Section

Whatever a man spends from his wealth, or loses, shortly or long before the year has elapsed is not subject to zakat. He pays zakat on the remainder when the year has elapsed, provided it reaches the minimum threshold. Likewise, if he sets aside his zakat shortly or long before the year has elapsed and it is lost, or sets it aside and distributes it at a time when distribution is not permissible, he must pay zakat on the remainder when the year has elapsed, provided it reaches the minimum threshold. If, however, he sets it aside and distributes it within the permissible period shortly before the year ends—subject to the disagreement already mentioned—then, according to the position permitting payment shortly before the year has elapsed, this discharges his obligation.

Section

Whatever he spends from his zakatable wealth shortly or long after the year has elapsed, or loses long after it has elapsed, remains subject to zakat together with his remaining wealth. There is disagreement concerning what is lost shortly after the year has elapsed. In Ibn al-Mawwāz’s book, this is described as a day or so. Mālik held that it is treated like wealth lost before the year has elapsed: he does not include it in the assessment, since he was not negligent, and pays zakat on the remainder if it reaches the minimum threshold. Ibn al-Jahm said that he pays zakat on the remainder even if it falls below the minimum threshold, because, once the year has elapsed, the poor effectively become his partners. Thus, any loss occurring shortly after the year has elapsed is borne by both him and them.

If he sets aside his zakat after the year has elapsed in order to distribute it, and it is lost, he is liable to replace it if this occurs a few days after it fell due. Mālik stated this in Ibn al-Mawwāz’s book, and it explains the passage in al-Mudawwana. If, however, this occurs immediately after the year has elapsed, before he has been negligent—Muhammad specifies a day or so—and it is stolen, or he sends it to someone to distribute and it is lost, he bears no liability. This is Mālik’s position as reported from him by Ibn Nāfiʿ in al-Majmūʿa.

Were he to send the zakat on his crops or livestock with a messenger, he would be liable for its loss, since the usual procedure for these is for the zakat collector to come. Were he to separate his zakat on money from the contents of his chest, place it in a corner of his house, and then lose it, he would be liable, since he has not taken it out so long as it remains in his house. This differs from livestock that he takes out and keeps awaiting the zakat collector.

There is some ambiguity in al-Mudawwana’s treatment of the questions in this chapter. What I conclude from them is