Islamic Fiqh > Zakat > Paying zakat: advance payment, delay and agents
Does giving all one's wealth suffice? Paying on behalf of others, paying zakat before its due date, the limit of advance payment and delay: the rules of payment, school by school.
Contents
Updated on 24 September 2026 at 4:12 PM
This set of sheets from the zakat chapter deals with the timing of payment: the validity of payment made without the intention of zakat, payment made by someone else, paying in advance before the year (hawl) completes, and delay beyond the due date. School positions are faithfully attributed, with exact figures, the evidence, and classical references in parentheses.
The jurists differed over someone on whom zakat has become due who gives away all his wealth without intending zakat: does this discharge him or not? The majority of jurists, namely the Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis, hold that it does not discharge him, because he did not intend the obligation by it, just as if he had given only part of his wealth, or like someone who performs one hundred rak'ahs without intending an obligatory prayer. He must then pay what is due from him.
The Malikis say: if he gave all his wealth intending the zakat of his wealth and more, the excess counts as voluntary charity and he is rewarded for it, like one who feeds one hundred poor persons as an expiation; but if he did not intend zakat for any of what he gave, it does not discharge him, since performing the obligation was required of him and he did not intend it, like one who prays one hundred rak'ahs with the intention of supererogatory worship, which does not stand in for the obligation (Adh-Dhakhira, 3/137; Mawahib al-Jalil, 2/357, ed. Dar al-Fikr).
An-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: if he gives all his wealth without intending zakat, the zakat is not lifted from him by consensus, just as if he had donated it or destroyed it, and like one who owes an obligatory prayer and performs one hundred voluntary prayers without that discharging it, by consensus: this is our school.
The companions of Abu Hanifa say: giving everything discharges him; and if he gives only part of it, that likewise does not discharge the zakat, which is the view of Abu Yusuf. Muhammad (al-Shaybani) said: it discharges the zakat of that part. If someone pays five dirhams intending both the obligation and voluntary charity, it does not discharge the zakat and counts as voluntary: this is Muhammad's view; Abu Yusuf said it discharges the zakat. Our proof is that this payment was not devoted exclusively to the obligation and is therefore not valid for it, as with prayer, and Allah knows best.
In the Kitab az-Ziyadat of Abu 'Asim it is stated that if he hands money to his agent to distribute voluntarily, then forms the intention of the obligation, and the agent carries out the distribution, it counts for the obligation provided the recipient is deserving (Al-Majmu', 6/171-172; Rawdat at-Talibin, 2/66).
Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) said: if a man gives all his wealth voluntarily without intending zakat, it does not discharge him, and al-Shafi'i held the same. The companions of Abu Hanifa, however, see it as a recommended discharge (mustahabb). This is not valid: he did not intend the obligation, just as if he had given only part, or like one who prays one hundred rak'ahs without the obligatory intention (Al-Mughni, 3/417; Al-Kafi, 1/324).
The Hanafis, for their part, hold that whoever gives all his wealth is discharged of zakat even without intention, by istihsan (juristic preference): having paid everything, the competition between the required portion and the rest has disappeared, and paying everything to Allah has realized the payment of the required portion, since that portion is part of the nisab. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "On what is watered by drawn water, a quarter of the tithe," and: "On twenty mithqals, half a mithqal," among other texts.
The pillar is transferring ownership gratuitously, and it has certainly taken place, since paying everything includes the portion. Intention was only stipulated for specification, and the obligation became specified by the payment of everything. If he gives only part, the zakat of that part falls away according to Muhammad, contrary to Abu Yusuf (Al-Hidaya, 1/98; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, 2/269; Sharh Fath al-Qadir, 2/170; Al-Ikhtiyar, 1/108, ed. Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya; Al-Inaya, 3/67).
Az-Zayla'i (may Allah have mercy on him) reported: "The condition for its valid payment is an intention concurrent with the payment, or with setting aside the amount due, or giving all of it." Since zakat is an act of worship, it is not valid without intention, whose default is concurrence with the act as with other acts of worship; but payment may be spread out, so it suffices for the intention to be present when setting the amount aside, to remove hardship, like the prior intention of the Ramadan fast.
Since setting aside is an act of the debtor, it admits intention; but one who intends zakat without setting anything aside and gives little by little until the year ends, with no intention present, is not discharged, his intention not being joined to any act. As for "or he gives all of it": the required portion is included in it and specification is no longer needed by istihsan, since the obligation is a portion of the nisab, with no difference between intending supererogatory worship and having no intention, unlike the Ramadan fast, where abstaining counts only with the intention of drawing near: giving money is in itself an act of drawing near, whereas abstaining is so only through intention (Tabyin al-Haqa'iq, 1/257).
Al-Kasani (may Allah have mercy on him) said: if he gives all his wealth to a poor person without intending zakat, it discharges him by istihsan, while analogy (qiyas) requires it to be invalid, zakat being an intended act of worship that requires intention. The basis of the istihsan is that intention is presumed: the one owing zakat does not in principle give all his wealth while heedless of the intention of zakat, so it is presumed present. On this basis, if he donates the whole nisab to a poor person or gives intending voluntary charity, he is discharged (Bada'i' as-Sana'i', 2/40, ed. Dar al-Kutub al-Arabi).
It is reported from Abu Yusuf that if he intends to give all his wealth and then gives little by little, he is discharged by what was said above; if he does not form that intention and keeps giving until the year is over, he remains liable for the zakat, since it remained due after he gave part of his wealth and is not lifted by giving the rest.
If someone gives part of his wealth without the intention of zakat, so that it does not discharge the zakat of the whole, does it discharge the zakat of the amount given? Abu Yusuf said: no, and he must pay the zakat of everything. Muhammad said: it discharges the zakat of what he gave and he pays the rest; thus, if he pays five dirhams out of two hundred without intending zakat or intending voluntary charity, the zakat does not fall away according to Abu Yusuf, who demands from him the zakat of everything. According to Muhammad, the zakat of these five dirhams falls away, namely one eighth of a dirham, without the zakat of the rest falling away.
Likewise, if he pays one hundred dirhams without intending zakat but intending voluntary charity, the zakat of the hundred does not fall away according to Abu Yusuf, and he must pay the whole; according to Muhammad, the zakat of what he gave falls away, namely two and a half dirhams, without the zakat of the rest falling away. Al-Quduri mentioned this disagreement in his commentary on the Mukhtasar al-Karkhi, while the qadi at-Tahawi states in his commentary, the Mukhtasar at-Tahawi, that the zakat of the amount paid falls away, without mentioning the disagreement.
Muhammad's view rests on treating the part together with the whole: had he given everything, it would have discharged the zakat of everything; so if he gives part, it discharges its zakat, the obligation pervading the whole nisab. Abu Yusuf holds that zakat falls away without intention through the loss of ownership on the path of drawing near regarding the wealth in which the zakat lies, which is not realized in a partial gift.
If someone gives five dirhams intending, for the whole sum, both zakat and voluntary charity: according to Abu Yusuf it counts as zakat; Muhammad said it falls under voluntary charity. Muhammad reasoned that the two intentions conflicted, that specification is invalid through this conflict, and that the giving remains with an unrestricted intention, so it falls under voluntary charity, the lesser, and the lesser is attained with certainty. Abu Yusuf reasoned that when two aims conflict, the stronger is applied, namely the obligation, as with two conflicting pieces of evidence where the stronger is applied; specification matters for zakat, not for voluntary charity which needs none: an unrestricted charity falls upon it and cancels its specification, whereas the zakat remains specified and it falls under the zakat (Bada'i' as-Sana'i', 2/40, ed. Dar al-Kutub al-Arabi).
Al-Hattab (may Allah have mercy on him) relates the case of someone whose zakat is paid by another, without his knowledge and without his consent. Al-Qarafi sets out in al-Furuq (the 71st distinction after the hundred) the rule separating what another's act discharges from what it does not: commanded acts fall into three categories.
First issue: zakat. If someone pays it without the knowledge or consent of the one who owes it, and the payer is not the Imam: according to our companions' position on the sacrificial animal, when someone other than its owner slaughters it without his knowledge or consent, if the doer is his close friend, of the kind who might plausibly do so for him without consent, since he is like himself owing to the strength of their friendship, the sacrifice is valid. By the same token, if the one paying the zakat is of this kind, it is discharging, both being commanded acts of worship that require intention; otherwise it does not discharge the one who owes it, on the soundest position of the school, because of the tinge of worship (Al-Furuq, 3/336).
On the view that does not require intention, another's act would discharge absolutely, as with debts and deposits, in the consensual category: this is the view of some of the school's companions, who extended the reasoning from debts to zakat, citing that the Imam takes it even unwillingly. Malik, al-Shafi'i, Abu Hanifa and Ahmad ibn Hanbal (may Allah be pleased with them) require intention, because of the tinge of worship in its measures, its nisab, what is due in it and the rest (Al-Furuq, 3/336).
Al-Maziri said in his commentary on at-Talqin, at the start of the book of agency: zakat admits representation both from the agent's wealth and from the wealth of the one owing zakat; it belongs to the acts of drawing near, being a monetary worship, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) appointed Ali to slaughter his sacrificial camel, which he did as an act of drawing near (Mawahib al-Jalil, 2/356-357).
Ibn Farhun said in his puzzles: if one asks whether a father's payment of the zakat of breaking the fast (fitr) discharges his wealthy son, answering yes or no would both be a mistake. The answer: if the son is a young child, it is permitted; if he is grown, it does not discharge him on the view that requires intention in zakat, the school requiring intention, as Ibn al-Hajib said: this presupposes that the father did not inform him, which is apparent from their words. The same applies to one for whom another gives the zakat al-fitr voluntarily while he is well off, and to the wife who wants to pay her own zakat al-fitr while her wealthy husband refuses.
In all such cases, the apparent rule is validity and the falling away of the zakat of the one on whose behalf it was paid, if the payer informed them; if he does not inform them, it does not discharge, the intention being absent (Mawahib al-Jalil, 2/374-375).
The majority of jurists, namely the Hanafis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis, allow paying zakat in advance before the hawl when the cause of its obligation exists, that is, a complete nisab. By contrast, paying it before even owning the nisab is forbidden without disagreement: the nisab is the cause of the zakat's obligation and the hawl is its condition; the obligatory is not brought forward before its cause, though it may be brought forward before its condition, like the expiation of an oath paid after the oath but before its violation, or the expiation of killing after the wound but before death.
The proof is what was reported from Abbas, who asked the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) about paying his charity in advance before it became due:
"Abbas asked the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) about paying his charity in advance before it became due, and he permitted him to do so."Hasan hadith: reported by Abu Dawud (1624), at-Tirmidhi (678) and Ibn Majah (1795)
He also said to Umar:
"We have taken Abbas's zakat of the first year for the [next] year."Words addressed by the Prophet to Umar, reported in the chains of the previous hadith
Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) added that this is an advance on wealth whose cause of obligation arose before its due time, and it is permitted, like paying a debt before its term, the expiation of an oath after the oath and before its violation, or the expiation of killing after the wound and before death (Al-Mughni, 3/411; Al-Mabsut, 2/177; Umdat al-Qari, 9/47; Mukhtasar Ikhtilaf al-Ulama by at-Tahawi, 1/455; Majmu al-Fatawa, 25/85; Al-Majmu', 7/247; Rawdat at-Talibin, 2/212; Al-Insaf, 3/204).
Malik, as transmitted by Ibn Wahb, Ashhab and Khalid ibn Khidash, held that whoever pays the zakat of his wealth before the hawl fully completes is not discharged, like one who prays before the time begins. Ibn al-Qasim reported from him that it is not permitted to pay it before the hawl except by a little; Ibn Abd al-Hakam likewise reported from him: a month or the like (Al-Istidhkar, 3/272; Al-Mudawwana, 2/284; Adh-Dhakhira, 3/137; Bidayat al-Mujtahid, 1/375).
Malik's argument is that the hawl is one of the two conditions of zakat, like the nisab: it cannot be brought forward before it, just as it cannot, by consensus, be brought forward before owning the nisab. The Law fixed a time for zakat, the hawl, which cannot be preceded, like prayer (Al-Mughni, 3/410).
Ibn Rushd (may Allah have mercy on him) said, concerning the eighth issue, namely the permissibility of paying zakat before the hawl: Malik forbade it, while Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i allowed it. The cause of the disagreement is whether zakat is an act of worship or a right owed to the poor: whoever deems it worship and likens it to prayer does not allow payment before its time, like Malik; whoever likens it to deferred due rights allows paying it before the term, as voluntary charity (Bidayat al-Mujtahid, 1/375).
The Hanafis, and the Hanbalis according to one narration from Malik, allow advancing the zakat for as many years as one wishes, without limit. The Hanafis go so far as to say: if he has three hundred dirhams and pays one hundred dirhams as the zakat of two hundred for ten years to come, it is permitted, the cause existing, namely the ownership of a growing nisab. This differs from the tithe (ushr), which cannot be advanced before the crops grow and the fruit appears, still less before sowing or planting, the cause of obligation not yet existing, like advancing the zakat of money before owning the nisab (Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, 2/29-30; Al-Bahr az-Zakhkhar, 2/188; Al-Mughni, 3/413).
The Hanbalis, on the second narration, do not allow it, since no text has come permitting the advance by more than one year (Al-Mughni, 3/413).
Among the Shafi'is, ash-Shirazi said in al-Muhadhdhab that advancing two years' zakat has two views: Abu Ishaq (al-Marwazi) allows it, based on what is reported from Ali (may Allah honor his face), and because what allows advancing the right of one year allows advancing that of two, like the blood money of accidental killing.
"The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) took in advance from Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) the charity of two years."Reported by at-Tabarani in al-Kabir (10/72) and al-Awsat (1/299), al-Daraqutni (2/124) and al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan al-Kubra (4/111), with a gap in the chain (al-Hafiz in al-Talkhis, 2/162: its men are trustworthy, but it has a discontinuity)
Others among them do not allow it: it is a zakat whose hawl has not yet completed, so it cannot be advanced, like zakat before owning the nisab (Al-Muhadhdhab, 1/166).
An-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: if he advances the charity of two years or more after the hawl has completed, two famous views confront each other, with their proofs. The first: it is permitted, based on the hadith. The second: it is not; al-Baghawi and his companions answered the hadith by saying that he took two separate installments, each carrying the charity of one year. The scholars differed over which of the two views is sounder: a group authenticated permission, such as Abu Ishaq al-Marwazi, then al-Bandaniji, al-Ghazali in al-Wasit, al-Jurjani, ash-Shashi and al-Abdari; al-Baghawi and others authenticated prohibition, and al-Rafi'i reported that the majority authenticated prohibition (Al-Majmu', 7/215, 252; Rawdat at-Talibin, 2/212).
On the permissive view, there is no difference between two years and more: advancing ten years or more is permitted, provided a nisab remains after the advance. Thus, if he has fifty sheep and advances ten of them for ten years, it is permitted; if the wealth falls below the nisab in the second year, advancing beyond the first year is no longer valid on the majority view, since the second hawl does not complete on a nisab. Al-Baghawi and al-Sarakhsi report an anomalous view of prohibition, the advanced portion being treated like what remains in his ownership.
And if the charity of two years is allowed, may he intend to advance the zakat of the second year before that of the first? Two views, reported by Abu al-Fadl Ibn Abdan, like advancing the second prayer over the first when combining them within the second prayer's time (Al-Majmu', 7/215, 252; Rawdat at-Talibin, 2/212).
The majority of jurists, namely the Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis, as well as the Hanafis on one view, hold that once zakat is due, it must be paid immediately, where there is ability and no fear of harm: an unrestricted command implies immediacy, and the delayer deserves punishment for disobedience. Allah expelled Iblis, was angry with him and rebuked him for refusing to prostrate; likewise, if a man orders his slave to water and the slave delays, he deserves punishment. Allowing delay would contradict the obligation, since the obligatory is what one is punished for abandoning; and if delay were allowed, it would have no limit, so that punishment for omission would disappear.
Even if an unrestricted command did not imply immediacy in general, it does here: if delay were allowed, the debtor would naturally delay, confident that he does not sin by delaying, and the zakat would lapse through his death, the destruction of his wealth or his inability to pay, to the detriment of the poor. There is moreover an indication in favor of immediacy: zakat is due for the need of the poor, and that need is urgent, so the obligation must be urgent too. It is finally a recurring worship: it cannot be delayed until the time of another obligation, like prayer and fasting (Al-Mughni, 3/457-458).
Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) reported that al-Athram said: I heard Abu Abdallah (Ahmad) asked about a man whose year completes on his wealth and who delays payment past the time of zakat; he said: no, why would he delay its payment? And he was firm on this. When he was seen starting to pay it little by little, he said: no, rather he pays it in full as soon as the year completes. However, if immediate payment harms him, like one whose year completes before the collector arrives and who fears that if he pays it himself the collector will take it from him again, he may delay it: Ahmad stated this explicitly (Al-Mughni, 3/457-458).
Among the Hanafis, the famous view is that zakat is due in a broad sense: the owner may delay it until he is asked for it, the command to pay being unrestricted, with no time fixed rather than another, just as no place is fixed rather than another: this is the view of Abu Bakr al-Razi (al-Jassas). Al-Karkhi, one of the Hanafi imams, said it is due immediately, the command implying immediacy. The chosen view, as Ibn al-Humam said, is that the command to transfer the wealth to the poor carries the indication of immediacy, since it serves an urgent need: without immediacy, the purpose of the obligation would not be fully achieved. This is the view of the majority of jurists: Malik, al-Shafi'i, Ahmad and others.
They supported it with Allah's command to give the zakat:
"And give the zakat."
Surah al-Baqarah, 43
The command implying immediacy on the sound position of usul principles (Fath al-Qadir, 1/482-483; Radd al-Muhtar, 2/13-14; Al-Mabsut, 2/169; Rawdat at-Talibin, 2/223; Kashshaf al-Qina, 2/255).
In all cases, if he fears harm to himself or to wealth other than that one, he may delay it, based on the Prophet's words (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him):
"No harm shall be inflicted or reciprocated."Sahih hadith (takhrij cited earlier in the work)
And since deferring the repayment of a debt owed to a human being is permitted for that reason, deferring zakat is permissible all the more (Al-Mughni, 3/457-458).
The Shafi'is and Hanbalis allow delaying zakat beyond its due payment time for a compelling need or a valid interest: delaying it to give it to an absent poor person in greater need than the poor present, or to a relative in need, on account of his confirmed right and the doubled reward it carries. He may also delay it because of a financial hardship that has made him needy: there is no objection to his spending it and remaining indebted, with payment at the first opportunity.
Shams ad-Din al-Ramli (may Allah have mercy on him) said: he may delay it awaiting someone needier or more deserving, a relative or a neighbor, this delay pursuing an apparent aim, namely attaining excellence; likewise to deliberate when the entitlement of those present is doubtful. He guarantees the wealth if it perishes during the delay, since capacity existed; but if the delay serves his own interest, its permissibility is conditioned on a safe outcome. And if those present are suffering hunger, delay is forbidden outright: repelling their harm is an obligation that cannot be neglected for the sake of an excellence (Nihayat al-Muhtaj, 2/134).
An-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) explains in al-Majmu' (6/468) that permission to delay for a better recipient has two famous views, the sounder being permission: if it is not allowed, the delayer sins and is liable; if it is allowed and the wealth perishes, the sounder view renders him liable, capacity having existed, the other view exonerating him since he was permitted to delay. Imam al-Haramayn set two conditions: that the entitlement of those present appear doubtful, delaying to deliberate then being allowed without disagreement; and that their harm and hunger not grow severe, for if they are suffering hunger, delaying for a relative or the like is not permitted without disagreement. Al-Rafi'i objected to this second condition, arguing that feeding them is not owed by this particular person, nor from this wealth, nor from zakat wealth; but this objection is judged invalid: the correct position is that of al-Haramayn, since repelling their necessity is a collective obligation (fard kifaya) that may not be neglected while awaiting an excellence, so long as nothing opposes it (Al-Majmu', 6/468).
The Hanbalis condition the permissibility of delay for a need on its being slight; if it is large, it is not permitted. Ibn Qudama said: if he delays it in order to give it to one with a greater right to it, a relative or someone in severe need, it is fine if slight, but not if considerable.
Ahmad said: zakat does not "flow" to his relatives month by month, meaning he should not delay paying it in order to give it to them in dribs and drabs, month after month; but if he pays it in advance to give it to them, or to others, in installments or all at once, it is permitted, since he is not delaying it past its time (Al-Mughni, 3/458).
Likewise, if he has two assets or more whose zakat is one but whose situations differ, such as a nisab supplemented during the year by a gain of the same kind that remains below the nisab: it is not permitted to delay the zakat in order to combine them all, since he can combine them by advancing the zakat at the first due date (Al-Mughni, 3/458).
Some Malikis state explicitly that distributing the zakat is due immediately: keeping it with the owner, giving some whenever a deserving person comes, throughout the year, is not permitted (Hashiyat ad-Dasuqi, 1/500).
The Imam, or whoever represents him among the officials in charge of collecting zakat, may delay taking it from the owners for an interest, such as a drought that has reduced their wealth and fruits. Ahmad supported this with the report of Umar: the people were in need one year, so he did not take the charity from them and took it the following year (Matalib Uli an-Nuha, 2/116; Al-Insaf, 3/188; Al-Amwal by Abu Ubayd, 1/464).