Explanation of the author's statement: "And zakah is like a debt in the estate."

The Shaykh : Then the author said "And zakah is like a debt in the estate", meaning that if a man dies and he has zakah due, then the zakah is like a debt; the heir is not entitled to anything until the zakah is paid. If we estimate that a man owed ten thousand in zakah, and his wealth perished except for ten thousand, and he died leaving only ten thousand, where is this ten thousand to be spent? It is to be spent on the zakah, and the heirs get nothing. The evidence for this is the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) . On this basis, zakah takes precedence over the bequest and over the inheritance. This applies if the man did not intentionally delay the payment of zakah; in that case, we deduct it from his estate, it suffices on his behalf, and his conscience is cleared. This is like a man who pays zakah every year, and the lunar year is completed in the final year of his life, and then he dies immediately after the year is completed. Here, we deduct the zakah from his wealth, and it clears his conscience. However, if the man intentionally withheld the payment of zakah and said, "I will pay the zakah when Allah makes it easy," or something similar, the point being that he withheld it out of stinginess, and then died, is it to be deducted from his estate and clear his conscience? Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) said that his conscience is not cleared from it, even if they deduct it from his estate, because the man was insistent on not paying it, so how can the action of others benefit him? He said that the texts of the Book and the Sunnah, or the principles of the Shari'ah, indicate this. What he said (may Allah have mercy on him) is correct in that it does not suffice on his behalf and does not clear his conscience as long as the man was insistent on not paying it during his lifetime. However, the fact that we drop it from the estate is a matter of consideration. If we prioritize the aspect of worship, we say we do not deduct it from the estate because it is an act of worship that does not benefit its owner. If we prioritize the aspect of right, meaning the right of the zakah recipients, we say we deduct it to fulfill their right, even if it does not benefit the owner in the sight of Allah. The most cautious approach is that we deduct it from his estate because the right of the zakah recipients is attached to it, but it does not benefit him in the sight of Allah because the man was insistent on not paying it. Is that clear? Good.
So, if a person dies and he has zakah due, the ruling of zakah is the same as the ruling of a debt in that it takes precedence over the bequest and over the heirs. Second, does this apply to the one who withheld it out of stinginess until he died, or to the one who said every day, "I will pay it," but his term was cut short? The school's position is the general case, and the correct view is the second: that if a man withheld it out of stinginess, his conscience is not cleared, even if the heirs pay it after him, because the man was determined not to pay the zakah, so how can the action of others benefit him? But regarding the right of the zakah recipients, it should be paid because their right precedes the right of the heirs, and because their right is a human right, so it should not be dropped due to the injustice of the one who owes the right. The one who withholds zakah is the wrongdoer, so how do we drop it from him? We tell the heirs that their right is not to be returned until the prior obligatory duty is paid, and zakah precedes their right.
Then the author (may Allah have mercy on him) said, good, his statement "And zakah is like a debt in the estate". If a debt and zakah coincide, which takes precedence? Good, now you differ on two views: one is that the debt takes precedence, and the second is that zakah takes precedence. For example, a man left one hundred riyals, and he has one hundred riyals in zakah, and he has a debt of one hundred riyals to a human being. Do we prioritize the right of the human being, or the one to whom the debt is owed, or do we prioritize the zakah? Yes?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : There are two views.

The questioner : There is a third view.

The Shaykh : There is a third view?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes, in any case, the human being, I retract your statement, good.
Some scholars say the debt to a human being takes precedence because it is based on strictness, and because the human being is in need of having his right paid to him in this world, whereas the right of Allah, Allah is rich and does not need it, and His right, Glorified and Exalted is He, is based on leniency. And some scholars say the right of Allah takes precedence because the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said . And some scholars, which is the school's position, say that they share proportionally. So if he has a debt of one hundred and zakah of one hundred, and he left only one hundred, then the zakah gets fifty and the debt gets fifty. This is the most correct: that they share proportionally. The answer to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did not rule on two debts, one for a human being and the second for Allah, but he said . Rather, he intended analogy because he asked . So it is as if he said, if the debt of the human being is paid, then the debt of Allah is all the more so. And this view of proportional sharing is the stronger position.