payment, but then a calamity befell him and destroyed his wealth—so how can we hold him liable?!

Thus, the correct view is that the continued existence of the property is not a condition for zakah to become obligatory, unless he has acted wrongfully or negligently. (1)

Zakah is like a debt against the estate...

His statement, “Zakah is like a debt against the estate,” means that if a man dies owing zakah, its ruling is the same as that of a debt: it takes precedence over a bequest and over the heirs. The beneficiary of a bequest has no entitlement until the zakah has been paid, and likewise an heir has no entitlement until the zakah has been paid.

For example, if a man owes 10,000 in zakah, then all his property is destroyed except 10,000, and he dies leaving nothing else, it is to be paid as zakah, and the heirs receive nothing.

The evidence for this is the Prophet’s saying: “Fulfill what is due to Allah, for Allah is more deserving that His due be fulfilled.” (2)

Zakah takes precedence over a bequest and inheritance.

This applies when the man did not deliberately delay paying the zakah. In that case, we take it from his estate; it is valid on his behalf, and his liability is discharged. This is like a man who pays zakah every year, then a full lunar year elapses during the final year of his life, and he dies: in this case, it is taken from his estate, and his liability is discharged.

But if he deliberately refrained from paying zakah and withheld it out of miserliness, then the position of the school of law (3) is that it is taken from his estate and his liability is discharged.