the debt he owes and the fact that he has no means of performing Hajj except through his father?

He replied:

Praise be to Allah. Yes, if his father takes him on Hajj at his own expense, that is permissible, and it discharges his obligatory Hajj by scholarly consensus.

Scholars disagree, however, over whether Hajj becomes obligatory for him if his father offers him the money. This disagreement is well known. His obligation is discharged whether his father gives him ownership of the money or pays his expenses and provides him with transport without transferring ownership to him.

If he owes a debt and his creditors permit him to travel for Hajj, there is no doubt that he may travel. If they prevent him from travelling so that he remains, works and repays them, they are entitled to do so. Remaining to earn money and repay his creditors would be more appropriate for him and a more binding duty than performing Hajj, and they would be entitled to prevent him from performing Hajj. But if they know that he is insolvent, they may not demand payment from him, nor may they prevent him from performing Hajj.

However, if the creditors say, “We fear that he may go on Hajj and not return, so we want him to provide a surety who will guarantee his appearance,” there are grounds for their demand: their rights remain outstanding, although he is unable to fulfil them.

If he were able to repay and the debt were due, they would undoubtedly be entitled to prevent him from travelling. Likewise, if the debt were deferred but would fall due before his return, they would be entitled to prevent him until he provided security in the form of collateral or a surety; in the former case, until he repaid or provided security. But if the debt would not fall due until after his return and the journey were safe, then concerning their right to prevent him from travelling,