Islamic Fiqh > Zakat > General rules of zakat > A debt held by a solvent debtor who acknowledges it and pays willingly
Contents
Updated on 25 September 2026 at 3:23 PM
This part belongs to the full section: All sections of this part.
The other case is the debt of a bankrupt, an insolvent, a denier or an absent one. First situation: the debt is held by a solvent person who acknowledges it and pays willingly. The jurists differed: does zakat fall on the creditor, who owns it, or on the debtor, who disposes of it and benefits from it, or on neither of the 2, the owner's hand not being on it and the debtor, even if his hand were on it, not being its owner? If it falls on the creditor, is it due every year or only once after receipt? Four opinions:
The first opinion: the zakat of the past years is due upon receipt, not before. This is the madhhab of the Hanafis and the Hanbalis, and the view of Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, al-Thawri, al-Awza'i, Abu Thawr and Ibn Abd al-Barr among the Malikis. The proof of the obligation and of paying the past: the property belongs to him and he can benefit from it, so its zakat is due like that of his other wealth.
The proof of the absence of obligation before receipt: it is a debt fixed in the liability, whose payment is not due before receipt, like the debt of an insolvent; and zakat follows the path of ease (muwasa), yet there is no ease in paying the zakat of wealth one cannot benefit from. The deposit, however, counts as what is in his hand, the depositary being his delegate in safekeeping, the depositary's hand counting as his. The Hanafis: zakat is due on the debt of a solvent acknowledger, without obligation to pay before receipt.
The proof of the obligation: the debt is in another's liability through his own act, like the deposit in another's hand; zakat being due on the deposit, it is due on the debt as well; and because it is property allowing him the dispositions of release and transfer, like the thing itself. The proof of the absence of early payment: the debt diminishes the thing, as shown by the fact that paying the debt's zakat from the thing itself would not be permitted; the debt can be disposed of only with the specific debtor, whereas the thing from every direction. Zakat being due on the deficient, since if the debt is extinguished the zakat lapses, requiring early payment would require the complete from the deficient, which is impossible, like extracting white from black. It is a debt in the liability whose zakat is not accelerated, like the deferred debt or that of an insolvent (al-Tajrid of al-Quduri, 3/1335-1337; Mukhtasar Ikhtilaf al-'Ulama', 1/434; Sharh Mukhtasar al-Tahawi of al-Jassas, 2/344; Tuhfat al-Fuqaha', 1/293-294; Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 2/9-11).
Al-Kasani presents the 3 ranks of debts according to Abu Hanifa, as most of our shaykhs said: the strong debt, the weak debt and the middle debt. The strong debt is that arising as compensation for commercial wealth: the price of trade goods or trade slaves, the yield of commercial capital; zakat is due on it without dispute, but he is not summoned to pay the zakat of the past until he has received 40 dirhams: for every 40 received, he pays one. According to Abu Yusuf and Muhammad, any receipt, small or large, entails its zakat.
The weak debt is that arising as compensation for a non-thing, inheritance or bequest, or as compensation for what is not wealth: the mahr, the khul' compensation, a settlement for qisas, the price of manumission; no zakat before full receipt and a year passing after receipt. The middle debt is that arising as compensation for non-commercial wealth: the price of a service slave, of formal garments or of a craft; 2 narrations: the original one holds zakat due before receipt, without summons below 200 dirhams, then payment of the past; the narration of Ibn Sama'a from Abu Yusuf from Abu Hanifa holds no zakat before receiving the 200 and a year passing since receipt, and this is the sounder of the 2 narrations.
Abu Yusuf and Muhammad equalize all debts as strong debts: zakat is due before receipt, except the diya of the 'aqila and the property of manumission, which bear no zakat before receipt and a lapsed year; for the others are the creditor's absolute ownership, body and hand, enabling him to receive by taking the substitute thing: zakat is due on them as on other absolutely owned things, except that he is summoned to pay only what he has received, according to their school regarding the thing exceeding the nisab, unlike the diya and the manumission property, an incomplete ownership. Abu Hanifa holds 2 aspects: the debt is not wealth but an obligatory act of transferring ownership, except as compensation for commercial wealth, which takes the ruling of wealth, the substitute standing in place of the substituted; or, if it is owned wealth, it is wealth that does not bear receipt: a juridical wealth in the liability, without zakat, like the dimar. Analogy would thus exclude all debts, except compensation for commercial wealth, which became receivable through its object. On the zakat of what is received: Abu Hanifa requires nothing below 40 dirhams; the other 2 require the zakat of any receipt.
The Hanbalis in the madhhab: zakat is due on the debt of a solvent person capable of paying who pays willingly, whether it comes from a loan, the price of trade goods, a dower or a sale not received; he may dispose of it by release and transfer, but the payment is due only upon receipt, and he then pays for the past. For it is a debt fixed in the liability, like that of an insolvent; and zakat follows ease. Whether or not he intended, by keeping it, to escape zakat: he pays the past, for the property belongs to him and he can benefit from it, its zakat being due like that of his other wealth (Masa'il al-Imam Ahmad, narration of his son Abdallah, 156-157; al-Mughni, 4/23-24; al-Mubdi', 2/296; Sharh al-Zarkashi, 1/398; al-Insaf, 3/18; Kashshaf al-Qina', 2/198-199; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 2/174-175; al-Rawd al-Murbi', 1/374; al-Kafi of Ibn Abd al-Barr, 93). Al-Karkhi specifies that this applies if he owns nothing but the debt; if he owns other wealth, what he receives of it counts as derived wealth, added to what he holds; and Allah knows best.
Imam Ibn Abd al-Barr, may Allah have mercy on him: whoever lent a thing taken out of his hand, or sold on deferred payment the price of trade goods without managing them, pays nothing before receipt; upon receipt, he pays one year's zakat, whether one or several years elapsed with the debtor; he is not required to pay from his other wealth. I prefer that, if the debtor is solvent, he pay every year, without obligation according to Malik, whether the creditor can collect or not, until receipt. My view: if the debtor is solvent and the term has fallen due, and he left it without collecting, its zakat is due; if it is a deposit he can take back, zakat is due on it; if he left it for years then received it, he pays the zakat of the past years (al-Kafi, 93).
The second opinion: zakat is due immediately, even without receipt: the Shafi'i school in the new view, Ahmad according to one narration. It is reported from Umar, Uthman, Ibn Umar and Jabir, may Allah be pleased with them, and from Tawus, al-Nakha'i, Jabir ibn Zayd, al-Hasan, Maymun ibn Mihran, al-Zuhri, Qatada, Ibn Shubruma, Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman, Ishaq and Abu Ubayd al-Qasim ibn Sallam: payment is due immediately, since he can take the debt and dispose of it, its zakat being due like that of the deposit (al-Amwal, 526-529; Ikhtilaf al-'Ulama', 1/112; al-Hawi al-Kabir, 3/263; al-Bayan, 3/291-292; al-Majmu', 5/309-310; al-Mughni, 4/23-24).
When the stipend was paid out, Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, took the zakat on the absent man's property from its present holder, and that of the present.Reported by Abu Ubayd in al-Amwal (1211)
"When the legal charity falls due, estimate your debt and what you own, add it all together, then pay its zakat." (Umar ibn al-Khattab)Reported by Abu Ubayd in al-Amwal (1212)
"Charity is due on a debt you could claim from its solvent holder and which you leave him out of modesty or courtesy: zakat is due on it." (Uthman ibn Affan)Reported by Abu Ubayd in al-Amwal (1213); al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan al-Kubra (7408)
In al-Bayhaqi's version: "Pay its zakat, that is, the debt's, when it is in the hands of the solvent."
"Every debt you hope to collect: its zakat is upon you whenever the year passes." (Ibn Umar)Reported by Abu Ubayd in al-Amwal (1214)
"Whoever lends wealth owes its zakat every year, if it is in trusted hands." (Abdallah ibn Abbas and Abdallah ibn Umar)Reported by al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan al-Kubra (7409)
Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, was asked about the zakat of an absent man's wealth: "Pay on behalf of the absent as for the present." The man said: then the wealth perishes. He answered: "The perishing of the wealth is better than the perishing of the religion."Reported by al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan al-Kubra (7410)
Jabir ibn Abdallah was asked whether the zakat of a debt owed by a man is due: "Yes."Reported by Abu Ubayd in al-Amwal (1215)
"Any debt you hope for: its zakat is paid." (Jabir ibn Zayd). Uthman ibn al-Aswad asked Mujahid, who said: "Pay zakat on what you see coming out." Al-Hasan and Ibrahim: "Pay the zakat of the debt held by a solvent person." Maymun ibn Mihran said: "When zakat falls due, look at all the wealth you own and every solvent debt, compute it, deduct your own debts, then pay zakat on the rest."Reported by Abu Ubayd in al-Amwal (1216-1219)
Abu Ubayd adopts these elevated traditions of Umar, Uthman, Jabir and Ibn Umar, then the word of the Successors: al-Hasan, Ibrahim, Jabir ibn Zayd, Mujahid and Maymun ibn Mihran: the debt held by trustworthy solvent persons is paid every year with the present wealth, for it then counts as what is in his hand and in his house. Those who defer until receipt can barely manage the accounting: the debt may be claimed in portions of 5, of 15 dirhams, more or less, and every dirham claimed requires knowledge of the years, months and days elapsed; hence weariness and negligence. Hence the precaution adopted: paying with the whole wealth at the beginning of the year, the preferred view, the other way remaining tenable without deviation. All of this concerns the hoped-for debt held by trustworthy people (al-Amwal, 531).
Imam al-Shafi'i, may Allah have mercy on him: a debt held by an absent person counts as absent trade and the deposit: zakat in each. The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, having legislated zakat on the year, all wealth is either zakatable according to the legislation, or without zakat, like derived wealth. If a man has a debt and the year passes, the creditor being able to take it, the debtor present, solvent, not denying and not forcing him to litigation, he must take it or pay its zakat, as with the deposit. If he can take it only through fear or the debtor's insolence, or if the latter is absent or detained: upon receipt he pays the zakat of the past years, nothing else being permitted to him.
Likewise absent livestock, the deposit and buried property whose location is forgotten, without dispute. If the absent property is in trade and an agent can receive it where it is, it is valued where it is and its zakat paid; likewise buried property and the debt. Whenever one says "he can only pay its zakat for its lapsed year as long as he is able", if the property perishes after the year while he was able, its zakat is a debt upon him. Whenever one says "he pays only upon receipt", if the property perishes before he can receive it, no zakat of the past is due from him: the thing bearing the zakat perished before he could pay (al-Umm, 2/51).
Al-Amrani, may Allah have mercy on him: if the debt is due from a solvent person who pays willingly, as soon as he is asked, zakat is due according to the new view, and this is the soundest, for it is wealth he can receive: like the deposit. The owner then pays its zakat at the completion of every year if it is a nisab: like deposited property (al-Bayan, 3/291).
The third opinion: zakat is due after receipt for a single year only, even if the property remains for years with the debtor: the Maliki school, Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, and reported from Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, 'Ata' ibn Abi Rabah, 'Ata' al-Khurasani and Abu al-Zinad, as well as a narration from Ahmad (al-Mughni, 4/23; al-Insaf, 3/18). They say: zakat is due after receipt for a single year; for obliging the annual zakat of growing wealth in another's hand would lead to its consumption by zakat. This is why zakat is annulled on hoarded merchandise wealth (qunya): it would have been obliged on wealth that zakat would consume. Zakat is only an ease upon wealth that can be made to grow without it usually exhausting them. The place of payment is a single year, unless he delayed receipt to flee zakat: then every past year.
Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, in al-Muwatta', chapter on the zakat of debt:
"This is your month of zakat: let whoever has a debt settle it, so that your wealth is cleared and zakat is paid from it." (Uthman ibn Affan)Reported by Malik in al-Muwatta' (1/253)
Malik also reports from Ayyub ibn Abi Tamima al-Sakhtiyani that Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz wrote regarding wealth seized unjustly by some governors: order for its value to be returned to its owners and its zakat of the past years taken; then he followed with a letter that only a single zakat would be taken from it, for it was dimar property. Yazid ibn Khasifa asked Sulayman ibn Yasar about a man owning wealth and an equal debt: is zakat due on it? He answered: no. Malik said: what we have no dispute about, regarding debt, is that its holder pays no zakat before receipt; even if he remains counted years with his debtor, only one zakat is due. If he receives only part of it, no zakat is due on that part; if he owns other wealth, zakat is due on it and he pays together with what he received of the debt (al-Muwatta', 1/253).
Imam Abu Umar ibn Abd al-Barr comments: Malik expounded his madhhab on debt in this chapter of his Muwatta' and indicated part of its evidence. Debt and unmanaged trade goods belong, in his view, to a single chapter, with a single zakat for the past years, following Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz on dimar property, for which he ruled a single zakat; the absent debt is like the dimar, the origin of the dimar being what is absent from its owner. As for goods, in his view for one who does not manage them, and in the view of some of his companions for one who manages them, they fall under the ruling of the mentioned debt. This madhhab has little share in rational examination, what opposes it being stronger.
And as for the debtor holding another's debt: if he can collect it, he is like the deposit and pays every year, since leaving it then equals leaving it in his house; if he cannot collect it, the scholars' word on this chapter has already passed, and precaution is preferable; Allah grants success to what is right, He is my protector and the best of protectors.
The Malikis set 4 conditions for the single year's zakat. The first condition: the origin of the debt is a thing in the owner's hand or his agent's, then lent to the debtor, a loan or trade goods held and sold for a known term. If the origin is a grant in the giver's hand, such as a gift, the dower in the husband's hand or the khul' compensation in the wife's hand, no zakat is due before a year has passed from receipt.
The second condition: collecting the debt from the debtor; without collection, no zakat. Malik: without dispute, one pays nothing before receipt, and a single zakat even after counted years. In support: the debt may perish without its holder knowing whether he will be able to claim it; he is therefore not charged to pay zakat from his other wealth; and it may perish before receipt: one would have paid the zakat of what never reached him. Al-Baji adds: the owner of property absent in a distant town is not charged to pay its zakat from what he holds, not knowing whether he will reach it; if it is in the hand of an agent or a trader, whose hand counts as his, it would be within his guarantee: not charging him to pay from his hand for property held by another or guaranteed is safer and more just. And uncollected property cannot be made to grow, zakat having been legislated only on growing wealth (al-Muntaqa, 2/100; Sharh al-Zarqani, 2/106).
The third condition: what is received is a thing, gold or silver, not merchandise; merchandise is paid only after its sale. Zakat attached to the thing runs according to the state of the property on the day zakat becomes due; the zakat of the debt is due on the day of its receipt. What is received as gold follows the ruling of gold, as silver the ruling of silver, and what was received as merchandise follows the ruling of merchandise. The fourth condition: what is received constitutes a complete nisab; received in portions below the nisab, he pays upon completion of the nisab. If the receipt is below the nisab but completed by property whose year had lapsed at the time of receiving the debt, zakat is due: a 100 dirhams received of the debt and another 100 whose year has passed: zakat is due.
The proof of this condition: one does not pay on a receipt below the nisab, since it is possible he receives nothing else of his debt, and zakat would not have been obliged below the nisab. If he owns other property whose year has passed, paid or not, at the nisab or below, and the total with the debt receipt reaches the nisab, he pays on the debt receipt: it met the cause of the year by resting on property whose year and nisab have passed, or the debt receipt itself reaches the nisab and counts as a benefit whose year has lapsed (al-Muntaqa, 2/100; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 2/191-193; al-Sharh al-Kabir ma'a Hashiyat al-Dasuqi, 2/59-63; al-Sharh al-Saghir ma'a Hashiyat al-Sawi, 3/156-157; al-Khulasa al-Fiqhiyya, 1/376-377). Ibn Abd al-Barr restates here the same position already cited: no zakat before receipt, a single year upon collection, preference for annual payment with a solvent debtor without obligation, and obligation if the term has fallen due and collection is possible (al-Kafi, 93).
The fourth opinion: al-Shafi'i in the old view and Ibn Hazm; reported from Aisha, mother of the believers, Ikrima and 'Ata', may Allah be pleased with them: no zakat on debt in any way; upon receipt, a new year opens.
"There is no zakat on debt." (Aisha, mother of the believers, from Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Qasim ibn Muhammad from his father)Reported by Ibn Abi Shayba in al-Musannaf (7115)
"There is no zakat on debt." (Ikrima, from Sufyan al-Thawri from Abu al-Zinad)Reported by Ibn Abi Shayba in al-Musannaf (10258)
"There is no zakat neither on the holder of the debt nor on the one who owes it." ('Ata')Reported by Ibn Abi Shayba in al-Musannaf (10261)
For it does not grow, like hoarded merchandise. Al-Shafi'i says in the old view, transmitted by al-Za'farani: "I know no report establishing zakat on debt; in my view zakat is not due on it, for he has no power over it and it is not a specified thing." In the Masa'il of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, according to the narration of his son Abdallah, al-Shafi'i used to say: there is no zakat on debt (al-Bayan, 3/291; Masa'il Ahmad ibn Hanbal, p. 157).
Ibn Hazm specifies in al-Muhalla (6/103-106): the debt, due or deferred, from a solvent acknowledger able to receive it, from a denier, or from an insolvent acknowledger or denier, all is identical: no zakat, however many years, before receipt; upon receipt, a new year opens as with other benefits, livestock, gold and silver alike. The palm and the crop are never zakatable on it, for neither crop nor fruit has come out of it. The creditor has against his debtor only a number inscribed in the liability and a description, no body of wealth: the gold and silver may still be in the mine, the silver still dust, the livestock perhaps not yet created: how could their zakat be obligatory?
A fifth opinion exists: zakat falls on the debtor and lapses from the creditor owner; reported from Ibn Abi Layla, Hammad and Ibrahim al-Nakha'i. Abu Ubayd reported it (al-Amwal, 526). Abu Yusuf: Ibn Abi Layla used to say the debt's zakat falls on the debtor (Ikhtilaf Abi Hanifa wa-Ibn Abi Layla, p. 123). Muhammad ibn Nasr al-Marwazi reports that Ibn Abi Layla and Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman said so (Ikhtilaf al-'Ulama', 122). Abu Ubayd reports from Muhammad ibn Kathir, from Hammad ibn Salama, from Hammad, from Ibrahim: "Zakat falls on the one who consumes its yield" (al-Amwal, 1249; Ibn Zanjawayh, 1792; al-Muhalla, 6/100). An earlier narration with the same chain specifies, however, that it concerned a debt its holder delays and withholds: its zakat then falls on the one who consumes its yield (al-Amwal, 1227): it therefore does not fall within our subject, which concerns the solvent, acknowledging, non-delaying debtor.
The disagreement rests on 2 causes. First: there exists no explicit text in the Quran or the Sunna, nor consensus, obliging or canceling zakat on debt. Al-Amin al-Shinqiti, may Allah have mercy on him, says: "We know no text from the Book, the Sunna or a consensus regarding the zakat of debt, nor regarding the debt preventing the obligation of zakat on the debtor when it engulfs his wealth or reduces it below the nisab, apart from reports from some of the pious predecessors" (Adwa' al-Bayan, 2/141). Second: the reports of the Companions and the Successors contradict one another; when they contradict, none is proof against the other; hence the multiplicity of narrations in the schools of fiqh.
Second situation: the debt is held by an adjudicated bankrupt who acknowledges it, a denier, a delayer or a usurper. The jurists agree: no zakat before receipt. They then differ, at the moment of receipt: the zakat of the past years, of a single year, or none at all, a new year opening: several opinions.
The first opinion, that of the Shafi'is in the most apparent view, of the Hanbalis in the madhhab, of Zufar among the Hanafis and of Ibn Shabban among the Malikis: after receiving the debt of the bankrupt, the denier or the delayer, he pays for the past years, the wealth having returned to him. His ownership is then complete and its zakat is due, as with the deposit forgotten with its depositary, or imprisonment keeping him from his property. It is property he can claim and whose restitution is compelled, like property in his agent's hand (al-Bayan, 3/291-292; Hilyat al-'Ulama', 3/80; Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 2/9; Majma' al-Anhar, 1/287).
The Shafi'is in the sound view: a debt from a solvent person who acknowledges it secretly without public proof: zakat is due when the year passes, without obligation to pay before receipt; upon receipt, he pays for the past. A debt from an open denier or an acknowledging insolvent: payment of the past upon receipt (al-Bayan, 3/291-292; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 2/162). Imam al-Shafi'i, may Allah have mercy on him: if the property is denied, usurped, swallowed by the sea, and time passes then he becomes able, only 2 opinions. Either no zakat until a year passes from receipt, for he was overpowered; or zakat is due, his ownership never having left, for the past years. If he receives its equivalent, he pays for the past; if he has no equivalent but property to add or appraise, as soon as the whole combined establishes the zakat, he pays for the past (Mukhtasar al-Muzani, 52; al-Hawi al-Kabir, 3/314; al-Sharh al-Kabir, 2/593).
Al-Nawawi restates the 4 situations: property astray, usurped, stolen with recovery impossible, a denied deposit, falling into the sea. The soundest involves 2 opinions, the sounder being the new one: obligation; the old: no zakat. The second situation: the decisive ruling of obligation, famous. The third: if it returns with growth, it is due, otherwise not. The fourth: if it returns with growth it is due, otherwise dispute. The return of part of the growth counts as no return; return without growth means destruction without possible compensation; compensation, or the loss of something that would have perished with the owner, counts as the return of the growth itself by agreement, according to Imam al-Haramayn. The dispute bears only on payment for the past period after return; the companions explicitly agree: nothing is due before the return; perishing before being enabled cancels the zakat.
The dispute over usurped livestock bears on its grazing in both hands: if the old view is adopted, the year is broken by usurpation and loss and restarts upon return; the new view maintains it. Forty sheep one of which is usurped or lost and then returns: according to the first thesis, the year restarts upon return, whether before or after completion; according to the second, found before the year's completion this builds, found after: zakat on the 40. If the past states are obliged, the condition is not to fall below the nisab through what is owed for zakat: offspring of the livestock or other sufficient wealth. If the property is exactly the nisab and years pass, the majority: nothing is due on what exceeds the first year, the nisab falling from the second year unless there is multiplication; some indicate a dispute derivable from the decisive way of the obligation on the usurped. Buried property then forgotten and remembered after years: like the lost: the famous dispute; another way decides the obligation, forgetting being no excuse for the negligent, as al-Rafi'i relates; no difference between house, safe or elsewhere; and Allah knows best.
Second issue: the imprisoned owner kept from his livestock: 2 famous ways; the soundest: the decisive ruling of obligation for the effectiveness of disposal; the second: the dispute of the usurped, which al-Mawardi and al-Mahamili declare erroneous. The same among disbelievers or Muslims. Third issue: the found object in the first year remains the owner's: no zakat on the finder; on the owner, the previous dispute; without announcement, the ruling holds for all the years; with announcement for a year, the ruling depends on the finder's ownership, by the year's deadline, by choice or by disposal: a known dispute. If he becomes owner at the deadline: nothing on the owner, 2 opinions on the finder. If he becomes owner only by choice, which is the school: failing that, it remains the owner's; 2 ways, the soundest: both opinions as in the first year; the second: never, for the finder's full power.
If the finder has taken ownership: nothing on the owner, the value being owed on the finder's liability; 2 opinions on the zakat of the value: debt or lost property. If he owns nothing else, the dispute over the debt will come. If he owns other sufficient wealth: the sound, by the companions' agreement, is the obligation after the year elapsed from taking ownership; the second: no, for the weakness of awaiting the owner. Both theses resting on the owner's return in kind or only in value; and Allah knows best (al-Majmu', 5/339-343; al-Hawi al-Kabir, 3/314; al-Bayan, 3/291-292).
The Hanbalis in the madhhab: zakat is due on the debt of an insolvent, of a delayer, on a deferred debt, and on a denied debt with or without proof, on account of the validity of transfer (hawala) and release; he pays for the past upon receipt. Abu Ubayda reports from Ali and Ibn Abbas the generality, like his other wealth.
It is also due on the usurped for the whole year or part of it, in the usurper's hand or that of his transferee, or of the co-partner: it is property disposable by release and transfer, like the solvent person's debt; the owner pays for the past upon receipt, and the usurped property is claimed from the usurper together with the zakat of the time of usurpation, like its loss which he guarantees, as well as its diminution. It is due on lost property, like the found object: the zakat of the year of announcement on its owner when he finds it, that of after on the finder, the object entering his ownership upon the completion of the year of announcement with its condition, like inheritance, becoming like his other wealth.
It is due on the stolen, the buried, the forgotten in his dwelling or elsewhere, known property whose holder is unknown, inheritance known or unknown, and the pledge: the pledger takes the zakat out of the pledge if the pledgee consents, or if he has nothing else to pay the zakat from, like the arsh of the slave's offense weighing upon his religion; otherwise he pays it from elsewhere, the pledgee's right being attached to it. It is due on the sale, even with an option of rescission, before the buyer's receipt, debt or thing: the zakat of the debt falls on the creditor, not on the debtor (al-Mughni, 4/24; Sharh al-Zarkashi, 1/398-399; Kashshaf al-Qina', 2/200-201; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 2/172-174; Matalib Awli al-Nuha, 2/9-10).
The second opinion: no zakat on the debt of the denier, of the solvent delayer nor of the insolvent: the Hanafi school, the Shafi'is according to one view, the Hanbalis according to one narration, Ibn Abd al-Barr and other Malikis, and Ibn Hazm; this in summary. The Hanafis: no zakat on dimar property: any property from which one cannot benefit although ownership persists, but which left the owner's hand with a return expected most of the time: the runaway slave, the lost animal, lost property, property fallen into the sea, property confiscated by the ruler, a denied debt without proof later proven by a public acknowledgment, property buried in the desert whose location has slipped from the owner. If it is buried in the house, zakat is due by consensus.
"No zakat on the property of the dimar."Attributed to Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, and attributed to the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him; al-Zayla'i in Nasb al-Raya (2/334) declares it gharib, and Ibn Hajar in al-Diraya (1/249) did not find it from Ali
The argument: these properties are unusable for the owner, his hand not reaching them; property from which one cannot benefit does not make one rich, and zakat is due only on the rich, according to the hadith; and the cause of zakat is growing wealth, yet there is no growth without the capacity of disposal, which is absent here. A debt acknowledged by a solvent person is reachable: zakat is due. A denied debt without proof: no zakat; with proof, the shaykhs differ: for some it is due, reachable through the proof, and one who refrains from producing it forfeits his capability without excuse; for others not, the witness possibly being impious, unless the judge knows the debt and judges by his knowledge, in which case it becomes usable. The debtor acknowledging secretly and denying publicly: no zakat, according to Abu Yusuf, the secret acknowledgment bringing no benefit.
The acknowledging debtor bankrupt but not judicially adjudicated: zakat due by unanimous opinion, the bankrupt being able to earn and borrow, bankruptcy ceasing from one moment to the next. If he is judicially adjudicated: the same rule according to Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf. Muhammad denies it: bankruptcy, in his view, is real and increases the insufficiency by closing the door of dispositions. Abu Hanifa rejects it: bankruptcy is not realized, in his view, during one's lifetime, and the adjudication of it is invalid. Abu Yusuf holds bankruptcy real, but the bankrupt remains generally capable through earning: the debt remains generally usable, the effect of bankruptcy merely postponing the claim to the time of ease, like a deferred debt: zakat is due. A deposit handed over then forgotten by the depositor: if the recipient is an acquaintance, the zakat of the past is due from him when he remembers, forgetting a kindness being rare; if he is a stranger, no zakat of the past, access being impossible (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 2/9-10; al-Hidaya, 1/97; al-Muhit al-Burhani, 2/534-535; Sharh Fath al-Qadir, 2/166-167; Majma' al-Anhar, 1/287; al-Durr al-Mukhtar, 2/266-267).
Abu Umar ibn Abd al-Barr: according to reasoning, whatever is established in a non-owner's liability bears no zakat on the owner, as well as the denied claim and every holder of a liability; the owner is not required to pay zakat on what is in another's liability, usurper or not. As for buried property at an accessible place, or not held in any liability, or the found object: my view is that its owner pays for the past when he finds it, for it is within his ownership, without another's liability, unless the finder has consumed it: it then passes into his liability. Such is the view of Sahnun, Muhammad ibn Salama, al-Mughira and a narration from Ibn al-Qasim (al-Istidhkar, 3/162).
The third opinion: zakat is due after receipt for a single year only, even if the property remains for years with the debtor: the famous Maliki school, Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, 'Ata', al-Hasan, al-Awza'i and Ahmad according to one narration (al-Mughni, 4/23; al-Insaf, 3/18). The Malikis: lost property and the like, usurped, stolen, buried in a desert or elsewhere, so long as the owner has lost it or it is in an unknown place: no zakat, unable to make it grow. Once taken back from the usurper, from the thief, or found, the most famous view: a single year at the moment of taking, even if the usurper returns it with its profit: it becomes like a loan debt whose creditor pays a single zakat for the past years (Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 2/180; al-Sharh al-Kabir ma'a Hashiyat al-Dasuqi, 2/45-46; Hashiyat al-Sawi, 3/138).
Malik in al-Muwatta' reports Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz's letter on unjustly seized wealth: restitution and zakat of the past years, then a single zakat, for it was dimar property; and his ruling on debt: no zakat before receipt, a single zakat after years, nothing on a received portion except supporting wealth (al-Muwatta', 1/253). Abu Umar ibn Abd al-Barr: the dimar is the absent property its holder cannot take, whose location he does not know and which he does not hope for. The scholars differed on the zakat of sudden wealth, which is the dimar: Malik, on the end of Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz's view, sees a single zakat when he finds it, becomes able over it or receives it; 'Ata', al-Hasan, Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz and al-Awza'i said so (al-Istidhkar, 3/161-162).
The fourth opinion: Ibn Hazm and al-Shafi'i in the old view, and a narration from Malik; reported from Aisha, mother of the believers, Ikrima and 'Ata', may Allah be pleased with them: no zakat on debt in any way; upon receipt, a new year opens. The texts have been cited above. For the debt does not grow, like hoarded merchandise. Ibn Abd al-Barr adds: perishing wealth, that is, the denied debt, the usurped, the buried in a desert, the lost in a wilderness or elsewhere, whose owner had despaired then found after years: he pays for each year; it has been said: no zakat for the past; a single year is preferable. All of this is sound from Malik; it has been reported from Ibn al-Qasim, Ashhab and Sahnun that he pays for the past years; but they distinguish what is guaranteed from what is not: usurped properties, upon return, a single year; deposits and what is guaranteed to no one: the past years, and this is the school's most equitable view (al-Kafi, 93-94; al-Muhalla, 6/103-106; al-Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shayba, 7115, 10258, 10261).
The second issue: the deferred debt. The Hanbalis and the Shafi'is, in the most apparent view, hold it similar to the insolvent's debt: the owner cannot collect it immediately, so the previous dispute applies. Against the most apparent view among the Shafi'is: its zakat is due at the year even if he has not received it (al-Mughni, 4/24; Sharh al-Minhaj, 2/40; al-Hawi al-Kabir, 3/263). Among the Hanafis and the Malikis, no distinction has been found between the deferred debt and the due debt.
The third issue: the zakat of mudaraba capital: who pays it and when, on views detailed by school. The Hanafis: the mudarib pays the zakat of his profit share when the year passes, if he holds the nisab and the profit has appeared. Example: he buys a slave girl for 2000, the capital being a 1000: he pays 500 at the year, and the owner 2000 500. The mudarib is entitled to demand from the owner the division, so as to obtain his profit share as complete and settled ownership obliging zakat (Mukhtasar Ikhtilaf al-'Ulama', 1/437; al-Binaya, 10/105).
The Malikis distinguish the associate (qirad) present in the owner's town from the associate absent from it. The associate present, really or legally, the capital being elsewhere but the owner informed of its state: the owner pays the management zakat. Three opinions on the timing: the first, preferred by Khalil and al-Dardir and presented as the school's apparent view: every year from his other wealth than the qirad capital, so as not to reduce the agent, the profit compensating him; this is a harm to the agent unless he consents, on condition that the owner be a manager, whether manager or monopolizer. The second, the adopted view: no payment before the settlement (mufasala), then for all the past years, like the absent one. The third: after settlement but for a single year, like the debt.
The associate absent from the owner's town, his state being unknown: the owner pays nothing, even after years of absence, until his return, unless he orders the agent to pay every year during the absence, charging the zakat to the owner from the capital. Failing that, the owner, after his return, pays for all the years of absence, beginning with the year of return: he charges what is due for that last year, then pays the equivalent of each preceding year, after deducting what was taken as zakat, if the capital of each preceding year was equal to or greater than the last; if it was less, he pays its proportion after deducting the zakat taken.
Example: 21 dinars entrusted, the agent absent 5 years, found intact upon return: one begins with the first year then the second, not the third, the nisab no longer being reached. If the owner, the agent, or both, are monopolizers (muhtakir), the owner pays one year after receipt, even after years with the agent. Livestock: its zakat is paid in advance, present or absent, the agent monopolizer or manager; the same applies to crops; the zakat is charged to the owner and is not compelled by profit, unlike loss. The agent, for his part, pays the zakat of his profit share, even if below the nisab, for a single year after receipt, even after years, whether both are managers, both monopolizers or differing, under 5 conditions: that the qirad remain in his hand a year beyond the day trade began, failing which no zakat; that the agent and the owner be free; Muslim; without debt; and that the capital with the profit form a nisab or more, or be below the nisab while the owner holds what completes it, its zakat following the owner's.
Example of the last condition: 10 dinars entrusted, the owner being entitled to a hundredth of the profit, the capital producing a 100: the owner pays nothing, his capital and share amounting to 11; the agent does not pay either, but opens with his 99 a year from the time of receipt (al-Jami' of Ibn Yunus, 1/105; al-Sharh al-Kabir ma'a Hashiyat al-Dasuqi, 2/76-79; al-Dhakhira, 3/28; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 2/199-201; Hashiyat al-Sawi, 2/172-175; al-Bahja fi Sharh al-Tuhfa, 1/578).
The Shafi'is: a 1000 dirhams entrusted in qirad with the profit shared in halves; the year passes and the capital reaches 2000: the question rests on when the mudarib becomes owner of the profit, 2 opinions. The first, the school's most apparent view: he becomes owner through the division; the whole zakat then falls on the owner; if he pays it from the capital itself, from where is it charged? Three aspects: from the profit, for it is among the capital's expenses, like the wage of the transporter, the weigher and the measurer; from the capital, zakat being a debt on his liability according to one of the 2 opinions, any payment from the capital being charged to the capital like other debts; from both together, zakat being due in the capital and the profit: example, capital of 200 and profit of one 100, 2 thirds of the amount paid from the capital and the remaining third from the profit.
The second opinion, contrary to the most apparent: the mudarib becomes owner through the profit's appearance: the owner then owes the zakat of one 1000 500, paid without dispute according to the foregoing, and he never owes the zakat of the agent's share. If the zakat is paid from the qirad capital, the 3 aspects above apply. As for the agent according to this first opinion, 3 situations. The soundest: the zakat of the 500 is due from him, for he is an owner able to rescind and divide at any moment, and to dispose of his share after division: zakat is therefore due from him. But he is not required to pay it, not knowing whether it will be handed over to him, like absent property; he may pay it from elsewhere; if he wishes to pay it from the capital, 2 opinions: it is not permitted to him and the owner may prevent it, the profit being the capital's protection which he might lose; or it is permitted without authorization, both having contracted under the regime of Islam and the obligation of zakat.
All of this when the owner and the agent are both subject to zakat. If only the owner is: according to "everything belongs to the owner before division", the whole zakat falls on him; according to the other opinion, that of the capital and of his profit share, without completing his share with the agent's, who is not subject to zakat, the combination being invalid. If only the agent is: "everything belongs to the owner before division": no zakat; on his share, the previous dispute; if it is due, it is if his share reaches the nisab or is completed by his wealth, without combination. It is never permitted to him to pay the zakat from the capital, without dispute, the owner not having contracted for that. The second way: the question falls under the usurped and the denied, the agent not being immediately master of full disposal. The third: the decisive absence of zakat, for the weakness and non-establishment of his ownership, exposed to loss: he resembles the mukatab.
Al-Nawawi, may Allah have mercy on him: the school holds the obligation upon the agent, with 5 aspects for the opening of his year on his share. The soundest is the text: from the appearance, ownership being established from then. The second: from when the capital is charged to the owner for zakat, the profit being realized only then. The third: from the division, his ownership being established only then: an erroneous view though famous, its purport being the absence of zakat before division, the agent becoming after division an owner full and settled; the thesis of a year opening only at division amounts to denying zakat before division. The fourth: his year is the capital's year: plain error, a man's year never building on another's, except the heir according to a weak view, who stands in the deceased's place. The fifth: from the agent's purchase of the goods: error.
Al-Nawawi reports from our companions: the agent's year being complete and his share below the nisab while the total reaches it, if we uphold the combination between the 2 monies, zakat is due from him, otherwise not, unless he owns wealth of the same kind completing the nisab; this if the year does not open at division, otherwise the combination is set aside. The obligation being established on the agent, payment is not required of him before division: such is the school, decided by the author, the Iraqis and the majority; after division, he pays for the past. One view requires immediate payment, division being possible; the sound is the first view: the property being neither in his hand nor at his disposal, it does not exceed the absent property whose safety is running and whose loss is feared (al-Majmu', 6/60; al-Muhadhdhab, 1/161).
The Hanbalis: no zakat on a mudarib's profit share before division, even if his ownership through the profit's appearance is upheld, for lack of establishment: the profit protecting the capital, his ownership is incomplete. The owner explicitly pays the zakat of his profit share like that of the capital, the profit belonging to him by appearance and following his wealth, unlike the mudarib; he owes no zakat on the mudarib's share, which he does not own.
Example: a free Muslim man entrusts a 1000 in mudaraba with the profit shared in halves; the year passes and the capital produces 2000: the owner owes the zakat of 2000, capital and profit share. If he pays it from elsewhere, the capital remains intact; if he pays it from the capital, it is charged to its origin and to the portion of his share in the profit: the quarter-tithe (rub' al-ushr) of the capital and that of the owner's profit share are deducted, that is 25, the capital becoming 900 and 75; without charging the whole to the capital alone or to the profit alone. The agent is never permitted to pay a zakat owed by the owner without his explicit authorization, otherwise he guarantees it: he is neither guardian nor agent in that (Kashshaf al-Qina', 2/197-198; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 2/178; Matalib Awli al-Nuha, 2/19-20).
It is valid for either of the 2, the owner or the agent, to stipulate that the other pay the zakat of his profit share, just as he stipulates for himself half of the profit and an eighth of the tithe, for instance. It is not valid to stipulate the zakat of the capital or that of part of the capital from the profit, for the agent might absorb the profit, as when stipulating known dirhams.
The fourth issue: zakat on deposited property (wadi'a). The jurists of the 4 schools agree that zakat is due on the deposit; they differ: does he pay every year, or only after receipt for the past years? The majority holds annual payment.
The Hanafis: zakat is due on the deposit. If a deposit is handed over and the depositor forgets, and the recipient is an acquaintance, the zakat of the past is due from him when he remembers: forgetting a kindness is rare, the way of access remaining, and he is not charged for the forgetting outside its place. If the recipient is a stranger, no zakat of the past, access being impossible (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 2/9-10; al-Durr al-Mukhtar, 2/266; Durrar al-Hukkam, 2/309).
The Malikis: deposited wealth remaining for years with the depositary pays the zakat of the past years after receipt. The cause appears in the difference between usurped property, lost property and deposited property: the usurped and the lost left their owner's hand by force, rendering him incapable of growth: a single zakat. The deposited, however, was placed in the depositary's hand of his own free choice: the owner remains capable of making it grow, hence the zakat every year. Ibn Ashur demonstrated the annual payment at the time of obligation. According to another opinion, a single year upon receipt, for lack of growth; it is also reported that he opens a new year after receipt (Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 2/179; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 1/541; al-Sharh al-Kabir ma'a Hashiyat al-Dasuqi, 2/45; Hashiyat al-Sawi, 3/138-139; al-Muntaqa, 2/113).
The Shafi'is: zakat is due on the deposit at the completion of every year, if it is a nisab or if he adds it to wealth of the same kind that he holds. Imam al-Shafi'i, may Allah have mercy on him: a debt held by an absent person counts as absent trade and the deposit, zakat in each. The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, having legislated zakat on the year, all wealth is either zakatable according to the legislation, or without zakat, like derived wealth. If a man has a debt and the year passes, the creditor being able to take it, the debtor present, solvent, not denying and not forcing him to litigation, he takes it or pays its zakat, as with the deposit. Otherwise, upon receipt, the zakat of the past years, nothing else being permitted: likewise absent livestock, the deposit and forgotten buried property, without dispute. If the absent property is in trade, the agent has it valued and the zakat is paid; likewise buried property and the debt. Whenever the property perishes after the year while the person was able, its zakat is a debt; whenever he pays only upon receipt and the property perishes before, no zakat of the past, the property having perished before he could pay (al-Umm, 2/51).
Al-Amrani, may Allah have mercy on him: a due debt from a solvent person who pays willingly requires the payment of zakat at the completion of every year, if it is a nisab: it is like deposited property (al-Bayan, 3/291). The Hanbalis: zakat is due on deposited property according to its conditions, like other wealth, for it counts as what is in his hand: the depositary is his delegate in safekeeping, the depositary's hand counting as his. The depositary is not permitted to pay the zakat from it without the owner's permission: that would be seizing it (al-Mughni, 4/24; Kashshaf al-Qina', 2/201-202).
The fifth issue: the zakat of a woman's mahr. Disagreement: must she pay every year, or is only the zakat of the past years due upon receipt, followed by a year elapsed in her hand? Abu Yusuf and Muhammad among the Hanafis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis in the madhhab hold the zakat of the mahr due. According to the Shafi'is, she must pay it every year even if she has not received it; according to Abu Yusuf and Muhammad and the Hanbalis, she pays the past years upon receipt.
Imam al-Nawawi, may Allah have mercy on him: the texts of al-Shafi'i, may Allah be pleased with him, and of his companions, may Allah have mercy on them, agree that the zakat of the mahr obliges the woman when the year passes, and that paying the whole at the end of the year is required without dispute, even before the marriage's consummation; exposure to annulment through rescission, khul' or other, or to reduction by half through divorce, is without effect (al-Majmu', 6/18). Abu Yusuf and Muhammad: zakat is due on the mahr, the woman's absolute ownership, body and hand, enabling her to receive through the substitute thing; but she is not summoned immediately, the property not being truly in her hand. Upon receipt, she pays the zakat of what she received, small or large, like the thing exceeding the nisab (Tuhfat al-Fuqaha', 1/294; Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 2/9-10; Majma' al-Anhar, 1/289).
Ibn Qudama, may Allah have mercy on him: the woman who receives her mahr pays for the past. The mahr, within the liability, is the woman's debt, under the ruling of debts: if the husband is solvent, zakat is due upon receipt for the past; if he is insolvent or a denier, 2 narrations, al-Khiraqi holding the obligation. No difference between before and after consummation: it is a debt in the liability, like the price of what she sells. If half falls through divorce before consummation and she receives the half: zakat on what is received only, the other half being an uncompensated and unreceived debt, like what escapes receipt through insolence or denial. Likewise if the whole mahr falls before receipt through annulment of the contract at her initiative: no zakat; such is the ruling of every debt falling before receipt without her waiver, or of which she despairs, and of lost property given up on: no zakat, zakat being an ease imposed only on what has been obtained.
If the mahr is a nisab, the year passes, then half falls and she receives the half: zakat on the received half, zakat having been due and then half falling for a specific cause. If the year passes before receipt and she then receives the whole, she pays for that year; if years pass before receipt and then collection, she pays for the whole past, unless the nisab is no longer reached. Abu Hanifa: zakat is not due from her before receipt, the mahr being compensation for what is not wealth, like the debt of manumission. The answer: it is a debt she can claim and whose payment is compelled: zakat is due. It differs from the debt of manumission, which cannot be claimed, the mukatab being able to refuse payment: their analogy is invalid, the mahr being compensation for wealth.
Chapter: if she received her mahr before consummation, the year passes, she pays its zakat, then the husband divorces her before consummation: he takes back half of it, and the zakat remains upon the half that remains hers. Al-Shafi'i, according to one of his opinions: the husband takes back half of what exists and half of the value of the paid zakat, for if all of it perished he would take back half of its value, and likewise if part perished. To this is answered the word of Allah: he can take back in kind, hence no return in value, as if nothing had perished; it follows that if all has perished, he cannot take back in kind.
"then half of what you appointed as dower"
Surah Al-Baqarah, 237
If he divorces her after the year and before the zakat is paid, he cannot take the zakat from the nisab: the husband's right having attached to it in co-ownership, not the zakat; the zakat is paid from elsewhere, or they divide it and it is paid from her share. If he divorces her before the year, he owns the undivided half, under the ruling of selling the undivided half before the year, already explained. Chapter: if the mahr is a debt and the woman releases the husband after the year has passed, 2 narrations: the zakat is upon her, having disposed of the debt as if she had received it; or upon the husband, having owned what he was released from, his ownership never having left. The first is sounder. If the husband becomes owner immediately, this does not entail the zakat of the past.
It is possible that no zakat falls on either of them: the debt not received by the woman is not imposed on her, as if it had fallen without her waiver; this if the debt is of the kind zakatable upon receipt; otherwise, no zakat in any way. Every debt released by its creditor after the year has passed follows the ruling of the mahr. Ahmad: if the woman gifts her mahr to her husband after 10 years have elapsed, the zakat is upon the woman, the wealth having been hers; if a man gifts wealth to another, the year passes and the donor takes it back, he may not take it back; if he does, the zakat is upon the one who held it. And regarding a man whose partner sold his share of the house without giving him anything, then, a year later, excused himself for lack of dirhams and was excused: he must pay zakat, having owned it for a year (al-Mughni, 4/27-28; Sharh al-Zarkashi, 1/399-400; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 2/176; Kashshaf al-Qina', 2/200).
The Malikis, Abu Hanifa and Ahmad according to one narration: the zakat of the mahr is not due from the woman before receipt and a lapsed year. The Malikis: no zakat before collection and a year elapsed since, immediate or deferred mahr, even if she delays collection to flee zakat (al-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 1/558-559; al-Sharh al-Kabir ma'a Hashiyat al-Dasuqi, 2/60; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 2/191). Abu Hanifa, may Allah have mercy on him: the debt arising as compensation for what is not wealth, such as the mahr owed by the husband to the wife, the khul' compensation owed by the wife, and a settlement for intentional homicide, bears no zakat; no zakat before full receipt and a year elapsed after receipt (Tuhfat al-Fuqaha', 1/294; Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 2/9-10; Majma' al-Anhar, 1/289).
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya, may Allah have mercy on him, was asked about a woman's mahr owed by her husband: years pass without her being able to claim it, to avoid separation between them, then she is compensated with real estate, or he pays it to her after years: is the zakat of the past years due, or does the year open from the time of receipt? He answered: several opinions. The zakat of the past years, the husband solvent or insolvent, like one of the 2 opinions in the schools of al-Shafi'i and Ahmad, upheld by a part of their companions; or with his ease and her ability to receive it, not in the contrary case, like their other opinion; or for a single year, like Malik's view and one view in Ahmad's school; or none at all, like Abu Hanifa's view and one view in Ahmad's school.
The weakest of the opinions is the one obliging the past years even when receipt is impossible: it is invalid, for obliging them beyond what they receive, without anything having been obtained, is impossible in the Law; the length of time making the zakat exceed the wealth, and the nisab diminishing. It has also been said that zakat is due on the body of the nisab, the obligation being known only through an endless calculation that the Law cannot require. The closest view to the sound is the one obliging nothing before the year has passed, or a single zakat upon receipt: 2 tenable opinions, that of Abu Hanifa and that of Malik, both reported in Ahmad's school; and Allah knows best (Majmu' al-Fatawa, 25/47-48).