Section: If he does not possess the wealth to appoint a substitute, then Hajj is not obligatory upon him, without disagreement, because if a healthy person does not possess what is needed to perform Hajj, it is not obligatory upon him, so a sick person is more entitled to this exemption. If he possesses the wealth but does not find someone to act as a substitute on his behalf, the analogy (qiyas) of the school of thought suggests it is contingent upon the two narrations regarding the possibility of travel: Is it from the conditions of obligation, or from the conditions of the requirement to proceed? If we say: It is from the conditions of the requirement to proceed, then Hajj is established as a liability upon him; this is then performed on his behalf after his death. But if we say: It is from the conditions of obligation, then nothing is obligatory upon him.

Section: Whenever he has someone perform Hajj on his behalf, and then he recovers, another Hajj is not obligatory upon him. This is the view of Ishaq. Al-Shafi'i, the companions of Abu Hanifa (ashab al-ra'y), and Ibn al-Mundhir said: It is binding upon him, because this was a substitute for a hopeless situation; therefore, when he recovered, it became clear that it was not a hopeless situation, so the original [obligation] became binding, similar to a woman who has reached menopause and observes her waiting period (iddah) by months, and then begins to menstruate; that waiting period does not suffice her. Our evidence is that he fulfilled what he was commanded to do, so he is discharged from the obligation, just as if he had not recovered. Or we say: He performed the Hajj of Islam by the command of the Lawgiver, so a second Hajj is not binding upon him, just as if he had performed it himself. Moreover, this leads to making two Hajj pilgrimages obligatory upon him, whereas Allah did not make more than one Hajj obligatory upon him. As for their statement that "it was not a hopeless situation regarding his recovery," we say: If it were not a hopeless situation, it would not have been permissible for him to appoint a substitute, for that is a condition for the permissibility of substitution. As for the woman who has reached menopause observing her waiting period by months, it is inconceivable that her menstruation would return; if she sees blood, it is not menstruation, and her waiting period is not invalidated by it. However, if a woman whose menstruation has ceased (and she does not know the cause) observes a waiting period for a year, and then her menstruation returns, her waiting period is not invalidated. As for if he is cured before the substitute finishes the Hajj, it is appropriate that the Hajj should not suffice him; because he became capable of the original act before the completion of the substitute, so it becomes binding upon him, just like a minor or a woman whose menstruation had ceased if they reach puberty/menstruation before completing their waiting period by months, and like one performing dry ablution (tayammum) who sees water during his prayer. It is also possible that it may suffice him, like one performing Hajj al-Tamattu' who begins fasting and then becomes capable of the sacrificial animal, or one offering expiation (kaffarah) who becomes capable of the original act after beginning the substitute. If he recovers before the substitute enters into the state of ihram, it shall not suffice him under any circumstances.