to their poor.” (1)

A debt is binding upon one’s legal liability, not upon one’s property. Therefore, if all the wealth in your possession were destroyed, none of the debt would be waived. Thus, if a person borrowed money and used it to purchase merchandise for trade, then the wealth was lost, the debt would not be cancelled, because it is attached to his legal liability. Zakah, on the other hand, is due upon the actual property itself. The two matters are therefore distinct, and no clash or contradiction arises.

As for the report from Uthman—may Allah be pleased with him—we accept that if a person has an immediately due debt and fulfils his obligation by paying it, then no zakah is due from him, because he will pay it from his wealth. Since the debt preceded the zakah, it takes priority in payment, for zakah only becomes obligatory once a full lunar year has passed, whereas the debt came first. By virtue of its precedence, it has a greater right to be given priority over zakah.

We say to the one who fears Allah and pays what he owes: no zakah is due from you except on what remains. But if he does not pay what he owes, delaying payment in order to benefit from the money, then he does not fall under what has been reported from Uthman; rather, he must pay zakah on it.

As for the theoretical proof—that zakah was prescribed to provide relief and support—we say:

First: we dispute this claim. The foremost purpose of zakah is what Allah, Exalted is He, has mentioned: “Take from their wealth a charity by which you purify them and cleanse them.” [al-Tawbah: 103] It is an act of worship through which a person is purified of sins, for charity extinguishes sin just as water extinguishes fire. Through it, souls are refined, and when a person gives it, he feels an expansion of the breast and reassurance of the heart. Thus, the purpose of zakah is not merely to provide relief and support.