the recipients of the allotted shares are not specifically designated as parties to the dispute, unless they bring before the imam a grievance concerning the rights of the needy. Their testimony against the collector is not accepted because of the self-interest attaching to them. As for the testimony of the owners of wealth against him: if it concerns his taking the zakat from them, their testimony is not heard; but if it concerns his distributing it improperly, their testimony is heard.
If the owners of wealth claim that they paid the zakat to the collector and he denies it, their word is accepted without an oath, in accordance with what has been stated previously—that they are not required to swear an oath. The collector, however, is made to swear to his denial and is thereby discharged, since being a trustee does not preclude his taking an oath, just as with a custodian of a deposit.
If some owners of wealth testify on behalf of others that they paid the zakat to the collector, the matter is examined. If this occurred after the parties had denied one another’s claims and entered into litigation, their testimony is not heard; but if it occurred before either of those things, their testimony is heard, and the collector is ordered to make good the loss.
If, after the testimony has been given, he claims that he distributed the zakat among those entitled to the allotted shares, his claim is not accepted, because his denial has already contradicted it. If those entitled to the shares testify in his favor that they received it from him, their testimony is not heard, because his denial that he received it has already contradicted that testimony.
If the collector acknowledges having received the zakat and claims that he distributed it among those entitled to the allotted shares, but they deny this, his statement concerning its distribution is accepted because he was entrusted with it. Their statement, however, is accepted regarding the continuance of their poverty and need. Whoever among those entitled to the shares claims poverty is believed. Whoever claims to be burdened by debt is not believed without evidence.
If the owner of the wealth acknowledges to the collector the amount of zakat due from him but does not inform him of the amount of his wealth, the collector may take that amount from him on the basis of his statement, and may not compel him to produce his wealth.
If the owner of the wealth errs in distributing the zakat and gives it to someone ineligible, the matter is examined. If the recipient is among those whose condition as a wealthy person might be unknown, whether the owner is liable to replace it is subject to two reports. But if the recipient is someone whose ineligibility cannot be unknown—such as a close relative, a disbeliever, or a slave—he is liable to replace it according to one report.
If the collector himself is the one who errs in distributing it, then by analogy with this ruling he is liable to the owner of the wealth in cases where the recipient’s ineligibility cannot be unknown. Whether he is liable in cases where it might be unknown is subject to the two reports. For Ahmad said concerning the owner of the wealth: “If he gives it to a rich person, he is liable.” He identified the legal cause as the fact that it is meant for the poor, whereas this person is rich; and the same rationale applies to the collector. In the report transmitted by al-Marwazi, he said: “He must pay it again; it is for the poor.”