on purposes other than ransoming them. In this case, however, the money is certainly spent on their ransom. There is no difference between spending the endowment’s funds directly on their designated purpose and repaying money borrowed for that purpose. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, would sometimes distribute zakat funds to those entitled to its allotted shares, and sometimes borrow on their behalf and then use the zakat to repay the creditors. Thus, spending in repayment is equivalent to spending directly. And Allah knows best.

He was asked:

Concerning a man who had charge of a share in a bathhouse endowed for the poor and needy: part of the bathhouse fell into disrepair during hostilities with the enemy. He leased that share to someone for eight years for eight hundred dirhams, authorizing him to spend the rent on essential repairs to the bathhouse. The tenant carried out the repairs, spending on them until his expenditure amounted to the rent for the aforementioned share. He then claimed that the endowment owed him an additional sum that he had spent beyond the rent, without the lessor’s permission. Is he entitled to that or not?

He answered:

Praise be to Allah. If he carried out additional improvements beyond the obligatory repairs authorized, those responsible for the bathhouse are not obliged to pay for the remaining additional improvements or their value. Rather, he may remove them, provided their removal does not harm the endowment. If the improvements increase the bathhouse’s rental income, and they agree that the improvements should remain his property, without paying him their value, but instead