According to the view that zakah is due upon the property itself while also being attached to the person’s liability, the one upon whom zakah has become due may sell the property, but he remains liable for the zakah. He may likewise give it away as a gift, but he remains liable for the zakah. This is because its attachment to the property is not complete in every respect, such that we would say that property upon which zakah is due is like pledged property; rather, it is also attached to the person’s liability.

Issue: A number of subsidiary matters arise from the disagreement over whether zakah is attached to the property or to the person’s liability. Ibn Rajab mentioned them in al-Qawa'id. The clearest of them is the case of a person who possesses a single zakahable minimum amount upon which more than one lunar year has passed. According to the view that zakah is due as a personal liability, he must pay zakah for each year. According to the view that it is due upon the property itself, however, he is liable only for the zakah of one year—the first year—because paying the zakah reduces the property below the minimum amount. Thus, if a person possesses forty grazing sheep and a year passes over them, one sheep is due; by it, the minimum amount is reduced, because zakah is due upon the property itself. But if we say that zakah is due as a personal liability, then one sheep is due for every year.

Ibn Rajab mentioned other benefits that follow from this disagreement; whoever wishes to know them should consult them (1).

“Neither the ability to pay it nor the continued existence of the property is considered in determining its obligation, …”

His statement, “Neither the ability to pay it is considered in determining its obligation,” means that being able to pay it is not a condition for zakah to become obligatory. For this reason, it is due on a debt, even though it cannot be paid from it while it remains in the debtor’s liability, and on lost property