaning, the expenses that suffice him for his Hajj and return, or for his year, or permanently, or what? The jurists, may Allah have mercy on them, say that it must be after the expenses that suffice him and his family permanently. Do you understand? That they suffice him and his family permanently. If we said this, the Hajj would not become obligatory upon anyone, because if a person has the wealth of Qarun, he cannot say that this wealth will suffice him permanently, because circumstances change; wages and living expenses may increase, or their lifespans may lengthen. He might estimate his life at fifty years, and Allah might make it a hundred years, meaning he needs twice what he expected. But they said that the meaning of our saying "permanently" is not what you imagine, that a person must have cash that suffices him permanently. What is meant by "permanently" is what is the result of a craft, or the rent of a property, or something similar, such that he says, "My craft earns me exactly what is needed for the expenses, no more," or "My properties yield an investment that is exactly what is needed for the expenses, no more." Now, are the expenses permanent or not? They are permanent, based on the assumption that this investment will remain as it is, and so with the craft. This is what is meant. It is not meant that he must have cash or goods that suffice him permanently, because this cannot be regulated, and if we said that, no one would have an obligatory Hajj. But what is meant by "permanently" is what comes from the investment of a property, or the wages of a craft, or something similar. So the meaning of their statement, may Allah have mercy on them, "permanently" is now clear. And some scholars said, "what suffices him and his family until he returns from the Hajj". If he has expenses that suffice him and his family until he returns from the Hajj, and there is something extra that suffices him for the Hajj, the Hajj becomes obligatory upon him. Because when he returns to his family, provision is from whom? From Allah, Mighty and Majestic, who provides for them. As long as he can perform the Hajj now and leave expenses with his family to suffice them upon his return, then he is capable. If someone says, "We estimate the expenses for the year as they were estimated in what? In the chapter of zakat, where the poor person is one who does not find his sufficiency for a year, the poor and the needy." If someone said this, it would not be far-fetched to say that if he has cash that suffices him and his family for a year, and there is something extra, he is obligated to perform the Hajj. If it is less than that, he is not obligated, because he does not cease to be a poor person if he does not have more than what suffices him for the year.
The third: he says "the original needs". It is necessary that what he has be in excess of the original needs. By original needs, we mean those that a person needs frequently, because there are original needs and secondary needs. Examples of original needs are books, pens, watches, a car, and the like. These are original needs; they are not essential, but they are original, and a person’s life requires them. For example, a student of knowledge has books he needs for review and reading, so we do not tell him to sell his books and go on Hajj. Now, if he has two copies, do we tell him to sell one of the copies so he can go on Hajj, or not? Yes, we tell him to sell one of the copies. If they are different, we say: choose what you see as most suitable for you and sell the other, because what exceeds one copy is not considered part of the original needs. So if they are different, we say: look at what you choose and keep it, and sell the other. He also has two cars but only needs one; we say: sell one and go on Hajj with it, and keep the other. If they are different, let him sell one of them. He keeps the one he chooses for himself and sells the one he does not choose for himself. Now, does the craftsman sell his tools to go on Hajj? It is not obligatory for him. But if he has large tools by which he can earn a living with smaller tools, is he obligated to sell? We say he is obligated to sell what exceeds his expenses, unless we say that Hajj is not obligatory immediately. In that case, he may keep these large tools and go on Hajj from their investment, because the investment from large tools is significant. Thus, he may go on Hajj even if we say Hajj is immediate. What is directed to me is that he may keep the large tools because their investment is greater, and because he may think the small tools are sufficient at this time, then another time comes when they are not sufficient, and that would be harm to him. The craftsman’s tools are considered part of the capital he needs. So what appears to be the case is that if he has two tools, a large one from which he invests more, and a small one that suffices him for his sustenance, we do not tell him to sell the large tools and buy the small ones. Rather, we say: keep them, and there is no harm. Their investment will be significant, and it is possible that if he does not go on Hajj this year, he can go on Hajj next year.