Which is more preferable for settling a debt: that we go and pay it off on his behalf, or that we give it to him so he can pay it off?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Which is more preferable: that we go and pay it off on his behalf, or that we give it to him?
The questioner : Is it in our right or in his right?
The Shaykh : No, it is more preferable in our right. We say, brothers, that there is a distinction in this matter: If the man is trustworthy, eager to clear his conscience, and one of those with honor and dignity, and he is ashamed to have people pay his debts for him—pay attention now—if the man is eager to clear his conscience, trustworthy, and of high status and honor, and of those who are ashamed to have their debts paid by others, then the best is that we give it to him. We say, "Take this money and pay your debt." In this case, the scholars say that if one is given zakah to pay off his debt, it is not permissible for him to spend it on anything else. This matter requires attention. That is, if someone gives you zakah and says, "Take this and pay your debt with it," it is not permissible for you to spend it on anything else, because you do not own it. For this reason, the letter "lam" was not used; it did not say "for the debtors" (lil-gharimin), but rather "in the debtors" (fi al-gharimin). Pay attention. Now, if this debtor is not trustworthy, not eager to clear his conscience, and it does not matter to him whether his debt is paid or not, then it is better for us to go to the one who is demanding it and say, "Take this money on behalf of so-and-so." Is that clear? If someone were to ask, "How does this suffice from the zakah when the debtor has not taken possession of it?" We say: Because Allah the Exalted did not mention their share with the letter "lam," but rather the share of the debtors came with "fi" (in), so it is a category that does not involve ownership.
The questioner : Is it in our right or in his right?
The Shaykh : No, it is more preferable in our right. We say, brothers, that there is a distinction in this matter: If the man is trustworthy, eager to clear his conscience, and one of those with honor and dignity, and he is ashamed to have people pay his debts for him—pay attention now—if the man is eager to clear his conscience, trustworthy, and of high status and honor, and of those who are ashamed to have their debts paid by others, then the best is that we give it to him. We say, "Take this money and pay your debt." In this case, the scholars say that if one is given zakah to pay off his debt, it is not permissible for him to spend it on anything else. This matter requires attention. That is, if someone gives you zakah and says, "Take this and pay your debt with it," it is not permissible for you to spend it on anything else, because you do not own it. For this reason, the letter "lam" was not used; it did not say "for the debtors" (lil-gharimin), but rather "in the debtors" (fi al-gharimin). Pay attention. Now, if this debtor is not trustworthy, not eager to clear his conscience, and it does not matter to him whether his debt is paid or not, then it is better for us to go to the one who is demanding it and say, "Take this money on behalf of so-and-so." Is that clear? If someone were to ask, "How does this suffice from the zakah when the debtor has not taken possession of it?" We say: Because Allah the Exalted did not mention their share with the letter "lam," but rather the share of the debtors came with "fi" (in), so it is a category that does not involve ownership.