Is it obligatory to pay zakah in general on the wealth of a person who has a debt that reduces the amount below the nisab, so that zakah is not made obligatory twice, once from the debtor and once from the creditor?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : So what?
The questioner : ...we would have made zakah obligatory upon him twice...
The Shaykh : This is what is correct, because the one who has a debt may not have in his hand the same money that he took from the creditor. Is it necessary that it be the same money? It is possible that he borrows dirhams while he has livestock, or vice versa, and this is common, yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Then, even if it were the dirhams, suppose he took dirhams and bought trade goods with them. The connection is severed, because the money I have, which I took from you, I am free to dispose of as I wish. It is my complete property, and your debt, which is yours, is in my liability and has no connection to this money. This is how they answered regarding it. Otherwise, some scholars went to what you pointed out and said that it is obligatory upon one of them. If we make it obligatory upon the creditor, we do not make it obligatory upon the debtor, and if we make it obligatory upon the debtor, we do not make it obligatory upon the creditor, yes.
The Shaykh : So what?
The questioner : ...we would have made zakah obligatory upon him twice...
The Shaykh : This is what is correct, because the one who has a debt may not have in his hand the same money that he took from the creditor. Is it necessary that it be the same money? It is possible that he borrows dirhams while he has livestock, or vice versa, and this is common, yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Then, even if it were the dirhams, suppose he took dirhams and bought trade goods with them. The connection is severed, because the money I have, which I took from you, I am free to dispose of as I wish. It is my complete property, and your debt, which is yours, is in my liability and has no connection to this money. This is how they answered regarding it. Otherwise, some scholars went to what you pointed out and said that it is obligatory upon one of them. If we make it obligatory upon the creditor, we do not make it obligatory upon the debtor, and if we make it obligatory upon the debtor, we do not make it obligatory upon the creditor, yes.