If the owner of wealth is captured and prevented from accessing his wealth, or if the depositary forgets for whom he was holding the wealth, is zakah due on it?

The questioner : If the owner of wealth is captured and prevented from accessing his wealth, and I am prevented from accessing his wealth.

The Shaykh : No, and he is prevented from accessing it, and he is prevented from accessing her.

The questioner : If the owner of wealth is captured and prevented from accessing his wealth, or if the depositary forgets for whom he was holding the wealth, then zakah is due on it; because his disposal of his wealth is valid. For this reason, if a captive sells his wealth or gives it as a gift, it is valid.

The Shaykh : There is scholarly disagreement on this issue. Some scholars say that if a person forgets about his wealth and remains in that state for years, then remembers it, he does not owe zakah for the period during which he was forgetful. This is the correct position, because he was prevented from accessing his wealth due to the forgetfulness. However, if he is imprisoned and prevented from accessing the wealth, this is a matter requiring consideration. The operative cause here is not in the wealth, but in the owner of the wealth. It may be said that zakah is obligatory on him because he has the authority to dispose of it; he has the authority to sell it, even if he is imprisoned from accessing it, and he has the authority to give it as a gift. It may also be said that he does not owe zakah because he is like one who was prevented from accessing his wealth. But the precautionary measure is to pay zakah.