and he owes ‘Amr three thousand, which he borrowed six months before his death. He then dies, and we find only three thousand in his estate. We do not give it to Zayd on the grounds that his debt came first; rather, we say that the deficiency is shared proportionately. Thus, we compare the estate to the total debt: three thousand in relation to the total debt of six thousand is one half, so we give each of them half of what he is owed.

Third: When debts owed to Allah and to human beings coincide, do we give precedence to the debt owed to the human being, the debt owed to Allah, or do they share proportionately?

For example, a man dies owing five thousand riyals in zakah, and he also owes Zayd five thousand. When he dies, we find only five thousand in his estate. The debt is therefore greater than the estate. Should we spend the five thousand on zakah, or on the debt owed to the human being, or should they share proportionately?

There are three scholarly views concerning this:

Some say that the debt owed to the human being is to be discharged. Thus, we give the five thousand—the entire estate—to the human being. They justify this by saying that Allah’s right is based on leniency, and He is free of all need of us, whereas the right of a human being is based on strict insistence, and he needs what is due to him; therefore, it is given precedence.

Others say that Allah’s right, glorified and exalted is He, takes precedence, based on the Prophet’s ﷺ saying: “Fulfil what is due to Allah, for Allah has the greater right to be fulfilled.” (1) The phrase “greater right” is in the comparative form, so it takes precedence over the right to which it is being compared. According to this view, the five thousand in the estate is distributed to those entitled to receive zakah.