Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi
In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful
The 14th issue was that if a representative did not have enough money to finish the job the person who hired him did not have to make it up and if he was given extra money he did not have to pay it back. Many jurists said that it was recommended for the person who hired him to make it up if the money was not enough and for the representative to give back extra money if there was any.
We have to solve another problem in order to solve this one. This problem is regarding the quiddity of the representative; is it rent or just paying expenses? Both are possible, but usually the first choice is accepted.
If it is the first case, which is usually the case, the two sections of Imam Khomeini’s verdict are clear because the individual was rented and the money of the rent, be it too little or too much, does not have anything to do with the person who rented him; he cannot take back the extra money.
But, if it is the second case, if the money given was not enough the person who hired him must return it and if it was too much the representative must give it back. Abu Hanifah opposed the normal view. The following is written in Tadhkirah: “It is narrated from Abu Hanifah that this is not a rent contract; the person is a pure representative and what is given to him in the way of money is sustenance for the path.” (Tadhkirah al-Fuquha’, v.7, p.161)
There are two possibilities as to the source of Abu Hanifah’s verdict. One is that taking payment is in contradiction to the intention of qurbah. The rent contract is discussed in the sections of worship as well. Sometimes, it is referred to in the principles of jurisprudence and sometimes in the forbidden business contracts. Some believe that the intention of qurbah and the taking of payment are contradictory.
This issue was answered stating that taking payment is not contradictory to an intention of qurbah. They said it was motive upon a motive meaning that the act of worship was performed with the intention of qurbah, but the motive of the intention of qurbah was taking payment. An example of this is the prayer for the sending of rain, which is performed with the intention of qurbah, but the motive behind the intention is rain and the end of famine.
Some people have looked at this matter with precision and state that there is no difference between the prayer for the sending of rain and representation. They state that when one performs the prayer for rain they are seeking rain from Allah and that is a form of worship. The same goes for the midnight prayers where one is seeking more sustenance and the recitation of seventy Surah Hamds where one is seeking a cure for a sick person. Since these cases are asking something from Allah they are a type of woship, but this is different than representation, because in representation one is seeking payment from people.
In our opinion, there is no difference between the two cases because both of them eventually refer to a material point. If a motive upon a motive is not sufficient then the prayer for seeking rain would be invalid. Some even say that taking payment emphasizes the intention of qurbah because, when a person sees that he will be paid by people he realizes that he is in debt until he performs a correct action. Therefore, he will have a better intention of qurbah so that he does not owe anyone anything on the Day of Judgment.
The second proof that Abu Hanifah might have relied upon is that the Prophet prohibited this action. We will mention and respond to this tradition during our discussion of traditions.
Traditions:
The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th traditions of the tenth section of representation in hajj:
The 2nd tradition: Muhammad bin Ya’qub narrates from some of our companions, who narrate from Ahmad bin Muhammad and Sahl bin Ziyad, who narrate from Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Abi Nasr, who narrates from Muhammad bin Abdullah al-Qumi, who says that he asked Abu al-Hassan (a) about a person who was given a hajj and who performs that hajj making a profit. Does he have to return the extra money? He said: “No, it is for him.”
The 3rd tradition: And Muhammad bin Yahya narrates from Muhammad bin Ahmad, who narrates from Ahmad bin al-Hassan, who narrates from ‘Amr bin Sa’id, who narrates from Musaddiq bin Sadaqah, who narrates from ‘Ammar bin Musa al-Sabati, who says that he asked Abu Abdullah (a) about a person who took a dirham to perform hajj and if that person can use this dirham for something other than hajj. He said: “If he owes a hajj then the dirham is his and he could do with it whatever he likes. But, he must perform the hajj.”
When the person asking the question asks if he could use some of the money given for hajj for something else it is understood that some money was left over after the hajj was performed.
Another tradition in this section:
The 1st tradition: Muhammad bin al-Hassan narrates from Musa bin al-Qasim through his chain, who narrates from al-Hassan bin Mahbub, who narrates from ‘Ali bin Ra’ab, who narrates from Musama’, who says that he asked Abu Abdullah (a) about a person who was given dirhams to perform hajj with and some money was left over which was not given back. He said: “It is for him because he might have been careful in spending little for the hajj while he needs the money.”
The possibility exists in this tradition that it is not necessary to give back the extra money if he was extremely careful of spending the money. But, if he spent it normally and some money was left over he would have to give it back. Therefore, this tradition cannot be relied upon by itself because of this possibility.
There has been a tradition narrated in Mustadrak, v.6:
The 1st tradition: Da’aim al-Islam narrates from Ja’far bin Muhammad (a) who states: “A person leaves to perform hajj for another person and he is given the expenses. What is left over from the money is for the person who left.”
This tradition does not have a chain of narration.
The 2nd tradition: al-Ja’fariyat, Muhammad narrates from Musa, who narrates from his father, who narrates from his father, who narrates from his grandfather, Ja’far bin Muhammad, who narrates from his father, who narrates from his grandfather, ‘Ali bin al-Hassan (a), who narrates from his father, who narrates from his father, ‘Ali (a), who says that the Messenger of Allah (s) said: “What is wrong with you if hajj becomes a business for you!” He said: “O’ Messenger of Allah, how could this happen?” He said: “A nation will come after you who will perform hajj for those who are unable and for the dead and they will use the extra money for themselves.”
This tradition is in opposition to what was mentioned and has a correct chain of narration. It was narrated from the Messenger of Allah and might be what Abu Hanifah based his verdict on.
Collecting the verdicts would determine that either this tradition is denoting that this is recommended or that this tradition has not been used by any jurists and is therefore rejected.
Posted by Hamid Waqar 
