about the words of Allah, Mighty and Majestic:
“Pilgrimage to the House is a duty owed to Allah by people who are able to make their way there.” [Āl ‘Imrān: 97]
Did this mean provisions and a mount? He replied: “No, by Allah! It depends entirely on people’s ability. One man may have provisions and a mount but be unable to travel, while another can walk on his own two feet. There is no clearer description of this than the words of Allah, Mighty and Majestic: ‘who are able to make their way there.’” [Āl ‘Imrān: 97] Thus, anyone able to reach Mecca, either on foot without considerable hardship or by purchasing or hiring a mount, is obliged to perform hajj. Women are not subject to the same requirement to walk, even if they are strong enough, because travelling on foot leaves them exposed, except over short distances, as in Mecca and its vicinity. Ibn al-Mawwāz related this from Asbagh.
Section
If a man does not have enough ready money to purchase or hire a mount but owns other property, he must sell whatever of that property would be subject to compulsory sale for debt in order to perform hajj. Ibn al-Qāsim was asked about a man whose only property was an estate: should he sell it to perform the obligatory hajj and leave his children with nothing to live on? He replied: “Yes, he must do so, leaving his children dependent on charity.” It is reported that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “Whoever dies without having performed the obligatory hajj, when neither manifest poverty, incapacitating illness nor an oppressive ruler prevented him, let him die in whatever state he wishes: as a Jew, a Christian or a Magian.”
Section
There is disagreement over whether hajj must be performed immediately or may be deferred. Ibn al-Qassār reported that Mālik considered it obligatory immediately, but Mālik’s rulings indicate otherwise. Ashhab related that Mālik was asked about a man who swore that his wife would not go out, after which she wished to perform hajj, having never performed it before. He said: “A ruling should be given against him allowing her to do so. Yet I am unsure about requiring him to break his oath immediately in this case: he swore yesterday, and she says, ‘I am going on hajj today.’ Perhaps he may defer it from one year to the next.” In the book of Ibn ‘Abd al-Hakam, it is stated that it is deferred for one year and that the ruling against him is issued accordingly. This indicates that, in Mālik’s view, hajj may be deferred. Had he considered it obligatory immediately, he would not have hesitated to require the husband to break his oath in the very first year. Rather, legal analogy requires that the oath be broken