Is there zakah on the rent of a house?

Question : This questioner asks: Is it obligatory to pay zakah on the rent of a house? Is it obligatory if he has a debt equal to the value, meaning equal to the rent?

Answer : Our answer to this is to say: Yes, zakah is obligatory on a person who has zakatable wealth, whether in coins, trade goods, fruits, or livestock. Zakah is obligatory on him even if he has a debt. Some scholars held that a person with a debt deducts the amount of his debt from his wealth and does not pay zakah on it. However, the correct view is that zakah is obligatory on the entire wealth, even if you have a debt equal to or greater than it. If, for example, a person has ten thousand riyals and has a debt of ten thousand riyals, zakah is obligatory on the wealth in his possession. Our evidence for this is that the texts regarding the obligation of zakah are general and nothing has been excluded from them. As for those who say that the debt is deducted from the zakah on the wealth you have, we say that the reason for their view is their claim that zakah was made obligatory for the purpose of providing relief (muwasat). They argue that a debtor is not one who provides relief, because he is the one who needs relief.
Our answer to that is to say that Allah the Exalted mentioned the wisdom behind zakah, which is in His saying: He said, "It purifies them and makes them pure," and He did not say, "It is for providing relief to the poor." Therefore, the reason for the obligation of zakah is that it purifies the one who pays it and makes him pure, purifying him from sins and refining his character until he joins the noble and the doers of good. Furthermore, we say that the debt is obligatory in the liability of the debtor, not in his wealth, while zakah is obligatory in his wealth, not in his liability. This is indicated by the saying of Allah the Exalted: and the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) when he sent Mu'adh to Yemen: "Teach them that Allah has made obligatory upon them a charity in their wealth." He said, "in their wealth." As for the debt, its place is the liability of the debtor. For this reason, if all the wealth of the debtor is lost, the debt remains in his liability and is not dropped due to the loss of his wealth.
Similarly, if the debtor were to dispose of this wealth, his disposal of it would be valid, even if it was encumbered by the debt. If it were not encumbered by the debt, his disposal of it would be invalid. Through this, it becomes clear that the stronger view is that the debt does not prevent the obligation of zakah, even if it consumes the entire wealth.