upon closer consideration, it is weak. Their reliance on general texts also encompasses concealed wealth; moreover, the fact that the Messenger ﷺ would send collectors and they would not inquire further indicates that zakah is attached to the wealth itself and has no connection to one’s legal liability. In this respect, there is no difference between outwardly apparent and concealed wealth. Furthermore, debt is itself a concealed matter, whether the wealth is outwardly apparent or concealed.

If we say that zakah is a form of financial support, then there is no difference between the two. Moreover, their classification of certain wealth as concealed is open to question. A merchant is known among people as a merchant: he may, for example, own car showrooms, warehouses of equipment, vast varieties of fabrics, and numerous jewellery shops. Which of these is more apparent: such wealth, or a small flock of sheep in a hollow amid the sands belonging to a Bedouin unknown in the marketplace?

The answer is: the former.

Thus, concealment and outward appearance are relative matters: what is outwardly apparent may be concealed, and what is concealed may be outwardly apparent.

The view I consider stronger is that zakah is obligatory in all cases, even if one has a debt that reduces his wealth below the niṣāb, except where a debt became due before zakah falls due. In that case, he must pay the debt first and then pay zakah on what remains, thereby discharging his liability. If we adopt this view, we encourage debtors to repay their debts.

Thus, if we say to someone who owes one hundred thousand and possesses one hundred and fifty thousand, while the debt is presently due: “Repay the debt; otherwise, we will require you to pay zakah on the one hundred thousand,” he will say: “I will repay the debt, because I will not pay it twice.”

This view that we have chosen was also the view of our shaykh, Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz.