Islamic Fiqh > Zakat > Zakat on receivables and debts
Owed money or owing money: how zakat treats recoverable receivables, doubtful receivables and debts at the due date.
Contents
Updated on 31 August 2026 at 3:55 AM
No explicit text imposes or lifts the zakat of a receivable, and the reports of the early generations contradict one another, notes ash-Shinqiti: hence the many views. The matter is settled by the debtor's state and access to the wealth.
Four views: Hanafis and Hanbalis, with Ali, al-Thawri, al-Awza'i and Ibn Abd al-Barr, hold zakat due but payable only upon collection, for all past years, the claim being owned but out of reach, like a deposit. Shafiites of the later view and Ahmad in one narration: it is paid every year, even before collection, since the creditor may claim at any time; Umar took it from present and absent alike, and Ibn Umar said: « every claim you hope to recover bears its zakat each year ». Malikis: a single zakat paid at collection, however long, since nothing can be drawn from wealth beyond one's hand. Early al-Shafii, Ibn Hazm and Aisha's report: no zakat before collection, which starts a new year: « there is no zakat on a debt » (reported by Ibn Abi Shayba).
The jurists agree: nothing is due so long as the wealth is not recovered. Upon recovery, the grid repeats: dominant Shafiites, Hanbalis and Zufr impose the past years; Malikis a single year, relying on Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz who first ordered all years then one only for confiscated property, « for it was out of reach »; early al-Shafii and Ibn Hazm restart the year. Among Hanafis, a denied claim without proof bears nothing, and neither does one admitted in secret; the debt of a declared bankrupt demands nothing per Muhammad, the undeclared bankrupt remaining liable.
Hanafis: wealth lost, stolen or confiscated is beyond use, hence without zakat; on its return, the past raises the same question as the denied claim. Dominant Shafiites and Hanbalis impose the zakat of the absent years upon return; Malikis a single year. Wealth hidden inside one's house remains zakatable by agreement, never leaving one's hand; buried in the desert then forgotten, it joins lost wealth.
Non-visible wealth (money, merchandise): the majority (Hanafis, Malikis, Hanbalis, early al-Shafii) let a debt covering the threshold cancel zakat. Visible wealth (livestock, crops, fruits): Malikis, Shafiites and Hanbalis in one view allow no deduction, the collector asking nothing of debts; Hanafis admit it for livestock, never for the crops' tenth, by agreement of the schools; Hanbalis in the second narration deduct for both. A debt arising after zakat falls due does not cancel it (al-Haddadi, al-Sayrafi).
The dowry owed to the wife follows the claims regime: Shafiites impose it yearly even before collection; Abu Yusuf, Muhammad and Hanbalis upon collection for past years; Malikis, Abu Hanifa and Ahmad in one narration only after collection and then a year; Ibn Taymiyya deems the two latter views closest to fairness. A deposit held by another bears zakat by agreement of the four schools, the majority paying it yearly: the depositor parted with his wealth by choice and remains able to grow it. In a commercial partnership, Hanafis make the managing partner pay on his profit share once profit is apparent, capital staying on the investor; Malikis charge the investor according to management; Shafiites place zakat on the investor for everything before division; Hanbalis on the capital and the investor's share, the manager's share being due only after division.