Ibn al-Qayyim, may Allah have mercy on him, said: “His liability is not discharged by it, even if they pay it from his estate, because he persisted in refusing to pay it; so how can the action of others benefit him?” He further said: “The texts of the Quran and the sunnah, as well as the principles of the Sacred Law, indicate this.” (1)

What he, may Allah have mercy on him, said is correct: that this does not suffice on his behalf, and that his liability is not discharged by it.

However, whether we should waive it from the estate is open to consideration. If we give precedence to its aspect as an act of worship, we say that it should not be taken from the estate, since it does not benefit its owner. But if we give precedence to the aspect of entitlement—that is, the right of those entitled to zakah—we say that it should be paid, in order to fulfill their right, even though it does not benefit its owner before Allah.

The more prudent view is that it should be paid from his estate, because the right of those entitled to zakah is attached to it; their right is not waived because of the wrongdoing of the one upon whom that right was due, and their right takes precedence over that of the heirs. Yet it will not benefit him before Allah, because he was a man who persisted in refusing to pay it.

Issue: If a person dies owing both a debt and zakah, which of them takes precedence?

For example, a man leaves 100 riyals, while owing 100 riyals in zakah and 100 riyals in debt. Should the right of a human being take precedence, or should zakah take precedence?

There are three opinions on this issue:

Some scholars said that the debt owed to a human being takes precedence, because it is based on strict insistence upon one’s due, and because a person needs to receive his due in this world, whereas