The proofs cited by those who deny the transfer of reward:
1 – The Exalted says: “And that man will have nothing but what he strives for” (an-Najm 53:39); and He says: “It will have whatever it has earned, and against it will be whatever it has brought upon itself” (al-Baqarah 2:286).
2 – The hadith, “When the son of Adam dies, his deeds come to an end except for three….”
3 – Acts of worship, they argue, are of two kinds. One kind allows substitution, such as charity and pilgrimage; the reward of these can reach the deceased. The other admits no substitution whatsoever—Islam, the prescribed prayer, Qur’an recitation, and fasting. The reward of this second type remains exclusive to the doer, never passing to anyone else, just as in worldly life there are matters that no one can perform on behalf of another.
4 – Al-Nasāʾī al-Kubrá (2/174) records on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās that the Prophet ﷺ said: “No one is to pray on behalf of another, and no one is to fast on behalf of another; rather, he should feed (the poor) on his behalf.”
5 – They add that clear analogy with prayer, Islam, and repentance supports their view, for none of these can be carried out by one person for another.
Those who hold that the reward does reach the deceased reply:
Ibn al-Qayyim said: Nothing you have mentioned conflicts with the Qur’an, the Sunnah, the consensus of the early generations, or the established principles of the Law.
As for the words of the Almighty, “No bearer shall bear the burden of another” (al-Anʿām 6:164) and “And that man will have nothing but what he strives for” (an-Najm 53:39), they affirm the justice of the Lord: He does not punish anyone for another’s offense, and a person prospers only through his own deeds and striving. The first verse assures him that he will not be seized for another’s crime, as earthly kings may do, while the second cuts off any false hope of salvation through the deeds of forefathers, predecessors, or teachers—an illusion entertained by wishful thinkers. Reflect on the beauty with which these two verses complement each other.
The verse does not deny that someone may benefit from another’s striving; it merely denies that he owns another’s striving. The distinction between the two is obvious. Another’s striving belongs to the one who performed it; if he so wishes—