His statement, “It is preferable,” indicates that it is permissible for him to appoint someone to pay it on his behalf, whether the agent pays it from his own funds or whether the person upon whom zakat is due gives it to him to distribute.

An example of the first case is for the person upon whom zakat is due to say to his agent: “I owe one hundred riyals as the amount of my zakat, so pay it out.”

An example of the second case is for the person upon whom zakat is due to say to his agent: “Take these one hundred riyals, which are the amount of my zakat, and distribute them on my behalf.”

Issue: It is permissible to give it to the collector sent by the government, on condition that we trust that it will be disbursed to its proper recipients. If we do not trust this, then we should not give it to them—unless we fear that they will come back to us and demand it if we do not hand it over to them. In that case, we should give it to them, even if it is more likely than not that they will not disburse it to its proper recipients.

In this case, the sin rests upon the collector, because he did not disburse it to its proper recipients.

His statement, “that he distribute it himself,” gives rise to two issues:

The first issue: Is it preferable for him to distribute it secretly or openly?

The correct view is that one should consider what serves the greater interest. If the interest lies in making it public, he should make it public; and if it lies in concealing it, he should conceal it.

If the interest lies in making public the zakat of some of his wealth so that people may follow his example, and then concealing the zakat of the rest of his wealth, then he should do so. This is because the basic principle regarding the giving of wealth, whether zakat or voluntary charity, is that it should be kept secret, so that a person does not fall into ostentation and give it merely so that people may say, “So-and-so is generous.” Accordingly, there are three levels: