Explanation of the author's statement: "The ability to perform the payment and the continued existence of the wealth are not conditions for its obligation."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"The ability to perform the payment is not a condition for its obligation" means that it is not required for the obligation of zakah that one be able to pay it. For this reason, zakah is obligatory on wealth that is in debt, even though it is not possible to pay it from that wealth while it remains a debt in the debtor's liability. It is also obligatory on lost wealth if it is found, and on wealth that is denied if the denier admits to it, and so on. Thus, the ability to perform the payment is not a condition for its obligation; rather, it is obligatory even if one is not able to pay it. However, the actual disbursement is not obligatory until one is able to perform the payment.
"And the continued existence of the wealth" means that the continued existence of the wealth is not a condition for its obligation. That is, if the obligation has arisen and the lunar year of possession has completed, the continued existence of the wealth is not a condition for its obligation. So if the wealth is destroyed after the completion of the lunar year and the obligation of zakah has arisen on it, he must pay the zakah, whether he was negligent or not. This is because it became obligatory and turned into a debt in his liability, so he is required to disburse it. For example, if a shop owner has trade goods, the lunar year has completed for him, and he estimates that his zakah amounts to ten thousand riyals, and then this shop is seized and burned down, leaving nothing worth even a single dirham, does he guarantee the zakah, which is one hundred thousand riyals, or does he not guarantee it? And how much is it? Ten thousand riyals, or does he not guarantee it? According to the author's statement, he guarantees it because the continued existence of the wealth is not a condition for its obligation.
The correct view in this issue is that if he transgressed or was negligent, he guarantees it, and if he did not transgress or become negligent, there is no guarantee. This is because zakah, after it becomes obligatory, is a trust with him, and a trustee who does not transgress or become negligent bears no guarantee. Have you seen if a poor person placed dirhams belonging to him, which are within his ownership, with this person, and they were destroyed with the depositary without transgression or negligence, would he be required to guarantee them for the poor person? No. So zakah is even more so [a trust], especially since the poor person does not own the zakah except through the one paying it. So how do we make him guarantee it when he did not transgress and did not become negligent?
If he transgressed or became negligent: if he transgressed by placing the wealth in a place where its destruction is expected, then this man guarantees it if the wealth is destroyed after the zakah becomes obligatory; he guarantees the zakah. Likewise, if he became negligent by delaying its disbursement without a valid legal justification and the wealth was destroyed, he guarantees the zakah. But if he did not transgress and did not become negligent, and the man was ready to disburse it at the time of disbursement, but an event occurred that destroyed his wealth without him transgressing or becoming negligent, how do we make him guarantee it? The correct view is that the continued existence of the wealth is a condition for its obligation, except—what is it?—except if he transgresses or becomes negligent. If he transgresses or becomes negligent, then he is liable for the guarantee.
"And the continued existence of the wealth" means that the continued existence of the wealth is not a condition for its obligation. That is, if the obligation has arisen and the lunar year of possession has completed, the continued existence of the wealth is not a condition for its obligation. So if the wealth is destroyed after the completion of the lunar year and the obligation of zakah has arisen on it, he must pay the zakah, whether he was negligent or not. This is because it became obligatory and turned into a debt in his liability, so he is required to disburse it. For example, if a shop owner has trade goods, the lunar year has completed for him, and he estimates that his zakah amounts to ten thousand riyals, and then this shop is seized and burned down, leaving nothing worth even a single dirham, does he guarantee the zakah, which is one hundred thousand riyals, or does he not guarantee it? And how much is it? Ten thousand riyals, or does he not guarantee it? According to the author's statement, he guarantees it because the continued existence of the wealth is not a condition for its obligation.
The correct view in this issue is that if he transgressed or was negligent, he guarantees it, and if he did not transgress or become negligent, there is no guarantee. This is because zakah, after it becomes obligatory, is a trust with him, and a trustee who does not transgress or become negligent bears no guarantee. Have you seen if a poor person placed dirhams belonging to him, which are within his ownership, with this person, and they were destroyed with the depositary without transgression or negligence, would he be required to guarantee them for the poor person? No. So zakah is even more so [a trust], especially since the poor person does not own the zakah except through the one paying it. So how do we make him guarantee it when he did not transgress and did not become negligent?
If he transgressed or became negligent: if he transgressed by placing the wealth in a place where its destruction is expected, then this man guarantees it if the wealth is destroyed after the zakah becomes obligatory; he guarantees the zakah. Likewise, if he became negligent by delaying its disbursement without a valid legal justification and the wealth was destroyed, he guarantees the zakah. But if he did not transgress and did not become negligent, and the man was ready to disburse it at the time of disbursement, but an event occurred that destroyed his wealth without him transgressing or becoming negligent, how do we make him guarantee it? The correct view is that the continued existence of the wealth is a condition for its obligation, except—what is it?—except if he transgresses or becomes negligent. If he transgresses or becomes negligent, then he is liable for the guarantee.