However, the author qualifies this with his statement, “when able to do so”: payment must be possible. If one is unable to pay, then payment is not required of him—for example, if his wealth is absent; or if he is owed a debt by a solvent or an insolvent debtor, and we hold that zakat is due on a debt owed by either a solvent or insolvent person. Since it is not presently in his possession, he is not required to pay, because he is unable to do so.

Does this include the case of a woman upon whom zakat on jewelry is due, but who has no cash with which to pay it?

The answer is: this is not included. She is able to pay immediately by selling enough of the jewelry to cover the zakat and then paying it—unless her husband or one of her relatives voluntarily gives her the amount. If someone does so, there is nothing wrong with that.

But women say: If you require us to sell some of our jewelry in order to pay its zakat, it will eventually be depleted and nothing will remain for us. Yet this is something we need, as stated explicitly in the Quran. Allah, Exalted is He, says:

“Or is one brought up in finery, and unable to articulate in dispute?” [al-Zukhruf 43:18]

We reply: This objection is not valid, because the obligation ceases once the jewelry falls below the nisab. Thus, if a woman possesses only eighty grams of gold, no zakat is due from her. Therefore, we say that it will not be depleted, for at that point you will become one of the poor, and eighty grams of gold jewelry is sufficient for poor women.

EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF HARM …

His statement, “except in the case of harm,” means that if paying zakat as soon as it becomes due would cause a man harm, there is no blame upon him if he delays it until that harm has passed—for example, if he fears that the collector may return to him again.