or spending on things he has no need for, then no consideration is given to such expenditure, and Hajj takes precedence over it.

For example, a man’s lawful maintenance appropriate to his circumstances is ten thousand riyals, while he presently has fifteen thousand riyals, five thousand of which he could use to perform Hajj. Yet he says, “I want to spend as kings spend, or as wealthy people wealthier than I am spend. I live in a neighbourhood where everyone is rich, and I would like the car at my door to be like their cars,” even though he could use a far less expensive car. Do we then say that the maintenance he spends is lawful maintenance?

The answer is no. Rather, it is extravagant expenditure in his case, and no consideration is given to it. We therefore say: Whatever exceeds the maintenance appropriate to your circumstances, you must use for Hajj.

His statement, “lawful maintenance”: how are we to assess this lawful maintenance? Does it mean the lawful maintenance sufficient for him during his Hajj and return, for the year, or permanently?

The answer is that the jurists, may Allah have mercy on them, said: The maintenance must be sufficient for him and his dependants on a permanent basis.

What is meant by permanence is that it results from a trade or occupation, rental income from property, or the like. Thus, he may say, “From my trade I earn precisely enough to cover my maintenance, with nothing extra,” or, “From my properties I derive investment income precisely sufficient for maintenance, with nothing extra.” In that case, his maintenance is now permanently secured, on the assumption that this investment will remain as it is; and the same applies to his trade. This