Islamic Fiqh > Zakat > General rules of zakat > The fourth condition: surplus over essential needs
Contents
Updated on 25 September 2026 at 3:23 PM
This part belongs to the full section: All sections of this part.
This condition is also mentioned by the Hanafis: that the wealth be surplus over essential needs. Through it are realized richness and the meaning of blessing, which is comfort, and through it payment is made willingly: wealth needed for an essential need does not make its owner rich nor constitute a blessing, comfort not being obtained by the vital necessity, which belongs to the requirements of the body's survival. Its gratitude is therefore that of the blessing of the body, and payment is not made willingly, contradicting the word of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him):
Pay the zakat of your wealth willingly.Hadith judged authentic: reported by Ahmad in his Musnad (5/262), al-Tabarani in al-Mu'jam al-Kabir (8/115) and Ibn Abi Asim in as-Sunna (2/505, hadith 1061), from Abu Umamah
The reality of need being an inward matter that cannot be inquired into, the surplus over need is unknown: the proof of need is replaced by the indicator that stands in for it, preparation for grazing and trade. This is the view of most scholars (Bada'i al-Sana'i, 2/402-403). On the basis of this condition, the Hanafis say: no zakat on books of knowledge acquired for their owners or for others, even if worth a nisab; no zakat either on the dwelling house, household furniture, riding animals and the like, for one occupied by an essential need is like one who does not exist.
Ibn Malik, of the Hanafis, defines the essential need precisely: it is what truly wards off perdition from man, like food, dwelling houses, weapons and clothes needed against heat and cold. Or what wards it off by estimation, like debt: the debtor needs to pay it with what he holds of the nisab, to ward off from himself imprisonment, which is perdition; likewise the tools of the craft, household furniture, riding animals and books of knowledge for their people, ignorance being, for them, like perdition. If he holds dirhams reserved for these needs, they are like non-existent, just as water reserved for thirst is like non-existent and makes tayammum lawful (al-Bahr al-Ra'iq, 2/222; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, 2/262; Qawa'id al-Fiqh, 1/257).
Ibn Malik deduced from this that whoever holds a nisab of dirhams reserved, by intention, for an essential need owes no zakat after the passing of the year. Ibn Nujaym objected to him in "Al-Bahr al-Ra'iq" (2/222), citing "Al-Mi'raj" and "Al-Bada'i": zakat is due on cash however one holds it, for growth or for expense. None of the other schools mentions this condition independently, perhaps because the Law prescribed zakat on determined kinds of wealth, upon the passage of a complete year over a full nisab: once that exists, zakat is due (see also Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Fiqh az-Zakat, p. 170-171).
Acquired wealth (mustafad) is that which enters a person's ownership when he did not previously possess it. Zakat obliges only on wealth complete in nisab after the passing of the year (hawl). Ibn Rushd (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the majority of jurists require the hawl for the obligation of zakat on gold, silver and grazing livestock, based on its establishment with the 4 caliphs, its spread among the companions (may Allah be pleased with them) and the wide circulation of the practice; such a spread, without disagreement, can only come from a fixed prescription of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). It is reported from Ibn Umar, from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him):
There is no zakat on wealth until a year passes over it.Authentic hadith: reported by Ibn Majah (1792)
The jurists of the cities are unanimous on this. In the first generation, the only disagreement comes from Ibn Abbas and Mu'awiya, and the reason is that no established hadith had reached them on this point (Bidayat al-Mujtahid, 1/371). If the holder has no zakatable wealth reaching the nisab, acquired wealth is not zakatable and its hawl does not conclude; if the nisab is completed, the hawl runs from the day of completion and zakat is due if it remains to the end. If the holder already has a nisab, or what is joined to it, acquired wealth falls into 3 cases:
The scholars then differ: is the acquisition joined to the first in nisab but not in hawl, each being zakated at its own hawl, or is all the wealth zakated at the end of the first hawl? The Shafi'is and Hanbalis: it is joined to the first in nisab without the hawl; the first is zakated at its hawl (at the start of Muharram in the second example), and the second at its own (at the start of Dhu al-Hijjah), even if less than a nisab, for it reaches the nisab by joining the first. They argue from the generality of the word of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) "There is no zakat on wealth until a year passes over it", and from his word, from Ibn Umar:
Whoever acquires wealth owes no zakat until a year passes over it with its Lord.Reported by al-Tirmidhi (631/632) and al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan al-Kubra (4/103); al-Albani judges it, in Sahih al-Tirmidhi (632), to have an authentic chain but as a Companion's statement, carrying the weight of a Prophetic report
The Hanafis, for their part, say: whatever arrives during the year is joined to the nisab present, and all of it is zakated at the end of the hawl of the first. They say: the acquisition is joined to its kind in the nisab, so it must be joined in the hawl too, like offspring; the nisab is a cause and the hawl a condition: joining in the cause, which is the nisab, all the more entails joining in the condition, which is the hawl.
They illustrate: whoever owns 200 dirhams over half of whose year has passed, and is given a 100 more, owes zakat on those 100 dirhams at the end of their year, without disagreement; without the 200, nothing would be due on them: joined to the 200 in the very principle of obligation, likewise in its due time. Isolating each acquisition with its own hawl would lead to the obligation being broken into fractions on livestock, to different due times, to the need to record the date of every acquisition and to know the amount due on each portion acquired, and to the obligation of tiny amounts impossible to pay, all of it renewing at each year and each term.
That hardship is blocked by the word of Allah:
"He has not placed upon you any hardship in the religion"
Surah Al-Hajj, 78
and by analogy with the offspring of grazing livestock and the profit of trade. Abu Hanifa excepted what is the price of wealth already zakated: not joined to the rest, to avoid repetition (thaniyy), that is, zakat being paid twice on the same wealth in a single year. The Malikis distinguished livestock from currencies: on livestock they said as Abu Hanifa, the zakat of grazing livestock being delegated to the collector, so that non-joining would lead to going out several times; the currencies, by contrast, are not joined, their zakat being delegated to their owners (Hashiyat al-Dasuqi with al-Sharh al-Kabir, 1/432; al-Bada'i, 2/409; Fath al-Qadir, 1/510; al-Mughni, 3/406-407; al-Majmu', 6/497, 501, 503; Hilyat al-Ulama, 3/23; al-Ifsah, 1/333).
The jurists differ on the status of tricks aimed at warding off zakat and fleeing it: selling one's livestock before the year for dirhams to flee zakat, exchanging the nisab for another kind to cut the year and start another, destroying part of the nisab so zakat falls away, giving one's wealth away as the year's term approaches to flee zakat, or giving a dirham in charity before the year to reduce the nisab. Is this permitted and does zakat fall away, or is it forbidden and zakat remains due without falling away? Two views:
First view: zakat remains due. This is the view of the Malikis (Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, 8/314; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 1/505-506; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 2/154; al-Sharh al-Kabir with the hashiya of al-Dasuqi, 2/14; the hashiya of al-Sawi, 3/90), of the Hanbalis within the madhhab (al-Mughni, 2/285; Sharh al-Zarkashi, 1/376), of al-Awza'i, Ishaq, Abu Ubayd, al-Bukhari (Sahih al-Bukhari, 6/2551), al-Darmi, al-Mas'udi and the author of al-Ibana; as well as of the Shafi'is Qadi Ibn Kajj and al-Ghazali (al-Sharh al-Kabir, 2/533; al-Majmu', 5/429; al-Fatawa al-Kubra, 4/77). According to this view, trickery near the end of the year to ward off zakat is forbidden: zakat remains in the trickster's liability and does not fall away through his trick.
Whoever owned livestock and sold it before the year for dirhams to flee zakat, exchanged the nisab for another kind to cut the year and start another, or destroyed part of the nisab so zakat would fall away, owes the zakat, whether the substituted wealth is livestock or another nisab. They argue from the word of Allah:
"We tried them as We tried the people of the garden, when they swore to harvest it in the morning (17) without making allowance (18). Then there swept over it a visitation from your Lord while they slept (19), and by morning it was as if harvested clean (20)"
Surah Al-Qalam, 17-20
"So they went, whispering to one another (23): 'No poor person shall enter it upon you today' (24)"
Surah Al-Qalam, 23-24
The people of the garden indeed wanted to hasten the picking of the fruits without the poor knowing, to deny them the right due on it. See: the punishment seized them for fleeing charity; when they aimed at a corrupt intention, wisdom required that they be punished by the opposite of their intention. If the threat is deserved, the act is forbidden, and the committing of forbidden acts does not prevent the rights of Allah from being due. Moreover, removing wealth from the scope of zakat is like acquiring wealth: just as acquisition cannot be brought about by a forbidden means, like killing one's heir to inherit from him, the removal of wealth cannot be brought about by a forbidden means (al-Mughni, 2/285; al-Hawi al-Kabir, 3/196).
This first view sets 3 conditions for the trick to have this conserving effect. First: that it be near the obligation; done at the start of the year, or one or 2 months before its end, no zakat is due, for it is not a likely place of flight, even with an indication of evasion beyond a month among the Malikis (Kashshaf al-Qina', 2/306-307; al-Furu', 2/264; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 1/505-506; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 2/154; al-Sharh al-Kabir with the hashiya of al-Dasuqi, 2/14; the hashiya of al-Sawi, 3/90). Second: that one thereby intends to flee zakat; without intention, zakat is not thereby strengthened (al-Muwafaqat, 4/201; al-Insaf, 3/32). Third: that the wealth not have been spent or destroyed for a real need, otherwise zakat is due (al-Mughni, 2/285; Mawahib al-Jalil, 2/4; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 2/264; Sharh al-Zarqani, 2/120; al-Mudawwana, 1/436; al-Mughni with al-Sharh al-Kabir, 3/450; Kashshaf al-Qina', 2/179; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 1/396; Matalib Uli al-Nuha, 2/23).
The discussions of Ibn Hajar and Ibn Battal. Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar says in "Fath al-Bari" (12/347), concerning the statement of al-Bukhari: "Two 100 camels and their 2 twenties (hiqqatan): if he destroys them deliberately, gives them away or tricks to flee zakat, nothing is owed on him": Ibn Battal reports the scholars' consensus on a person's free disposal of his wealth before the year, by sale, gift or slaughter, without intending to flee charity; and the consensus that once the year has passed, trickery is forbidden, by separating joined flocks or joining separated flocks. Malik said: whoever gives up part of his wealth in the month preceding the year intending to flee zakat remains bound by zakat at the term, based on the fear of charity referred to by the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him); Abu Hanifa said the intention only harms on the very day of the term, the only time it has purchase.
Al-Muhallab said: al-Bukhari meant that every trick by which one seeks to ward off zakat is a sin, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) having forbidden separating or joining flocks out of fear of charity; and it follows from the hadith of Talha "he succeeds, if he is truthful" that whoever seeks to cut by trickery a part of Allah's obligations does not succeed. One who so tricks is like one who flees the fast of Ramadan a day before the sighting of the crescent, using a journey he did not seek for that: the threat applies to him. Some Hanafis attribute this ruling of al-Bukhari to Abu Yusuf, who holds it to be an avoidance of the obligation, not the cancellation of something due; and Muhammad said the act is disliked, for it aims at annulling the right of the poor after its cause, the nisab, exists.
Abu Yusuf argued that whoever owns 200 dirhams and gives one dirham in charity a day before the term is not disliked; and if one intends by that charity to complete the year while no nisab remains in his ownership, zakat does not oblige him and the intention does not harm him, for it has purchase only at the complete term. It was objected that the obligation is established from the start of the year, hence the lawfulness of early payment, and that the scholars are unanimous on the disliked character of trickery to ward off the right of preemption once it is due, the disagreement concerning only the period before the obligation: the analogy therefore imposes the same ruling for zakat. It is most likely that Abu Yusuf retracted, for he writes in "Kitab al-Kharaj", after the hadith "a joined flock is not separated": it is not permitted to a man who believes in Allah and the Last Day to prevent charity or to remove it from his ownership to the ownership of another in order to split it so that zakat falls away; no trickery invalidates charity.
Abu Hafs al-Kabir, the transmitter of "Kitab al-Hiyal", reports from Muhammad ibn al-Hasan: every trick by which the Muslim seeks to leave the forbidden or to reach the lawful is good; that by which he seeks to annul a right, establish a falsehood or cast doubt on a right is disliked, and the disliked in his view is closer to the forbidden. Ibn Hajar notes finally that destroying the 2 twenties is not trickery in the strict sense but the squandering of wealth; it may nonetheless be conceived by slaughtering the 2 twenties and benefiting from their meat, zakat then falling because one passes below their threshold. The note also cites a debate between al-Shafi'i and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan, in which al-Shafi'i establishes that a forbidden act does not render the lawful forbidden, since it is its opposite, and that nothing is analogized to its opposite.
The story of Qadi al-Damghani. Al-Qurtubi reports in his tafsir (9/236), from Ibn al-Arabi who had it from Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn al-Walid al-Fihri and others: the qadi of qadis Abu Abd Allah Muhammad ibn Ali al-Damghani, owner of tens of thousands, would call his sons as each year's term approached and tell them: "My age has grown, my strength has weakened, and this wealth I no longer need is yours", then hand it all over, the men carrying it on their shoulders to his sons' houses. At the next year's term, when he called them for some matter, they replied: "Father, we hope only for your life; as for the wealth, what desire could we have for it while you live and own it for us?" and the men carried it back and laid it before him. The purpose of this change of ownership was to ward off zakat according to Abu Hanifa's view on separating joined flocks and joining separated ones: that is a great lesson, and al-Bukhari (may Allah be pleased with him) composed on this subject, in his collection, a chapter expressly named "Kitab al-Hiyal" (the book of tricks).
Second view: zakat falls away. This is the view of the Hanafis (al-Bahr al-Ra'iq, 2/236-237; Ghumz 'Uyun al-Basa'ir, 4/222), of the Shafi'is within the madhhab (al-Hawi al-Kabir, 3/196; al-Majmu', 5/429) and of the Zahiris (al-Muhalla, 6/92). According to this view, whoever disposes of his wealth before the year passes, even to flee zakat, sees zakat fall away: the act is disliked among the Shafi'is and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan, a sin of disobedience among the Zahiris because of the evil intention, and not disliked with Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf (Bada'i al-Sana'i, 2/15; al-Bahr al-Ra'iq, 2/236-237).
Their arguments: the condition of the obligation of zakat, the hawl, has lapsed, whether there is excuse or not; obliging one to zakat on wealth whose year has not passed in full ownership would corrupt the rule of zakat (al-Ashbah wa-l-Naza'ir of al-Suyuti, p. 153). Whoever owns 200 dirhams and gives one dirham in charity a day before the term is not disliked; and if one intends by that charity to complete the year while no nisab remains in his ownership, zakat does not oblige him and the intention does not harm him, for it has purchase only at the complete term of the year. Finally, the scholars are unanimous that one may dispose of one's wealth before the year begins as one wishes (Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, 8/314; 'Umdat al-Qari, 24/110-111).
Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, of the Shafi'is, specifies however that this ruling holds outwardly and not inwardly: zakat falls away outwardly, but he remains bound by it between himself and Allah (al-Fatawa al-Kubra, 4/78). The Hanafis illustrate with the charity of a dirham before the complete term, the gift of the nisab to one's young son so that the nisab be incomplete at the term, the gift of the dirhams to the young son a day before the term, or the gift of the whole followed by taking it back after the year: zakat is not due. It is reported that Abu Yusuf the qadi (may Allah have mercy on him) gifted his wealth to his wife at the year's term, then took it back from her to make zakat fall away; when this was reported to Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him), he said: "That is from his jurisprudence", while holding the act disliked with the Imam and Muhammad (Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, 2/380; Ghumz 'Uyun al-Basa'ir, 4/222).
The threshold is explained by the fact that what is below the nisab does not exceed the essential need: the person does not thereby become rich. Since zakat was prescribed in gratitude for the blessing of wealth, what is below the nisab is not a blessing of wealth requiring that gratitude, but belongs to the offshoots of the blessing of the body (al-Bada'i, 2/414). Shaykh al-Islam al-Dahlawi (may Allah have mercy on him) sets out the wisdom of these quantities in "Hujjat Allah al-Baligha" (2/506): the 5 wasq (610 kg) of grain and dates were prescribed because they suffice the smallest household for a year. The smallest household is the couple with a third person, a servant or a child, and whatever resembles it among households; the ordinary food of a person is about a ratl or a mudd of provisions per day: at that rate, the quantity suffices for the whole year, with a remainder for mishaps and condiment.
The 5 awruq of silver were prescribed because it is an amount that suffices the smallest household a whole year, when prices are moderate, in most lands: survey the customs of temperate lands in dearth and cheapness, and you will find it. Of camels, 5 heads were prescribed, the zakat being one sheep; the original principle was that zakat be taken only from the same kind and the nisab counted in heads. But camels are the largest of livestock in size and the most beneficial: they can be slaughtered, ridden, milked, bred for offspring, and warmth drawn from their hair and skins.
Some owned only a few she-camels sufficient for the needs of the caravan, and the camel was then valued, in that era, at 10, 8 or 12 sheep, according to many hadiths. The 5 heads were therefore placed at the level of the lowest nisab of sheep, with one sheep as zakat (Hujjat Allah al-Baligha, 2/506). Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) confirms the same graduation of rates: a quarter of the tithe for trade goods, whose growth is the most laborious; half the tithe for crops watered at cost, easier in labor and yielding no return every year; the full tithe for what drinks by itself, with only the zakat of its single year; and the fifth for treasure, gathered wealth requiring only extraction.
He concludes: "Look at the proportionality of this perfect Law, whose beauty and completeness astonish the intellects and whose wisdom is testified to by sound nature; no better law has come into the world, and if the intellects of the wise and the nature of the discerning were to gather to propose something better, their proposal would not reach what it brought" (I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in, 2/110-111).
The jurists differ: must the nisab be complete throughout the whole year, from beginning to end, its decrease however slight cutting off the year, with no zakat at the end and a new year beginning if the zakatable nisab is reached again? Or does the count rest on the 2 ends of the hawl, the decrease of the nisab during the year having no effect and zakat being due at the end? And do trade goods follow the same regime?
The Hanafis: only the 2 ends of the year count. If the nisab exists at the beginning and the end and decreases in the middle or during the year, that does not make zakat fall away, even if only one dirham remains, provided the owner acquires before the end of the year what completes the nisab. If the wealth disappears entirely, the hawl only concludes upon the completion of the nisab, whether the disappearance is by destruction or by the wealth leaving the scope of zakat, like grazing livestock fed during the year. It is the same with them for livestock, gold, silver and commercial wealth: completeness of the nisab is a condition of obligation, counted at the beginning of the year, the moment the cause concludes, and at the end, the moment the ruling is established. The middle of the year being neither one nor the other, it is only required that something of the nisab over which the hawl concluded remain, to which the acquisition is joined: if everything perishes, joining becomes impossible and a new year begins; feeding the livestock during the year excludes it like destruction (Bada'i al-Sana'i, 2/414-415; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, 2/33; Fath al-Qadir, 2/220; al-Ifsah, 1/333).
The Shafi'is and the Hanbalis (within the madhhab): completeness of the nisab throughout the whole year, from beginning to end, is a condition of the obligation of zakat. If the nisab decreases during the year, however slightly, the year is cut off and zakat is not due at the end: whoever owns 40 sheep and loses one during the year, sells it or gives it away, then sees another born, must begin a new year; if the death and the birth occur in the same instant, the year is not cut off, especially if the birth precedes the death. They argue from the generality of the hadith "There is no zakat on wealth until a year passes over it" (authentic hadith, cited previously). Another view exists among the Hanbalis: if the nisab existed for a complete year, save a decrease of an hour or 2, zakat is due. If ownership of the nisab ceases during the year, by sale or otherwise, then returns by purchase or otherwise, a new year begins, the first having been cut off by that (al-Mughni, 4/8; Kashshaf al-Qina', 2/196; al-Ifsah, 1/333).
Among the Hanbalis, no difference is made between trade goods and other wealth: all require hawl and nisab, with completeness of the nisab counted throughout the whole year, like the other wealth under this regime. Among the Shafi'is, by contrast, there is disagreement on the decrease of the nisab during the year in trade goods. Al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the nisab and the hawl are counted in the zakat of trade without disagreement; but the time of counting the nisab has 3 views, which Imam al-Haramayn and al-Ghazali called "opinions", the correct summary being that they are views, one of which is textually established, the other 2 extrapolated.
The first, correct according to all the companions of the school, is the text of "Al-Umm": the nisab is counted only at the end of the year, the zakat of trade being tied to value, whose valuation at every moment is burdensome; the state of obligation was therefore counted, which is the end of the year, unlike the other zakats whose nisab is the very body of the wealth, without burdensome valuation. The second, the view of Abu al-'Abbas Ibn Surayj: throughout the whole year, from beginning to end; any decrease of the nisab in a single instant cuts the year, by analogy with the zakat of livestock and currency. The third: the nisab is counted only at the 2 ends of the year, what lies between them having no effect; reported from Abu Hamid, al-Mahamili, al-Mawardi and al-Shashi from Ibn Surayj.
If one follows the correct view: whoever buys a trade good for a very small price sees the year conclude, and zakat is due if the nisab is reached at the end of the year. If the trade good, below the nisab, is exchanged during the year for another good below the nisab, the madhhab is that the year is not cut off (al-Majmu', 7/136-137; see also 6/495; Sharh al-Minhaj, 2/14).
The Malikis require that the hawl pass over the ownership of the nisab or over the ownership of its origin. First case: owning 40 sheep throughout the whole year. Second case: owning 20 sheep at the start of the year, which give birth and bring the flock to 40 before the term: zakat is due on both kinds at the hawl of the origin. Likewise: whoever owns a gold dinar, buys trade goods with it and sells them for 20 dinars before the term: zakat is due when the hawl passes over the ownership of his dinar. What joins the origin to complete the nisab is the offspring of grazing livestock and the profit of trade, unlike wealth acquired by another route, such as gift and inheritance, which receives its own hawl (al-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 2/301; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 2/183; al-Sharh al-Kabir with the hashiya of al-Dasuqi, 1/431, 461-462; al-Fawakih al-Dawani, 1/332).
An indebted owner needs his wealth to cover another's claim: he does not reach the richness that calls for gratitude through payment. Debt is only counted as an obstacle, however, if it was established in the liability before the obligation of zakat; a debt arising after the obligation does not make zakat fall away, for it was established in the liability and is not removed by a debt following its establishment. Al-Haddadi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: all this applies to a debt present in the liability before the obligation of zakat; a debt arising after the obligation does not make zakat fall away, it being already established and settled. Al-Sayrafi (may Allah have mercy on him) reports: the scholars are unanimous that debt does not prevent the obligation of the tithe (that of the land) (al-Jawhara al-Nayyira, 2/156).
Al-Shafi'i, in the new, goes further: debt never prevents zakat, for the free Muslim who owns a nisab for a year owes zakat, like one who has no debt (Sharh al-Minhaj, 2/40; al-Mughni, 4/20; al-Mabsut, 2/160; al-Bada'i, 3/391; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin; the hashiya of al-Dasuqi, 1/431; Bidayat al-Mujtahid, 1/341; al-Istidhkar, 3/160; al-Dhakhira, 3/44; Majmu' al-Fatawa, 25/19).
Hidden wealth. Hidden wealth is currency and trade goods. The majority of jurists, the Hanafis, Malikis, Hanbalis and al-Shafi'i in the old, say that debt prevents the obligation of zakat on hidden wealth, even if it is of a kind other than that wealth, as the Malikis state explicitly.
Apparent wealth. Apparent wealth is grazing livestock, fruits, grains and minerals. The Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis (in one view) say that debt does not prevent the obligation of zakat on apparent wealth: the assessor, arriving, finds camels, cattle or sheep, and does not ask what debt weighs on their owner; hidden wealth is not like that. The difference between apparent and hidden wealth is that the zakat of apparent wealth is more firmly established by its visibility and by the attachment of the hearts of the poor to it.
The Hanbalis except, in this view, the debt contracted by the payer to spend on crop and fruit: it makes their zakat fall away. In the second Hanbali narration, debt prevents zakat on apparent wealth and hidden wealth alike. The Hanafis, for their part, say that debt prevents zakat on hidden wealth and on grazing livestock; what grows out of the earth (crops and fruits) is not prevented by debt, just as kharaj is not: the tithe and the kharaj are the burden of the land, due even on waqf land and the land of the mukatab, even though their zakat is not due there (al-Jawhara al-Nayyira, 2/156 and the cited sources).