Is the oath required from the owner of wealth regarding the payment of zakah?

The questioner : It was said that the workers told this man, "Pay the zakah," and he said, "I have paid it." And the workers told another, "Pay the zakah," and he said, "I have paid it to you."

The Shaykh : So the guidance of Allah has detailed the matter. He said, "As for the second case, the oath is upon the workers, because he claimed that the zakah was paid to them. And he said, 'As for the first case, the oath is upon the owner of the wealth.'"

The questioner : Do you agree with this or not?

The Shaykh : Yes, very well. But does a person swear that he intended to pay the zakah? There is no cooperation or anything like that.

The questioner : Men from the state came and said, "Give us your zakah." He said, "I have paid my zakah. I have paid it since it became due, in an instant."

The Shaykh : It is fed. I mean, if we did not delete it, we would have obligated him.

The questioner : Following the meeting.

The Shaykh : A section, if there is a detail.

The questioner : In principle, it is not carried. Why? Because it is not accepted except by water or what reached

The Shaykh : Yes, and because a person is trusted regarding his religion. This is zakah, and he said, "I have paid it." Yes, if we suppose that this man claimed he paid it to so-and-so, and we asked so-and-so, and he said, "Nothing ever came to me," then here we would obligate him, because there is a difference between specifying and generalizing. That is, between saying "I paid it to so-and-so" or saying "I paid it" generally.
Also, there are indications. If a person has a lot of wealth and says, "I paid the zakah," and we know that if this man had paid the zakah, it would have had an effect in the community, then here we may not accept his statement, because the apparent reality contradicts him and lies. In any case, with the possibility, we say the statement of the owner of the wealth is accepted if he says he paid the zakah, and he does not swear to this, because a person is trusted regarding his religion, unless the payment is specified to a certain person and that certain person denies it, in which case we do not accept his statement, or unless there is an indication that he did not pay because the wealth is large and its effect did not appear in the community. Yes.