is enough to convey him to his land, because the payment to him is for a need thereof, so it is estimated according to that amount. It is paid to him even if he is wealthy in his own land, provided he is needy in the present moment, because he is unable to reach his wealth, thus it becomes as if it were non-existent. If there is a surplus left with him after returning to his land, he must return it, because he took it out of need, and his independence [from need] has been achieved without it, so it is similar to if someone took money for a military expedition but did not fight. If he is poor, or if poverty coincided with his travel, he may keep the surplus due to his poverty, because even if the entitlement based on being a wayfarer ceases, the entitlement based on another category is achieved. If he is a debtor, he may keep the surplus for his debt.

Section: If the wayfarer is a passerby intending a land other than his own, our companions said: It is permissible to give him what suffices him for his journey to his destination and his return to his own land, because this involves assisting in lawful travel and achieving a correct objective. However, it is conditional that the travel be lawful, whether it is an act of devotion, such as Hajj, Jihad, or visiting parents, or merely permissible, such as seeking a livelihood or trade. As for disobedience, it is not permissible to give to him for it, because it is an act of assistance toward it and a means for it, so it is like performing it, for the means of a thing is treated like the thing itself. If the travel is for recreation, there are two views: one is that he is given [the Zakat], because it is not an act of disobedience. The second is that he is not given, because he has no necessity for this travel. It is my opinion that it is not permissible to give for travel to other than one's own land, because if that were permissible, it would be permissible for one initiating travel from his own land, and because if this travel is for Jihad, he may take for it from the share of [those in] the way of Allah, and if it is for Hajj, others are more deserving than him. Since it is not permissible to give in these two cases, it is even more so for other cases. The Law (al-Shar') only legislated giving to him for the purpose of returning to his land, because it is a matter his need calls for, and he has no alternative but it; therefore, it is not permissible to equate anything else to it, as they are not in the same meaning, nor is it permissible to use analogy for it, and there is no text regarding it, so its permissibility is not established due to the absence of both text and analogy.