Based on this, if a man pays zakat on behalf of another without having been authorized to do so, it does not suffice, because the intention is absent from the one upon whom it is due.

The apparent meaning of the author’s words is that it does not suffice, even if the one upon whom zakat is due subsequently approves of it. This is the first view.

Its evidence is that the intention must come from the one who is addressed by the obligation. Before being authorized, the payer is neither the principal nor his representative; therefore, it does not suffice, because the intention must accompany the act.

The second view is that if the one upon whom zakat is due approves of it, then it does suffice.

Its evidence is that the Prophet ﷺ approved Abu Hurayrah’s payment to the man who came to him, saying that he was poor (1), even though Abu Hurayrah, may Allah be pleased with him, had been appointed only to safeguard it, not to distribute it. Yet the Prophet ﷺ approved it. Moreover, the prohibition of disposing of another’s property is due to the right of its owner; so if he approves and accepts it, what would prevent its being valid? The issue of intention, however, remains. It may be answered by saying that the representative had made the intention. If the owner had authorized him before the act of disposal, it would have been valid; likewise, if he authorizes him after the act, it is valid. This is the stronger view, although the first view is more cautious.

The author specifically mentioned intention so that no one would say: “It is like a debt, for which intention is not required.” Thus, if you owed someone ten dirhams and then gave him the dirhams without intending anything in particular, it would count as repayment.