In the supposition of the pilgrim’s eligibility to afford the costs of Hajj pilgrimage while being in debt, this question arises: does the debt, in various scenarios, including the arrival of the due date, the creditor’s claim, the deadline of the due date, or the absence of these terms prevent the obligation of performing Hajj? This assumption must be carefully discussed in jurisprudence. In this article, the author attempts to answer this question in a descriptive-analytical method and summarizes and concludes the sayings of the jurists. These sayings are as follows: debt as an obstacle in an absolute form; 2. Non- obstacle except for due date and claim; 3. Obstacle except for a debt with a determined deadline; 4. Obstacle, except for the case of trust in wealth; 5. Choosing between performing Hajj and paying off the debt; and 6. the priority of solvency. Referring to narrations and other detailed proofs, the second and fourth statements are accepted with modifications, but the rest statements are rejected. In addition, due to the lexical discussion of the word “affordability”, a better way to solve the problem is pointed out, which is to refer to the literal and customary meanings of “affordability”. In this case, the subsidiaries related to “affordability” are clarified with more ease.