Another example: Suppose a man is wealthy and supports his father. His father has sufficient means, either of his own or through his son’s support, but he is in debt, and the son is able to settle that debt for him. Yet the son says, “I will settle the debt from my zakah.”

This is permissible, because a son is not obliged to repay his father’s debt—unless the debt arose from maintenance. That is, the father was in need and purchased necessities on credit, thereby incurring debt for his upkeep. In this case, we say: Do not settle your father’s debt from your zakah, because this could lead a person to restrict his father’s maintenance until he incurs debt for his expenses, and then say, “My father is in debt, so I will settle his debt from my zakah.” Thus, one may settle the debt of one’s father, mother, son, or daughter, on the condition that the debt was not incurred for maintenance which the son was obliged to provide. If it was for obligatory maintenance, then it is not permissible.

Nor to a slave or a spouse …

His statement: “Nor to a slave or a spouse.”

That is, zakah is not to be given to a slave, because if we give zakah to a slave, ownership of the zakah immediately passes to his master. For a slave’s property belongs to his master. Therefore, it is not permissible to give it to the slave, since he owns nothing and whatever he possesses belongs to his master. Allah says: “For the poor.”

An exception is made for a mukātab—a slave under a contract of emancipation. It has previously been mentioned that the mukātab is among those eligible for zakah, falling under the words of Allah Most High: “and for freeing captives” [al-Tawbah 9:60]. Thus, the mukātab is given what will enable him to pay off his contractual debt of emancipation.

But is the mukātab a slave?

The answer is: yes, he is a slave, yet he is given zakah in order to attain freedom. A contract of emancipation is when a slave purchases himself from his master for a deferred price. Thus, this slave who has purchased