had he paid the charity in advance, he would have told the collectors, “I have already paid it,” or, “I have paid it ahead of time,” and they would not have said, “Al-Abbas has withheld it.” This policy was one of justice. Umar ibn al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, had a practice that whenever he prohibited people from something, he would gather his own family and say to them: “I have forbidden the people such-and-such, and the people watch you as birds watch meat”—that is, when a bird sees meat, it swoops down upon it—“and I do not know of any one of you who does this except that I shall double his punishment.” Thus, he would punish the people once and his relatives twice, because they would seek protection in their kinship to him. The Noble Quran alludes to this, for Allah Most High says:

“O wives of the Prophet, whoever among you commits a manifest indecency, her punishment will be doubled.” [al-Ahzab: 30]

In sum, what appears correct to me is that his statement regarding al-Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him—“It is upon me, along with its like”—was a case of doubling the payment upon him because he had sought protection in his kinship to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him. As for the hadith of Abu Ubayd, if authentic, it constitutes independent evidence and has no connection to this incident.

As for the rational evidence: paying zakat in advance serves the interests of those entitled to zakat, whereas delaying it until the obligation becomes due is a concession to the owner of the wealth. Otherwise, he would have been required to pay his zakat from the moment he acquired the minimum taxable amount, just as he is required to pay the zakat on crops as soon as they are harvested. Since this is a concession to the owner, if he accepts what is more burdensome for himself, there is no objection.

His statement, “for two years or less,” indicates that it is not permissible to pay zakat in advance for more than two years.