In the sounder view, the principal’s intention suffices when he hands the zakat to his agent, though it is preferable that the agent, too, form an intention when distributing it. If the zakat is delivered to the ruler, the payer’s intention at the time of payment is enough; should he omit it, the discharge is still valid according to the correct opinion—even if the ruler himself makes an intention. The stronger position, however, is that when the ruler forcibly collects zakat from one who withholds it, the ruler must form the intention, and his intention alone is adequate.

Section
It is not valid to pre-pay zakat before one actually owns a full nisab, but paying it before a full lunar year has elapsed is permissible. According to the sounder view, one may not advance more than one year’s zakat at a time. He may pay zakat al-fiṭr from the first day of Ramadan, but the correct opinion forbids doing so earlier. Likewise, the zakat of dates may not be paid before the fruit shows signs of ripeness, nor the zakat of grain before the kernels harden; payment is permitted after those stages.

For an advance payment to count, two conditions must be met: the owner must remain subject to zakat until the end of the year, and the recipient must still be eligible at that time. A secondary opinion stipulates that if the recipient loses eligibility at any point during the year, the advance is invalid, though his becoming wealthy because of the zakat itself does no harm.

If the advance fails to qualify as zakat, the giver may reclaim it provided he had stipulated a right of recovery should an impediment arise. The sounder view holds that even a statement such as “This is only my zakat paid in advance” suffices to secure that right. If he did not mention the advance and the recipient was unaware of it, he may not reclaim it. Should the two dispute whether a right of recovery exists, the recipient’s sworn oath is decisive.

Once the right of recovery is established, and the advanced property has perished, compensation is obligatory, reckoned—according to the stronger opinion—by its value on the day it was received. If the property is returned in a diminished state, no indemnity for the deficiency is due, and any separate increase (such as offspring or profit) is not subject to reclamation.

Delaying zakat after one is able to pay renders him liable should the wealth be destroyed; if it is destroyed before ability arises, there is no liability. If part of it is lost, the preponderant view is that he bears liability in proportion to what remains. Should he himself ruin it after the year has passed yet before payment is possible, the zakat obligation is not cancelled.

Zakat is connected to the wealth in a manner akin to partnership; another opinion likens it to a lien, and a third treats it as a personal debt. Hence, if he sells the property before paying its zakat, the dominant view is that the sale is invalid to the extent of the zakat portion but valid with respect to the remainder.