CONDITIONS WHICH MAKE HIJJATUL ISLAM OBLIGATORY
CONDITIONS WHICH MAKE HIJJATUL ISLAM OBLIGATORY
The First Condition: Puberty
Pilgrimage is not obligatory on any person who has not attained puberty, even if he was approaching it. A pilgrimage, performed by a child will not be counted as Hijjatul Islam, even if it is performed properly.
If a boy of means leaves for pilgrimage and attains puberty before wearing ihram at the meeqaat, his pilgrimage is valid as Hijjatul Islam. However, if he attains puberty after wearing ihram and before the stay at Muzdalifah, he should complete the pilgrimage and it would be valid as Hijjatul Islam.
If a person performs an optional pilgrimage believing himself not to have attained puberty but discovers during the pilgrimage or after its completion that he had already attained puberty, his pilgrimage will be counted as performance of an obligatory pilgrimage.
It is recommended for a mature child to perform a pilgrimage but according to majority of the scholars it is conditional on the consent of his guardian.
The consent of parents is not necessary for the validity of a pilgrimage of one who has attained puberty. However, if departure to perform a recommended pilgrimage displeases either or both of them, for the fear, for example, of the dangers in the journey, then it is not permitted to depart on a pilgrimage.
It is recommended that in respect of a child, male or female, who is not intelligent, the guardian should make him or her muhrim, that is to say, help him wear the ihram, instruct him to recite the talbiyya and advise him to be reciting it if he is capable of understanding, or else he should recite it for him. He must also restrain him from all matters which a muhrim must avoid. It is permissible to delay removing the clothes of a child till reaching Fakh if that route is taken. The child must then be instructed to perform all such acts in the pilgrimage that he can and the guardian should perform on his behalf what he is unable to do. The guardian should make the child perform Tawaaf, Saee between Safaa and Marwah, stay in Arafat and Macer, throw the stones if he is able to, else throw them on his behalf, recite prayers after the Tawaaf, get his head shaved and the remainder of the acts.
There is no objection to a guardian assisting a child to wear ihram although he is not in a state of ihram himself.
It is apparent that it is recommended that the person who takes a child who is not intelligent on a pilgrimage as his guardian must be the person who has the right to custody of the child as set out in the law of marriages.
If the expenses of the pilgrimage of the child exceed the usual amount, the excess is the responsibility of the guardian and not the child. However, if the guardian proceeds on pilgrimage the child becomes unprotected or if the journey is in the interest of the child, it is permissible to meet the expenses of the child from his own money.
The cost of the sacrifice for the child is on the guardian and so is the penalty (kaffarah) for hunting. As for penalties which are attracted as a result of deliberate acts, they naturally would not fall on the child or the guardian nor would they be payable from the the child's money.
The Second Condition: Intelligence:
There is no obligation on an insane person to perform a pilgrimage, even if the insanity is periodic. However, if the insane recovers during the pilgrimage period, is of means and is able to perform the ceremonies of the pilgrimage, then it is obligatory on him to perform the pilgrimage, even if he remains insane during the other periods.
The Third Condition: Freedom:
The Fourth Condition: The Means:
There are a few rules that need consideration under this head:
This means that there must be enough time for proceeding to Makkah and staying throughout the obligatory periods. It is not obligatory to perform the pilgrimage if there are the means but not the time sufficient for the journey and stay for the obligatory ceremonies there or if making the time necessitates undergoing great difficulties beyond what is normal. In such circumstances, it is obligatory to set aside the funds to make the journey in the ensuing year. If there are the means in the following year, performance of the pilgrimage is obligatory, otherwise it is not.
B: Physical Health and Strength :
If a person is unable to travel to the holy places by reason of disease or age, or unable to stay there for the specified periods because of extreme heat or is otherwise unbearable for him, it is not obligatory for him to set out for the pilgrimage personally but it is obligatory on him to send an agent to perform it on his behalf.
C: No Obstruction :
'This means that the route must be open and safe so that there is no obstruction to reaching the meeqaat and no danger to the pilgrim, his property or honour. Otherwise, the pilgrimage is not obligatory. That is the rule for proceeding to the holy places.
However, if after wearing ihram an obstruction arises from reaching the holy places, like illness, enemy or the like, then there are special rules relating to such circumstances.
If there are two routes available for the journey to the pilgrimage, one which is safe and the other not, the obligation to perform the pilgrimage remains and the safe course must be taken, even if it is the longer route. However, if taking the longer route entails travelling to many countries, then such a situation would constitute an obstruction within the meaning of the preceding rule.
If a person has property in his country which would perish or be lost if he went on pilgrimage, it is not obligatory upon him to do so. Similarly, it is not obligatory to proceed on pilgrimage if doing so is prohibited in religion, for instance if it would mean abandoning to do what is more important in religion than the pilgrimage, like rescuing a person from drowning or fire or if the journey is dependant upon commission of a sin, the avoidance of which is more important than the performance of the pilgrimage.
if the performance of the pilgrimage will result in a sin, either by an comission to do what is obligatory in religion or the commission of a forbidden act a sin will have been committed which will have to be answered but it will remain unconnected with the pilgrimage which will be valid as a Hijjatul Islam if all the other conditions for its validity will have been observed. There is no difference in this regard whether the pilgrim was already liable to perform the pilgrimage or it became obligatory on him only in that year.
If there is an enemy on the way to the pilgrimage and there is no defence against him except losing to him so much of one's property as to be onerous on the pilgrim, it is not necessary to lose the property and the obligation for the pilgrimage ceases. Otherwise, the obligation remains but it is not necessary to bribe so that the road is opened and the obstruction removed.
If proceeding to the pilgrimage depends upon a journey by sea, the obligation does not cease except if there is also a real risk of drowning or illness. If the pilgrimage is performed despite the risk, it is valid.
D: Expenses for the Journey :
There must be sufficient funds to meet the expenses of the journey for eating, drinking and other necessities. The provision must be adequate for the return journey including the transport charges. The amount necessary would depend upon the position of the pilgrim.
Provision of the expenses and transport is not merely to meet the necessities. They are an unqualified condition for the pilgrimage even if the provision is not required by the pilgrim who, for instance, is capable of making the journey walking without any difficulty and to do so would not be beneath his dignity.
The measure of the expenses for the journey is what the pilgrim physically has with him. It is not obligatory for a person to raise funds to meet the expenses though his business or other sources. There is no difference in this regard between a close and distant journey.
The condition as to the expenses for the journey relates to the expenses from the residence of the pilgrim and not his country of origin. For example, if the pilgrim had moved to Madina for business or other purpose and when he is there, he has the means for the journey or sufficient funds to meet its expenses, it is obligatory on him to perform the pilgrimage, even if he would not have had the means for the journey if he was to make it from his country.
If a person has property for which he is unable to find a buyer at its real value and has to postpone the pilgrimage to be able to sell at its real price, he is not obliged to sell it immediately. However, if the expenses of the pilgrimage have already risen, for example the cost of transport in the year in which he has the means are higher than they would be in the following year, it is not permissible to postpone the pilgrimage.
The provision of the expenses for the return journey is a condition for the pilgrimage only if there is intention to return home. If a person does not intend to return home and wishes to reside in another country, it is enough to have provision to reach him there. However, if the country to which he wishes to proceed is more distant than his home country, it is not necessary to have enough provision to reach him there, and to make the p ilgrimage obligatory he needs only to have sufficient funds to enable him to return to his country unless the pilgrim has no option but to proceed to the more distant country.
E: Availability of Means on Return :
It must be possible for the pilgrim on his return to maintain himself and his family. It is clearly necessary that on his return the pilgrim should not have to fear poverty or inadequacy of means for himself or his family because of the expenditure out of his property during the journey to the pilgrimage. It is not obligatory on a person to proceed on a pilgrimage if by doing so he would need to expend for the journey a proportion of his property which is the means of maintenance for himself and his family. If he does not have alternative means of livelihood in keeping with his social status, it is clearly not obligatory on him to sell his property which he would need as a necessity of life, nor is it obligatory to sell his home which is in keeping with his position, clothes for decoration, the household furniture or tools of trade needed for livelihood like books necessarily required by a scholar for study. Generally, disposal of necessities is not necessary if to do so would cause distress and hardship. However, if he has excess of such items which he does not need to provide livelihood, it is obligatory to sell the excess in order to provide the expenditure for the pilgrimage. For example, if one owns a house of the value of eighty thousand pounds and it is possible to sell it and purchase another one for a lesser price without causing any strain, it is obligatory to do so and spend the excess sum produced in making the pilgrimage and returning and in the expenditure for the family.
If a person has property which he needs it is not obligatory for him to sell in order to proceed on pilgrimage, but if he subsequently is able to do without, it becomes obligatory upon him to sell it and perform the pilgrimage. For example, a lady has a piece of jewellery which she needs and cannot do without but she reaches a stage when she is able to do without it, either because of old age or otherwise, it is obligatory on her to sell it and perform the pilgrimage.
If a person owns a house and there is another house in which it is possible to reside without strain, like a waqf property conforming to his needs, it is obligatory to sell the house of ownership and perform the pilgrimage, even if the purchase price may need to be supplemented from his other property. This rule also applies to books of learning and other means of life.
If a person has sufficient funds to embark upon the pilgrimage, but needs to marry, purchase a residence or satisfy any other need, it is not obligatory to perform the pilgrimage.
If a person is a creditor and he needs the money for the total or part expenses of the pilgrimage and the debt is already due, it is obligatory on him to demand it. If the debtor does not make payment, but the creditor is in a position to force him to make the payment even if it is by suing him in a court of law or if he raises a dispute but it is possible to set-off the sum against other payments due to the debtor, it is obligatory on the creditor to resort to such measures. Similarly, even if the repayment is not due, a demand should be made if the debtor would make payment upon the demand. However, if the debtor is impoverished or delays payment and it is not possible to enforce the payment or if doing so would cause distress, or if the debt is premature and the debtor is unwilling to settle it before the due date, then in these circumstances, if it is possible to assign the debt without causing harm or distress, one should do so and from the proceeds meet the expenses of the pilgrimage or supplement them, if necessary, from other property.
For those carrying on a profession or a vocation like blacksmiths, builders, carpenters whose earnings are normally sufficient to meet the maintenance of themselves and their families, it becomes obligatory upon them to perform pilgrimage if they receive property from inheritance or other source which would be sufficient to meet the expenses of the pilgrimage and the maintenance of the family during his absence.
If a person's livelihood is derived from religious dues like khums, zakaat, etc, and his income is assured without difficulty, it is obligatory on him to proceed to pilgrimage if he acquires sufficient funds for the return journey and maintenance of his family. The same rule applies if another person has undertaken to pay for his livelihood or if not with standing the expenditure on the pilgrimage there would be no difference in his lifestyle after the pilgrimage.
If a person receives sufficient sum of money to cover the expenses of a pilgrimage by obtaining conditional ownership of property, it is apparent that the pilgrimage becomes obligatory on him if he can prevent the withdrawal of the ownership from him, for example; by selling the article subject of a revocable gift. Otherwise, whether the pilgrimage becomes obligatory depends upon the decision of the donor or the person vested with the right to exercise the condition which could result in withdrawal of ownership. If such person effects the withdrawal before the completion of the pilgrimage, then the pilgrimage will be deemed not to have been obligatory upon him.
It is not necessary that the means be acquired from his own property but can be acquired by begging or be provided by another person. However, if the cloths for ihram during Tawaaf and the prayers after Tawaaf were acquired unlawfully, the pilgrimage is not valid. If the money paid for the sacrifice was acquired by unlawful means, the pilgrimage is not acceptable unless there was no special condition for the payment, for example payment be by specific coins, in which case the pilgrimage will be acceptable but the pilgrim will remain responsible for the unlawful money.
It is not obligatory that the means be acquired. If a gift is made to a person which would provide him with the means for the pilgrimage, he is not obliged to accept it. Similarly if a person is offered employment which is compatible with his status and the remuneration from it would provide him the means for the pilgrimage, he is not obliged to accept it. However, if a person renders services during the journey to the pilgrimage and thereby acquires the means, performance of pilgrimage becomes obligatory.
If a person undertakes to perform a pilgrimage for another person on remuneration and from its dues acquires sufficient means for himself to perform the pilgrimage, then if it was a condition of the performance of the pilgrimage for the other in that year, he must fulfil the pilgrimage for the other in that year. If at the time of the pilgrimage in the following year, he still has sufficient means to undertake the pilgrimage, it becomes obligatory on him to perform it in the ensuing year. However, if it was not a condition for the performance of the pilgrimage for the other that it be performed in the same year, then it is obligatory on him to perform pilgrimage for himself in that year, unless he is confident that he can perform it for himself in the ensuing year.
If a person borrows money sufficient to cover the expenses of a pilgrimage, it does not become obligatory on him even though he would have the means to repay it on return from the pilgrimage, except if the loan is for a very long period for which debtors do not usually provide.
If a person has incurred debts to the value of his entire property, it is apparent that it is not obligatory on him to perform a pilgrimage. There is no difference in this respect between prompt and deferred debts or whether it was incurred prior or subsequent to the acquisition of the means except when the debt is not repayable for a very long period, for example of fifty years, for which debtors do not usually provide.
If there is khums or zakah due on a person and has funds which would not be sufficient to meet the expenses of the pilgrimage if he settled his khums or zakkat liability, it is obligatory on him to settle those liabilities and the pilgrimage is not obligatory on him. It is immaterial whether the liability is on the funds intended to be expended on the pilgrimage or is of arrears.
If the pilgrimage has become obligatory on a person and there is liability on him of khums or zakah or other obligatory dues, he must first settle those liabilities and it is not permissible to proceed on pilgrimage without having settled them.
If he has some means but is uncertain whether they will be sufficient for the pilgrimage, as a matter of precaution he must make inquiries as to its sufficiency.
If a person has property sufficient to meet the expenses of the pilgrimage but is not available in cash or would be sufficient if it supplemented the available cash but there is no possibility of spending from the property or to sell it through an agent, then it is not obligatory to proceed on pilgrimage, or else the pilgrimage becomes obligatory.
If a person has property which is sufficient to meet the expenses of the pilgrimage; it is obligatory to perform it if he is able to travel for pilgrimage in time. If he deals with the property in a way that he becomes without the adequate means and unable to accomplish the pilgrimage, it remains an obligation on him if he was certain that he could have proceeded on pilgrimage in time. In this case if disposes the property for a low price or by way of gift without consideration, the transaction itself is valid but he is in sin because he avoided the means which would have enabled him to perform the pilgrimage.
It is not necessary that the pilgrim should own the means of the expenditure. He need only have available to him property from which he can lawfully expend. If it is enough to meet all the expenses and the other conditions for the pilgrimage are satisfied, it becomes obligatory on him.
Just as it is necessary that there should be sufficient means to make the journey, so is it necessary that there should be funds available for the completion of the pilgrimage, indeed until return to one's home. If property of a person is destroyed in his country or during the journey, the pilgrimage is not obligatory on him. It will be manifest that he was not of means from the beginning. For example, if a debt becomes enforced on him for deliberately destroying the property of another and it would not be possible to compensate the victim if the available funds were to be utilised for the pilgrimage. However, if a person deliberately destroys the property of another, the obligation to perform the pilgrimage is not annulled but remains on his shoulders to be discharged. However,if he had property which was enough to make him of means and it is destroyed in his country, it will not be manifest that he was not of means from the beginning. it will be sufficient for him to perform the pilgrimage which will not become obligatory on him again.
If a person has enough means but was unaware of it or was unaware that the pilgrimage had become obligatory on him, and remembers or become aware after the means have been utilised and not longer able to perform the pilgrimage, then he had a reasonable excuse for his ignorance or unawareness, the pilgrimage is not fixed on him, otherwise it is the apparent that the pilgrimage becomes fixed on him if the other conditions for pilgrimage become applicable and the means were available.
Means sufficient for the pilgrimage is established not only by its acquisition but also if a sufficient amount is gifted to a person and it matters not in this regard whether the gift is from one person or a number of them if it is adequate in totality to meet the expenses of the pilgrimage and the maintenance of the family and there is no difference in this respect between the donor making the property lawful for use or settling it for the pilgrimage or between making an outright gift of property or making provision to meet the expenses.
If a person bequeaths property to be expended on the performance of an obligatory pilgrimage by another, it is mandatory on the latter to do so after the death of the testator provided the legacy is adequate for the expenses of the pilgrimage and the family. Similarly, if a person creates a waqf or makes a nadhar (vow) or a bequest of property for performance of an obligatory pilgrimage and the trustee, the person fulfilling the nadhar or the executor gives the property to another to perform an obligatory pilgrimage, it is mandatory on the other to do so.
It is not obligatory, in respect of a person who acquires the means for the pilgrimage through a gift, to be able to return from the pilgrimage in a condition of means. However, if he works especially during the pilgrimage time and the earnings made in that period provide for his expenses for the full or part of the year and he would not be able to meet the expenses for his livelihood if he accepts the gift and departs for the pilgrimage, he is not obliged to accept the gift, unless the gift covers his expenses.
If a person makes a gift to another so that the latter proceeds to obligatory pilgrimage, it is obligatory to accept the gift. However, if the donor gives the donee the option of proceeding to an obligatory pilgrimage or not or makes the gift without any mention of an obligatory pilgrimage, expressly or impliedly, it is not obligatory on him to accept the gift.
The existence of a debt is not incompatible with having sufficient means acquired by way of a gift. However, if the debt is due for payment and the creditor makes demand for it and the debtor is content to make the payment if he does not proceed on pilgrimage, it is not obligatory to perform the pilgrimage.
If a person donates property to a group of persons so that one of them should perform an obligatory pilgrimage and one of them advances to accept the property, the remaining ones are released from the obligation. However, if all of them leave the property although each of them could have taken possession of it, then the obligation to perform the obligatory pilgrimage is fixed on all of them.
It is not obligatory to accept a gift to make an obligatory pilgrimage unless the payment for it is a proper estimation of the expenditure. If the payment is for Hajj-e-Tamatoo but the gift is for Hajj-e-Qiraan or Ifraad, it is not obligatory for him to accept it and vice versa. Similar is the position if the gift is for an obligatory pilgrimage and the donee has already performed his obligatory pilgrimage. However, if he did not perform it when it was obligatory on him and his circumstances then changed and was now offered a gift to perform an obligatory pilgrimage, it is mandatory on him to accept the gift. Likewise, if there is a liability on him to perform a pilgrimage to fulfil a nadhr (vow) or otherwise but does not have the means to do so and is offered the gift to perform an obligatory pilgrimage it is mandatory on him to accept it.
If a gift is made to a person to cover the expenditure of performing an obligatory pilgrimage and the property gets destroyed on the way to the pilgrimage, the obligation lapses. However, if it is possible to continue with the journey with his other property, it is obligatory on him to perform the pilgrimage and will be counted as part of the Hijjatul Islam. He may do so only if on his return to his family there will be means of livelihood for them, else he may not use his property for the pilgrimage.
If a person authorises another to obtain a loan and proceed on a pilgrimage with the funds so obtained, it is not obligatory on him to seek one. However, if he receives such a loan, it becomes obligatory on him to depart for the pilgrimage.
The price of the sacrifice is included in the expenses and if the donor does not pay for it but meets the remainder of the expenses, it is not obligatory on the donee to perform the obligatory pilgrimage provided the donee cannot afford to pay the price of the sacrifice himself. However, if the purchase of the sacrificial animal by the donee would cause embarrassment to him, it is not obligatory to accept the gift. Obviously, if any penalty (kaffarah) is incurred in the course of the pilgrimage, it is the exclusive obligation of the donee to discharge it.
An obligatory pilgrimage performed with property gifted to the pilgrim is valid to constitute Hijjatul Islam and even if the pilgrim acquires means thereafter, he is not obliged to perform the pilgrimage again.
It is possible for a donor to withdraw his gift before or after the donee wears ihram but if he withdraws after the donee wears the ihram, it is obligatory on the donee to complete the pilgrimage if he actually has the means to do so and the donor will become the guarantor to reimburse him for all his expenses. If the donor withdraws the gift while the donee is on the way, he is responsible to pay for the expenses of the return journey.
If Zakah money is given to a person in the way of Allah and in the public interest with, as a matter of precaution, the permission of a mujtahid, to perform an obligatory pilgrimage, it is mandatory on him to do so but if he is given the money from the share of Sadaat or Zakah money from the share of the poor on the condition that he should spend it on an obligatory pilgrimage, the condition is invalid and the pilgrimage is not obligatory on him.
If a person is gifted property from which to perform an obligatory pilgrimage and it later becomes known to him that it was unlawfully obtained by the donor, the pilgrimage is not valid and the true owner is entitled to reclaim it from the donor or donee. If he claims from the donee and the donee is unaware of the true ownership he should revert to the donor; if he was aware he would have no right to revert.
If, without means, a person performs an obligatory pilgrimage for himself or another, either gratuitously or for reward, it is not valid as a Hijjatul Islam and it is obligatory on him to perform a pilgrimage when he acquires the means.
If a person believes that he does not leave the means for the pilgrimage to be obligatory on him but performs it in obedience to the command of Allah intending it to be accepted and later learns that he was of means, his pilgrimage is valid and there is no need for a second pilgrimage.
If a wife has the means, consent of her husband is not a condition for her performance of an obligatory pilgrimage, just as it is not permissible for a husband to forbid his wife to perform an obligatory pilgrimage. However; he can forbid her to leave sooner than necessary if there is sufficient time for the pilgrimage. The same rule applies to a lady who has been granted a revocable divorce if she is in iddah.
It is not a condition for a lady performing an obligatory pilgrimage to be accompanied by a male within the prohibited degree (who is her mahram) provided her safety is secured. If not, she must be accompanied by a male within the prohibited degree even on remuneration, if that is possible. If not, the pilgrimage is not obligatory on her.
If a person makes a nadhar (vow) to visit the shrine of Imam Hussain (a.s) each year on the day of Arafaat and subsequently becomes of means, the vow lapses and he must perform the obligatory pilgrimage. This rule applies in respect of every vow which affects the performance of the obligatory pilgrimage.
A person of means must perform the obligatory pilgrimage personally if it is possible for him to do so and it is not permissible for someone else to perform it for him, gratuitously or for payment.
If a person is liable to perform an obligatory pilgrimage but is unable to do so by reason of illness, senility, infirmity or other restraint or the performance of it would cause anguish and there is no hope that he would be able to perform it himself without anguish, it is obligatory on him to appoint someone to perform it on his behalf. Such is also the rule if he is wealthy but is unable to undertake the performance of the pilgrimage personally or that to do so would cause him great difficulty. Once it becomes obligatory to appoint another person to perform the pilgrimage for him, it must be done immediately just as the performance of the pilgrimage itself must not be delayed.
If a person proceeds on a pilgrimage as an agent of another who is disabled from doing so himself and the principal dies while the agent is in the performance of the pilgrimage, the pilgrimage of the agent will be valid, although the pilgrimage had become obligatory on the principal. If, per chance, the disability ceases before death, it is preferable that the , pilgrimage be performed personally, if possible. If the disability ceases after the agent has worn ihram, it is obligatory on the principal to perform the pilgrimage himself even though the agent must complete the ceremonies, as a matter of precaution.
If it is not possible for a disabled person to appoint an agent to perform on his behalf, the obligation to perform the pilgrimage lapses. However, if the pilgrimage had become obligatory on him, it is obligatory to have it performed after his death. Moreover, if it was possible to appoint an agent and he does not do so until his death, it is obligatory to have the pilgrimage performed after his death.
If it becomes obligatory to appoint an agent but one does not, the performance by another person of a pilgrimage on his behalf gratuitously does not discharge the obligation and it remains obligatory on him to send an agent as a matter of precaution.
It is sufficient to appoint an agent from the meeqaat' and it is not necessary that he be sent from the home country.
If the pilgrimage becomes obligatory on a person and he dies after wearing ihram in the Haram, he will be deemed to have accomplished his pilgrimage. If he dies in the course of the Umrat-ul-Tamatoo, he will also be deemed to have performed the pilgrimage and there is no obligation to have it performed after his death. However, If he dies before entering the Haram, it is obligatory to have the pilgrimage performed again (qadha) even if the death occurs after his having worn ihram but before entry into the Haram or even after the entry into the Haram if he did so without ihram. This rule is especial to the Hijjatul Islam and does not apply to other pilgrimages which have become obligatory, by, for example, a vow (nadhr) or by reason of deliberately invalidating an obligatory pilgrimage (ifsad). Nor has it any application to the Umrat-ul-Mufradah. Whoever dies after wearing ihram in the Haram in the performance of the pilgrimage, there is no doubt that he will be deemed to have performed the Hijjatul Islam but if he dies before then, it is clear that the pilgrimage would have to be performed again for him by way of qadha.
It is obligatory on a non-believer of means to perform a pilgrimage even though it is not acceptable so long as he remains a non-believer. However, if he loses the means before being converted, the pilgrimage is not obligatory on him.
The pilgrimage is obligatory on a Muslim who becomes apostate but its performance in apostasy is invalid. If he repents, it becomes valid even if the apostasy is innate arising out of his clan.
If a non-Shia performs an obligatory pilgrimage and then becomes a Shia, it is not obligatory on him to perform the pilgrimage again provided he had performed the pilgrimage in accordance with the rules of the faith he then held or it was performed in accordance with our faith and he had the intention of closeness to Allah in the performance of the pilgrimage.
If the pilgrimage becomes obligatory but is deliberately delayed and one loses the means, it is obligatory to perform it by any means possible, even begging but not to the stage of hardship and anguish. If he dies, the pilgrimage has to be performed for him by way of qadha even if someone performs it gratuitously for him instead of requiring reward.