But if the two are of the same category while differing in ruling, the zakah year is interrupted. For example, if he exchanges grazing livestock for livestock held as trade goods, the zakah year is interrupted, because the property has in fact changed. With the latter nisab—trade goods—the specific property itself is not intended; rather, what is intended is its value. Therefore, the author’s statement, “If he exchanges it for something of the same category,” should be qualified by adding, “and they share the same ruling”: he continues the zakah year when both are trade goods, grazing livestock, or the like.

Zakah Is Due upon the Property Itself, While Also Being an Obligation upon the Person

His statement, “Zakah is due upon the property itself, while also being an obligation upon the person”: The scholars differed—may Allah have mercy on them—over whether zakah is an obligation owed by the person or an obligation due upon the property itself.

Some scholars said that it is an obligation owed by the person, having no connection to the property whatsoever. Their evidence is that if the property is destroyed after zakah has become due, the individual remains obligated to pay the zakah.

Other scholars said: Rather, zakah is due upon the property itself, based on the saying of Allah, Most High:

“Take from their wealth a charity by which you purify them and cleanse them.” [al-Tawbah 9:103]

And on the Prophet’s instruction to Mu'adh when he sent him to Yemen: “Inform them that Allah has made obligatory upon them a charity from their wealth.” (1)

Thus, zakah is due upon the property itself.

Yet each of the two views raises a difficulty. For if we say that it is due upon the property itself, then its attachment to the property would be like the attachment of a pledge to the pledged item,