Is zakah obligatory on one who has a debt?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Is zakah obligatory on one who has a sum of debt upon him?
The Shaykh : If a person has a debt and possesses zakatable wealth, the scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) have differed on whether zakah is obligatory on him regarding the amount corresponding to the debt or not.
Some of them hold that zakah is not obligatory on him regarding the amount corresponding to the debt. So, if he has one thousand dirhams in debt and has two thousand dirhams with him, he is only obligated to pay zakah on one thousand, and the zakah on the other thousand is dropped because it is in correspondence to the debt he has.
Some scholars said that the debt does not prevent the obligation of zakah, and he must pay zakah on all the zakatable wealth in his possession without looking at the debt. So, if he has two thousand dirhams and has two thousand in debt, zakah is obligatory on him for the two thousand, and the debt is not considered a preventer of zakah.
Some scholars distinguished between apparent wealth, which is grains, fruits, and livestock, and hidden wealth, which is gold, silver, and trade goods. They said: The debt prevents the obligation of zakah in hidden wealth but does not prevent it in apparent wealth. So, if a person has livestock worth two thousand and has two thousand in debt, zakah on the livestock is obligatory on him because livestock is from apparent wealth. Likewise, if a farmer has crops that reach the nisab and has a debt corresponding to them, zakah is obligatory on him for his crops, and the debt is not considered a preventer of zakah. However, if he has dirhams and has dirhams in debt corresponding to them, there is no zakah on him because dirhams are from hidden wealth.
The position that is stronger in my view is that zakah is obligatory on one who has a debt, whether the wealth he has is from apparent wealth or from hidden wealth, because the generality of the evidence includes one who has a debt and one who does not have a debt. However, if the debt is due before the obligation of zakah and he is able to pay it, he should pay it first and then pay zakah on what remains. As for if it is deferred and does not become due until after the obligation of zakah, then zakah is obligatory on him even if the debt consumes all his wealth.
The Shaykh : If a person has a debt and possesses zakatable wealth, the scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) have differed on whether zakah is obligatory on him regarding the amount corresponding to the debt or not.
Some of them hold that zakah is not obligatory on him regarding the amount corresponding to the debt. So, if he has one thousand dirhams in debt and has two thousand dirhams with him, he is only obligated to pay zakah on one thousand, and the zakah on the other thousand is dropped because it is in correspondence to the debt he has.
Some scholars said that the debt does not prevent the obligation of zakah, and he must pay zakah on all the zakatable wealth in his possession without looking at the debt. So, if he has two thousand dirhams and has two thousand in debt, zakah is obligatory on him for the two thousand, and the debt is not considered a preventer of zakah.
Some scholars distinguished between apparent wealth, which is grains, fruits, and livestock, and hidden wealth, which is gold, silver, and trade goods. They said: The debt prevents the obligation of zakah in hidden wealth but does not prevent it in apparent wealth. So, if a person has livestock worth two thousand and has two thousand in debt, zakah on the livestock is obligatory on him because livestock is from apparent wealth. Likewise, if a farmer has crops that reach the nisab and has a debt corresponding to them, zakah is obligatory on him for his crops, and the debt is not considered a preventer of zakah. However, if he has dirhams and has dirhams in debt corresponding to them, there is no zakah on him because dirhams are from hidden wealth.
The position that is stronger in my view is that zakah is obligatory on one who has a debt, whether the wealth he has is from apparent wealth or from hidden wealth, because the generality of the evidence includes one who has a debt and one who does not have a debt. However, if the debt is due before the obligation of zakah and he is able to pay it, he should pay it first and then pay zakah on what remains. As for if it is deferred and does not become due until after the obligation of zakah, then zakah is obligatory on him even if the debt consumes all his wealth.