We say: There is nothing strange about this. If a person has one niṣāb or two niṣābs that are insufficient for his living expenses, yet they remain in his possession until the completion of a lunar year, then we say: We give him what he needs for his maintenance, while requiring him to pay zakah. There is no contradiction.

The third view is that zakah is due on outwardly apparent wealth, even if one has a debt that reduces it below the niṣāb; whereas zakah is not due on concealed wealth if one has a debt that reduces it below the niṣāb.

Outwardly apparent wealth consists of crops, fruits, and livestock.

Concealed wealth consists of gold, silver, and trade goods, because zakah is due on their value, which is not outwardly apparent.

They cited the following evidence:

First: the general texts, such as: “For every forty sheep, one sheep is due.” (1)

Second: the Prophet ﷺ would send collectors to collect zakah from outwardly apparent wealth without instructing them to inquire further, even though those who owned fruit-bearing crops would generally have debts.

Third: the poor have an interest in outwardly apparent wealth because they can see it. Thus, if a person does not pay its zakah on the grounds that he is in debt—and debt is a concealed matter—then, when people see that he has not paid zakah on this outwardly apparent wealth, they will think badly of him. Moreover, failing to pay zakah in this situation stirs resentment in the hearts of the poor.

Yet although this view may initially appear strong,