A man has a debt and has in his hand money amounting to ten thousand riyals, and the debt he owes is ten thousand riyals. Is there zakah on the debt he has in his hand, with evidence?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : This is a man who has a debt and has money in his hand. He has a debt and has money in his hand. The money in his hand is ten thousand riyals, and the debt he owes is ten thousand riyals. Is there zakah on the debt he has in his hand? He owes zakah. He owes zakah on the debt in his hand. Fine, he says, "And I have ten thousand riyals owed to me. How do you make zakah obligatory on me? I have ten thousand riyals owed to me and I have ten thousand riyals in my hand." We say: It is obligatory for you to pay zakah on the money you have, and we will pay off your debt for you. You are among those in debt. If this money in your hand is something you are in dire necessity to keep in your possession, then we say: We will pay off from your debt what we pay off, and we make zakah obligatory on you. Do you understand, people? What is the evidence? The evidence is that zakah is obligatory in wealth. Zakah is obligatory in wealth, by the saying of Allah the Exalted: [At-Tawbah 9:103] And the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to Mu'adh ibn Jabal when he sent him to Yemen: Sahih al-Bukhari 1395 For this reason, zakah is obligatory in the wealth of a small orphan who has not reached puberty, and in the wealth of a madman. If a madman had inherited a large amount of wealth from his father, zakah would be obligatory on his wealth. Since zakah is obligatory in wealth, we say that zakah is obligatory on the wealth in the hand of the debtor. And this debtor, if he is unable to pay, is given—meaning, it is paid off for him—from the zakah. Since the direction differed, they did not cancel each other out. Since the debt is obligatory in the liability and zakah is obligatory in the wealth, the direction differed, so they did not cancel each other out. But if the debt had been obligatory in the wealth and zakah had been obligatory in the wealth, they would have contradicted and cancelled each other out. But since the direction differed, this does not cancel that.
