Explanation of the author's statement: "And if the obligation of another person's fitrah (the innate natural disposition) falls upon him, and he pays it on their behalf without their permission, it is sufficient."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And if the obligation of another person's fitrah (the innate natural disposition) falls upon him", is that correct? Does the fitrah (the innate natural disposition) of another person fall upon him, or does another person's fitrah (the innate natural disposition) fall upon him? Is it the subject in the nominative case? The subject is in the nominative case, O guidance of Allah? Where is the subject, the other person, or the fitrah (the innate natural disposition)? The fitrah (the innate natural disposition), so "other" is the object placed before the verb, like the saying of the Exalted . Good, "And if the obligation of another person's fitrah (the innate natural disposition) falls upon him", like whom? Like a wife whose fitrah (the innate natural disposition) falls upon her husband, or like a father whose son's fitrah (the innate natural disposition) falls upon him, and the like. So if he pays it on their behalf without their permission, it is sufficient.
His saying "he pays it on their behalf", who is the one paying? The other person? No, the one paying is the one upon whom the fitrah (the innate natural disposition) of another person falls. What is "the other person"? It means he pays, i.e., the one upon whom the fitrah (the innate natural disposition) of another person falls, "on their behalf without their permission", meaning without the permission of the one upon whom his fitrah (the innate natural disposition) falls, in which case it is sufficient.
An example of this is a wife, whose fitrah (the innate natural disposition) is obligatory upon her husband. If she pays it without her husband's permission, it is sufficient. This is because the obligation is originally upon her, and its obligation upon her husband is a form of assuming the burden. So if she pays on her own behalf, she has paid the original obligation on behalf of the derivative one. She pays on her own behalf, and it is sufficient, whether the husband permits it or not. This is an acknowledgment by the jurists (may Allah have mercy on them), an acknowledgment from them that a person is himself addressed with what? With paying the zakah (the obligatory alms) on his own behalf. And it has been established for us that this is the stronger and correct opinion. Good.
It is sufficient, and it is understood from his saying "And if the obligation of another person's fitrah (the innate natural disposition) falls upon him, and he pays it on their behalf without their permission" that if one pays on behalf of someone upon whom his fitrah (the innate natural disposition) does not fall, then their permission is necessary. If a person named Zayd pays on behalf of 'Amr without his permission, it is not sufficient, because Zayd's fitrah (the innate natural disposition) does not fall upon 'Amr, and zakah (the obligatory alms) is an act of worship, so it requires intention, either from the one upon whom it is obligatory or from his agent. This is based on a well-known principle among scholars called "unauthorized agency" (al-tasarruf al-faduli), meaning that a person acts on behalf of another without their permission. Does this action become invalid absolutely, or does it depend on the other person's consent? There is disagreement on this issue, and the stronger position is that it is sufficient if the other person consents. The evidence for this is: _ meaning he told you a lie - - meaning he told you the truth, and he is a liar. In this is evidence that a liar may tell the truth, and that an enemy may give sincere advice. But the one who gave advice to Shaytan (Satan) in this case was not giving sincere advice, but was out of fear that it would be reported to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). Otherwise, he is a liar who did not intend to give sincere advice to Abu Hurayrah; his wish was to take what Abu Hurayrah had, but he was afraid that it would be reported to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him).
The point is that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) approved this action by Abu Hurayrah and considered it sufficient, even though it was zakah (the obligatory alms), and Abu Hurayrah was an agent for its custody, not an agent for its distribution. This indicates that unauthorized agency, if approved by the one it concerns, is permissible. The jurists (may Allah have mercy on them) mentioned that if a person sacrifices another person's udhiyah (the 'Id sacrifice), it counts for the other person even if they did not give permission. A person has a specific udhiyah (the 'Id sacrifice), and someone sacrifices it, so it belongs to its owner even if he did not order it.
And when Ibraheem (Abraham) was tested by his Lord
وإذ ابتلى إبرهيم ربهHis saying "he pays it on their behalf", who is the one paying? The other person? No, the one paying is the one upon whom the fitrah (the innate natural disposition) of another person falls. What is "the other person"? It means he pays, i.e., the one upon whom the fitrah (the innate natural disposition) of another person falls, "on their behalf without their permission", meaning without the permission of the one upon whom his fitrah (the innate natural disposition) falls, in which case it is sufficient.
An example of this is a wife, whose fitrah (the innate natural disposition) is obligatory upon her husband. If she pays it without her husband's permission, it is sufficient. This is because the obligation is originally upon her, and its obligation upon her husband is a form of assuming the burden. So if she pays on her own behalf, she has paid the original obligation on behalf of the derivative one. She pays on her own behalf, and it is sufficient, whether the husband permits it or not. This is an acknowledgment by the jurists (may Allah have mercy on them), an acknowledgment from them that a person is himself addressed with what? With paying the zakah (the obligatory alms) on his own behalf. And it has been established for us that this is the stronger and correct opinion. Good.
It is sufficient, and it is understood from his saying "And if the obligation of another person's fitrah (the innate natural disposition) falls upon him, and he pays it on their behalf without their permission" that if one pays on behalf of someone upon whom his fitrah (the innate natural disposition) does not fall, then their permission is necessary. If a person named Zayd pays on behalf of 'Amr without his permission, it is not sufficient, because Zayd's fitrah (the innate natural disposition) does not fall upon 'Amr, and zakah (the obligatory alms) is an act of worship, so it requires intention, either from the one upon whom it is obligatory or from his agent. This is based on a well-known principle among scholars called "unauthorized agency" (al-tasarruf al-faduli), meaning that a person acts on behalf of another without their permission. Does this action become invalid absolutely, or does it depend on the other person's consent? There is disagreement on this issue, and the stronger position is that it is sufficient if the other person consents. The evidence for this is:
That the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) appointed Abu Hurayrah as the custodian of the zakat al-fitr (the alms given at the end of Ramadan), so he became the agent for its custody. One night, Shaytan (Satan) came and took some of the dates. Abu Hurayrah held him and said, "What is this?" Shaytan (Satan) claimed to be poor and having dependents, and said, "I will not come after this night." When morning came, Abu Hurayrah went to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and said, "What did your prisoner do last night?" He said, "O Messenger of Allah, he claimed to be poor and having dependents, so I released him." He said, "He lied to you, and he will return."
أن النبي صلى الله عليه وأله وسلم وكّل أبا هريرة في حفظ صدقة الفطر فكان وكيلا على حفظها فجاء الشيطان ذات ليلة وأخذ من التمر أمسكه أبو هريرة ما هذا فادعى الشيطان أنه فقير وذو عيال وقال لا ءاتي بعد هذه الليلة فلما كان في الصباح جاء أبو هريرة إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وأله وسلم قال : ما فعَلَ أسيرك البارحة؟ قال يا رسول الله ادعى أنه فقير وذو عيال فأطلقته قال : أما إنه كذَبَك وسيعودHe lied to you
كذبكAnd he will return. He said, "So I waited for him on the second night, and I knew that he would return because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: 'He will return.' So he returned and took some, and I held him. I said, 'I will take you to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him).' So he swore to me that he would not return. I released him, yes, and I informed the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) of that. He said: 'He lied to you, and he will return.' On the third night, he returned, and Abu Hurayrah held him. I said, 'Now I will take you to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him).' So he swore to him. He said, 'It is not possible, you must be taken up three times.' He said, 'Shall I not show you something that will protect you?' He said, 'Yes.' He said, 'Recite the Verse of the Throne every night, for there will remain over you a protector from Allah, and no Shaytan (Satan) will approach you until you rise.' So Abu Hurayrah informed the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) of that, and he said: 'He told you the truth, and he is a liar.'
وسيعود ، يقول فترقبته في الليلة الثانية وعلِمْت أنه سيعود لأن النبي صلى الله عليه وأله وسلم قال : سيعود ، فعاد وأخذ فأمسكه قال لأرفعكن إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وأله وسلم فأقسم له أن لا يعود، أطلقه، نعم، وأخبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بذلك فقال : كذبك وسيعود ، في الليلة الثالثة عاد أمسكه أبو هريرة، الأن أرفعك إلى الرسول عليه الصلاة والسلام فأقسم له قال ما يمكن لا بد من الرفع ثلاث مرات فقال : ألا أدلك على شيء يحفظك ، قال : بلى قال : اقرأ أية الكرسي كل ليلة فإنه لا يزال عليك من الله حافظ ولا يقربك شيطان حتى تصبح ، فأخبر أبو هريرة النبي صلى الله عليه وأله وسلم بذلك فقال : صدَقَك وهو كذوبHe told you the truth
صدقكThe point is that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) approved this action by Abu Hurayrah and considered it sufficient, even though it was zakah (the obligatory alms), and Abu Hurayrah was an agent for its custody, not an agent for its distribution. This indicates that unauthorized agency, if approved by the one it concerns, is permissible. The jurists (may Allah have mercy on them) mentioned that if a person sacrifices another person's udhiyah (the 'Id sacrifice), it counts for the other person even if they did not give permission. A person has a specific udhiyah (the 'Id sacrifice), and someone sacrifices it, so it belongs to its owner even if he did not order it.