Imam Malik’s position, and it is the stronger view for the following reasons:

First: it resembles produce, whose zakah becomes due when it is harvested, and rental income, concerning which Shaykh al-Islam held that zakah becomes due upon receipt, even if a full zakah year has not passed over it (1).

Second: one of the conditions for zakah to become obligatory is the ability to pay it. Thus, whenever one is able to pay, he pays zakah.

Third: several months beyond a full year may have passed over the wealth before he lent it out.

Fourth: exempting him from zakah for the previous period, while requiring him to pay it only for the year in which he receives the debt, is a facilitation for the owner. For how can zakah be made obligatory upon him while he is obligated to grant respite to the insolvent debtor? It is also a facilitation for the insolvent debtor, by granting him such respite.

The same applies to buried wealth that has been forgotten. If someone buries his wealth for fear of theft and then forgets it, he pays zakah on it only for the year in which he finds it.

Likewise, if stolen wealth remains with the thief for several years and its owner then recovers it, he pays zakah on it for one year only, just as with a debt owed by an insolvent person.

An important issue about which many questions arose when land became unsaleable:

For example, a person bought a plot of land when prices were high, then it became unsaleable, and he could find no buyer for it, whether at a low price or a high one. Is zakah due on it during the period in which it remains unsaleable, or not?