Ruling on the borrower paying zakah from the lender's money without his permission

Question: Your Eminence! In the first of these letters, the writer says: I lent a man ten thousand riyals, and a lunar year passed while the money was in his possession. He paid its zakah with his consent and from his own pocket, without any condition between us, and he informed me of it and I accepted it. Does this payment absolve me of my obligation?

Answer:
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Praise be to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allah, and upon his family and his Companions, and whoever follows his guidance.
As for what follows:
Paying zakah is an act of worship and a means of drawing near to Allah, and it requires the intention of the one who pays it. If a person pays zakah on behalf of another from his wealth, whether that wealth is a loan, a trust, or something else, there is a difference of opinion among the scholars regarding the validity of the payment, based on the concept of *tasarruf al-faduli*; which is a person’s dealing with another’s property without his permission.
Some scholars have said: That is sufficient if the owner and the one responsible for it approve of it.
Others have said: It is not sufficient; rather, the intention must accompany the payment in such a case. The most apparent view, according to a group of scholars, is that it is not sufficient; because he paid it out without consulting the owner of the zakah and without taking his permission for it. Rather, he paid it voluntarily without permission. Therefore, the most cautious course for this person who paid it on his behalf is to pay zakah himself and not to be content with this zakah. However, if he is content with it, it is sufficient according to a group of scholars; because he approved of it.

The presenter: And he says here: “And he paid the zakah with my consent.” This means: with his consent, the payer’s; but he consented afterwards.

The Shaykh: It seems like a consent that is new, not prior. It becomes a new consent and a new permission.
As for that, he paid out money without seeking permission. It is as if he thought he was doing him a favor in this matter, and that this kindness would be accepted, so he did not seek his permission. Or perhaps he feared that he would prevent him from doing so, while he loves to reward him for lending to him with kindness; because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . So, the conclusion is: that it is sufficient, as stated by a group of scholars, through ratification and approval.

The second opinion: That it is not sufficient; because the intention did not accompany him at that time. When he paid it, he did not have an intention, meaning: he did not have a prior permission upon which he relied to be his agent. Yes.