money to perform Hajj on someone else’s behalf. The giver’s purpose is for Hajj to be performed on behalf of that person, while the pilgrim seeks the reward of performing Hajj itself, rather than the reward of showing kindness to another.

This accords with Abū Hanīfah’s principle, for he said: “The Hajj counts for the pilgrim, while the giver receives the reward for spending, just as in jihad.” According to our principle, someone who prays, fasts, gives charity or performs Hajj on another’s behalf has a righteous intention both in performing the act itself and in performing it on another’s behalf.

Given that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said:

“The trustworthy treasurer who willingly gives what he has been instructed to give, in full and without deduction, is one of the two givers of charity,”

thereby granting the agent the same reward in charity as the principal, even though he acts as a representative—and that he also said:

“When a woman spends from her husband’s household without wastefulness, she receives her reward for what she spends, her husband receives his reward for what he earns, and the servant receives a similar reward,”

so too, someone acting on another’s behalf in Hajj or any other act that admits of representation receives a reward, as does the person who appoints him. This pilgrim likewise takes only what he spends on Hajj, just as someone going forth to fight takes only what he spends on that expedition.

These, then, are two recommended cases: the two permissible forms of accepting money for Hajj expenses and returning the surplus. But if his purpose is to earn money—that is, to retain a financial surplus—this constitutes hiring or a reward-based contract. The correct view is that this is not recommended, even if it is held to be permissible, because an act performed for worldly gain is not, in itself, a righteous deed if it is undertaken with no intention