Transgression means doing what is impermissible, while negligence means failing to do what is obligatory.

For example, if, after the dates have begun to ripen but before they have been placed in the threshing floor, a man neglects them until floodwaters come and the rain ruins the dates, he is deemed negligent. But if he lights a fire beneath the fruit, he has transgressed, because he has done what is impermissible.

If Allah sends storms or destructive gales after the fruit has begun to ripen and the grain has hardened, without any negligence or neglect on his part, and they destroy the fruit or crops, then he is not liable, because he has neither transgressed nor been negligent.

If the fruit or crops are stolen after the fruit has begun to ripen and the grain has hardened, he is liable if this resulted from his neglect or negligence; otherwise, he is not.

The correct view concerning the third case is that zakah is not due from him unless he has transgressed or been negligent, because once the property has been placed in the threshing floor, it is held by him in trust. Thus, if he transgresses or is negligent—for example, by delaying payment of the zakah until the property is stolen, or the like—he is liable. But if he has neither transgressed nor been negligent, and has diligently sought to discharge it promptly, yet it perishes—for example, if he places the dates in the threshing floor so that they may dry, but before sufficient time has passed for them to dry, they are stolen despite every precaution and careful guarding—then he is not liable. Unless, of course, he was able to seek compensation from the thief but failed to do so; in that case, he is negligent.

Thus, the preponderant view is that the third case is treated like the second case.

As for the argument that, if a man is in debt and his property perishes, the debt is not waived