The jurisprudential analysis of the stand of the husband’s permission for his temporary wife to perform the recommended Hajj pilgrimage is the primary issue in this article. Understanding the fundamental principles of the imperative ruling and the positive ruling is essential to understanding this issue. The fundamental principles governing the issue are the principle of the authenticity of non-liability in the imperative ruling and the principle of the authenticity of correctness in the positive ruling, but there are some specificities and generalizations regarding these principles; for instance, the specificity of the narratives regarding the necessity of the husband’s consent for his wife in performing the recommended Hajj, the specificity of the prohibition of Idha, the specificity of the prohibition of leaving home, the specificity of the wife’s duty of submission to her husband, the general binding rules regarding contracts and lease, and the generality of non-offense. The most significant restriction of these specificities is the verbal analogy, indicating that the ruling on the necessity of obedience and the permission for leaving home is specific to a permanent marriage, not an absolute, and that general necessity based on marriage is not applicable in all situations. According to the findings of this research, carried out using software and library sources, the husband must provide his consent if his wife’s Hajj pilgrimage interferes with his rights. Accordingly, the decision on the issue is based on the situation and by the use of the set of proofs.