However, according to the other narration it is permissible to give them zakah. A number of scholars transmitted this report from Imam Ahmad. Al-Mughni and al-Sharh al-Kabir state that it is the stronger view, and it was adopted by Shaykh al-Islam. On this narration, if a man pays his zakah to a relative and the relative becomes self-sufficient through it, he is no longer obliged to maintain him, because his need has been removed.

Eighth: Ibn al-Qayyim said: Among the invalid stratagems is for a man to hand his zakah to a bankrupt debtor of his, then demand repayment; once the debtor pays, the giver counts the zakah as discharged.

He explained: This ruse is invalid and forbidden, whether he explicitly stipulates repayment or simply transfers the money intending thereby to recover his debt. None of that lifts the zakah obligation; it is not regarded as a valid payment in law or custom, just like someone who cancels a debt and counts it as zakah.

Ninth: Al-Bukhari (2809) and Muslim (1625) report that the Prophet ﷺ said to ʿUmar, “Do not take back your charity, nor buy it, even if he sells it to you for a single dirham; for the one who takes back his charity is like a dog that returns to its vomit.”

For this reason the majority of scholars have prohibited reclaiming it and have ruled the purchase of it invalid.

Ibn al-Qayyim said: The correct position is that buying it is forbidden, for allowing it would open the door to deceiving the poor: a man could give them his charity and then buy it back for less than its value.

Part of the perfection of the Sharia is that it blocks this avenue. If, however, the item returns to him through inheritance or the like, he may lawfully take possession of it. Muslim (1149) relates that a woman said to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, “I had given my mother a slave-girl in charity, and she died leaving the girl behind.” He replied, “Your reward is secured, and the slave-girl has come back to you through inheritance.”

Tenth: The Shaykh said: A creditor may not give his zakah to the debtor in order to collect what he is owed.

As for writing off the debt of an insolvent person, then with regard to zakah on tangible assets it unquestionably does not suffice. Concerning an amount equivalent to the zakah due on the debt itself, there are two opinions, the stronger being that it is permissible, because zakah is itself a liability, and here he has discharged it from the same type of wealth he owns—unlike the case where his wealth is tangible and he tries to pay with a debt.