Continuation of the explanation of the author's statement: "He paid his zakah when he received it for what had passed."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : The author says "He paid his zakah when he received it", meaning that he is not obligated to pay his zakah before receiving it. He is granted a dispensation to delay the zakah until he receives it. If someone asks, "Is not zakah due immediately? Why is he not obligated to pay zakah when the lunar year has completed, even if it is in the debt of another?" The answer is that although it is in the debt of another, there is a possibility that it may be lost, that the debtor may become unable to pay, yes, or that he may deny it out of forgetfulness or injustice. Since this possibility exists, we granted him a dispensation to delay what? The payment of the zakah until he receives it. So, if a person has a thousand dirhams with someone and ten years have passed, he is obligated to pay the zakah on the thousand every year; this is the basic rule. However, he is granted a dispensation to delay the zakah until he receives it. If he receives it and he owed twenty-five dirhams each year, how much is he obligated to pay for ten years?
The questioner : Two hundred and fifty.
The Shaykh : Two hundred and fifty riyals; he pays the zakah on them, two hundred and fifty riyals.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : This depends on whether the debt is exempt from zakah or not. Well, so he pays the zakah for each year, but he is granted a dispensation to delay the payment of the zakah until he receives it, due to the possibility I mentioned. What is the possibility?
The questioner : Loss.
The Shaykh : Loss, denial out of forgetfulness or injustice, calamities that destroy the second party's wealth, death; the point is the possibility that he may not obtain it. For this reason, we granted him a dispensation to delay the zakah. If he pays the zakah before receiving it and says, "I want to pay this debt along with my wealth to be at ease," is that allowed? Yes, it is allowed. In fact, the scholars said that this is better, because delaying it until he receives it is a matter of what? It is a matter of dispensation and facilitation. If he wishes to pay his zakah, he pays it. If the debt is owed by a wealthy person who is willing to pay, the obligation of zakah is clear, because the wealthy, willing payer is exactly like what is in your box; whenever you say, "Give it to me," he gives it to you. But if the debt is owed by a poor person, or by someone who delays payment from whom the right cannot be taken, or if the wealth is lost, or if it was stolen and then found after years, the school of thought (madhhab) states that the zakah must be paid, because Allah has enabled you to obtain it. However, the second opinion in the issue is that if it is owed by a poor person, or by a wealthy person from whom it is not possible to demand payment, or similar, then there is no zakah on it until he receives it. And when he receives it, does he start a new lunar year for it, or does he not start a new lunar year? There is disagreement on this. Some scholars said he restarts the lunar year, starting a new year from the beginning. Even if it is assumed that you gave this debtor the loan in the last month of the year, meaning only one month remained of your zakah, and then you sold something to this poor person and it remained a debt in his obligation, he says there is no zakah on it; he restarts the lunar year, even though how much has passed of your year? Eleven months.
An example of this is a merchant who buys and sells, and he used to pay zakah on his wealth in Ramadan. A poor person came to him in Sha'ban, and he sold him goods for a thousand dirhams, and the thousand remained a debt in the poor person's obligation for ten years. The correct opinion is that there is no zakah on it during this period. But when he receives it, does he start a new lunar year and we say there is no zakah on this thousand until a year has passed for you, or does he pay zakah for the year of receipt? There is disagreement on this, even though only one month remained of the year in which he made the poor person a debtor. He says that he restarts the lunar year.
But the correct opinion in the issue is the second one, that he pays zakah for one year for what has passed. This was mentioned in the marginal notes of al-'Anqari regarding Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (may Allah have mercy on him) and his descendants, that it is paid for one year. This is the school of Malik, and it is the most cautious, because it is most similar to the fruit. When you harvest the fruit, you pay its zakah at the time of harvest. Similarly, it is most similar to wages, for which the Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) chose that zakah is obligatory from the time of receipt, even if the lunar year has not completed for it, because it is of the same kind as fruits; zakah becomes obligatory on it at the time of its acquisition. And because one of the conditions for the obligation of zakah is the ability to pay, so whenever he is able to pay, he pays zakah. This is what we see to be closest to the truth: that he pays zakah on it when he receives it for only one year. If it remained for ten years, there is no zakah on it. The aspect of what we mentioned is that it is most similar to the fruit and wages.
So these are the opinions of the scholars regarding the debt. Some of the scholars distinguished, saying that the debt for which its existence and acquisition is expected has zakah on it for everything that has passed. If you obtain something like the debt owed by the poor person, for which acquisition is expected... As for what is lost, missing, buried and forgotten, and similar to that, there is no zakah on it because its acquisition is not expected, especially if the time of loss is long. But the correct view is based on what we said: that what is owed by a wealthy, willing payer is in the ruling of what is in your box, so what is upon you? Its zakah. But you have the choice: if you wish, you pay its zakah with your wealth, and if you wish, you delay its zakah until you receive it. The second is a dispensation, and the first is a virtue and faster in clearing the conscience. As for what is owed by someone who delays payment, or a wealthy person from whom it is not possible to obtain what is with him, there is no zakah on it because you are unable to obtain it. And in removing the zakah from it, there is a benefit, which is giving respite to the one in hardship. For the soul does not accept being told, "You have zakah on this wealth with the one in hardship, and you must give him respite." He might say, "Why should I give respite? As long as I have to pay its zakah, I will pay zakah every year on wealth that is not in my possession, not in my grasp, and I am not able to demand it, because of the obligation to give respite to the one in hardship. So if we remove the zakah from him, that would be a facilitation for him, and it would also be a facilitation for whom?
The questioner : The one in hardship.
The Shaykh : The one in hardship, the debtor. So there are two benefits. But the most cautious and better is that we oblige him to pay the zakah for the year of receipt first, because it may be that months of the year had passed before the debt. And secondly, because this is similar to fruits, for which the payment of zakah is obligatory upon their acquisition. And similar to that is the buried, forgotten wealth. If a person buried his wealth out of fear of thieves.
The questioner : Two hundred and fifty.
The Shaykh : Two hundred and fifty riyals; he pays the zakah on them, two hundred and fifty riyals.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : This depends on whether the debt is exempt from zakah or not. Well, so he pays the zakah for each year, but he is granted a dispensation to delay the payment of the zakah until he receives it, due to the possibility I mentioned. What is the possibility?
The questioner : Loss.
The Shaykh : Loss, denial out of forgetfulness or injustice, calamities that destroy the second party's wealth, death; the point is the possibility that he may not obtain it. For this reason, we granted him a dispensation to delay the zakah. If he pays the zakah before receiving it and says, "I want to pay this debt along with my wealth to be at ease," is that allowed? Yes, it is allowed. In fact, the scholars said that this is better, because delaying it until he receives it is a matter of what? It is a matter of dispensation and facilitation. If he wishes to pay his zakah, he pays it. If the debt is owed by a wealthy person who is willing to pay, the obligation of zakah is clear, because the wealthy, willing payer is exactly like what is in your box; whenever you say, "Give it to me," he gives it to you. But if the debt is owed by a poor person, or by someone who delays payment from whom the right cannot be taken, or if the wealth is lost, or if it was stolen and then found after years, the school of thought (madhhab) states that the zakah must be paid, because Allah has enabled you to obtain it. However, the second opinion in the issue is that if it is owed by a poor person, or by a wealthy person from whom it is not possible to demand payment, or similar, then there is no zakah on it until he receives it. And when he receives it, does he start a new lunar year for it, or does he not start a new lunar year? There is disagreement on this. Some scholars said he restarts the lunar year, starting a new year from the beginning. Even if it is assumed that you gave this debtor the loan in the last month of the year, meaning only one month remained of your zakah, and then you sold something to this poor person and it remained a debt in his obligation, he says there is no zakah on it; he restarts the lunar year, even though how much has passed of your year? Eleven months.
An example of this is a merchant who buys and sells, and he used to pay zakah on his wealth in Ramadan. A poor person came to him in Sha'ban, and he sold him goods for a thousand dirhams, and the thousand remained a debt in the poor person's obligation for ten years. The correct opinion is that there is no zakah on it during this period. But when he receives it, does he start a new lunar year and we say there is no zakah on this thousand until a year has passed for you, or does he pay zakah for the year of receipt? There is disagreement on this, even though only one month remained of the year in which he made the poor person a debtor. He says that he restarts the lunar year.
But the correct opinion in the issue is the second one, that he pays zakah for one year for what has passed. This was mentioned in the marginal notes of al-'Anqari regarding Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (may Allah have mercy on him) and his descendants, that it is paid for one year. This is the school of Malik, and it is the most cautious, because it is most similar to the fruit. When you harvest the fruit, you pay its zakah at the time of harvest. Similarly, it is most similar to wages, for which the Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) chose that zakah is obligatory from the time of receipt, even if the lunar year has not completed for it, because it is of the same kind as fruits; zakah becomes obligatory on it at the time of its acquisition. And because one of the conditions for the obligation of zakah is the ability to pay, so whenever he is able to pay, he pays zakah. This is what we see to be closest to the truth: that he pays zakah on it when he receives it for only one year. If it remained for ten years, there is no zakah on it. The aspect of what we mentioned is that it is most similar to the fruit and wages.
So these are the opinions of the scholars regarding the debt. Some of the scholars distinguished, saying that the debt for which its existence and acquisition is expected has zakah on it for everything that has passed. If you obtain something like the debt owed by the poor person, for which acquisition is expected... As for what is lost, missing, buried and forgotten, and similar to that, there is no zakah on it because its acquisition is not expected, especially if the time of loss is long. But the correct view is based on what we said: that what is owed by a wealthy, willing payer is in the ruling of what is in your box, so what is upon you? Its zakah. But you have the choice: if you wish, you pay its zakah with your wealth, and if you wish, you delay its zakah until you receive it. The second is a dispensation, and the first is a virtue and faster in clearing the conscience. As for what is owed by someone who delays payment, or a wealthy person from whom it is not possible to obtain what is with him, there is no zakah on it because you are unable to obtain it. And in removing the zakah from it, there is a benefit, which is giving respite to the one in hardship. For the soul does not accept being told, "You have zakah on this wealth with the one in hardship, and you must give him respite." He might say, "Why should I give respite? As long as I have to pay its zakah, I will pay zakah every year on wealth that is not in my possession, not in my grasp, and I am not able to demand it, because of the obligation to give respite to the one in hardship. So if we remove the zakah from him, that would be a facilitation for him, and it would also be a facilitation for whom?
The questioner : The one in hardship.
The Shaykh : The one in hardship, the debtor. So there are two benefits. But the most cautious and better is that we oblige him to pay the zakah for the year of receipt first, because it may be that months of the year had passed before the debt. And secondly, because this is similar to fruits, for which the payment of zakah is obligatory upon their acquisition. And similar to that is the buried, forgotten wealth. If a person buried his wealth out of fear of thieves.