For example, if he is from Madinah and Hajj became obligatory upon him while he was in Madinah, then the proxy must be appointed from Madinah; this is indispensable. If he appoints a proxy from Rabigh, at the miqat, that will not suffice. And if he appoints a proxy from Makkah, then this is even less acceptable. Thus, he must appoint the proxy from the town in which Hajj became obligatory upon him.

The reasoning is that if this man wished to perform Hajj for himself, he would perform it from his location in Madinah; likewise, so must his proxy.

This view is weak, however, because the person appointing the proxy is only required to perform Hajj from his own town because he cannot take even a single step and reach Makkah without first setting out from his town.

For this reason, if the person appointing the proxy were in Makkah, having travelled there for a purpose other than Hajj—whether for study or something else—and then wished to enter ihram there for his obligatory Hajj, would we permit him to do so, or would we say: “Go to Madinah, because you are from the people of Madinah and Hajj became obligatory upon you there”?

We say: There is no harm in his entering ihram for Hajj from Makkah. Therefore, there is likewise no harm in the proxy entering ihram from Makkah. Travelling from Madinah to Makkah is not an objective in itself; rather, it is intended for another purpose, since Hajj cannot be performed from Madinah without it.

Accordingly, the preponderant view is that he is not required to appoint someone to perform Hajj on his behalf from his own location. He may appoint someone from Makkah to perform Hajj on his behalf, and there is no blame upon him in this, because travelling to Makkah is intended for another purpose.

His statement, “and it suffices,” refers to the Hajj.

His statement, “on his behalf,” refers to the person appointing the proxy.