He also said, in the report transmitted by al-Athram, when he was asked, “Is one who abandons the fasting of Ramadan like one who abandons prayer?”: “Prayer is more emphatically obligatory. The reported ruling concerns prayer alone; fasting is not like the other obligations.” The apparent meaning of this is that he distinguished prayer from fasting by holding that one who abandons fasting is not killed, but is left to his own integrity.
As for one who abandons zakat, the imam takes it from him by force. If he is unable to take it from him because of his refusal, he wages war against him over it. Even if this fighting leads to his death, the zakat is to be taken from him, just as Abu Bakr fought those who withheld zakat. If he is killed in the fighting, is he to be regarded as having died a disbelieving apostate? In the report transmitted by al-Maymūnī, Aḥmad said concerning one who withheld zakat: “He is fought.” He was asked, “Are his heirs to inherit from him, and is the funeral prayer to be offered over him?” He replied: “If they withhold zakat as those who withheld it from Abu Bakr did, and fight over it, their heirs do not inherit from them and the funeral prayer is not offered over them. But if someone withholds zakat—that is, out of stinginess or negligence—he is not fought against or warred against as a consequence of his withholding it; rather, he is fought against only to collect it, while his heirs inherit from him and the funeral prayer is offered over him.”
Thus, he explicitly stated that if someone withholds zakat and fights over it, he is fought against; if he is killed, he is a disbeliever, the funeral prayer is not offered over him, and his heirs do not inherit from him. If, however, he does not fight over it but withholds it out of avarice and stinginess, he is not judged to be a disbeliever. If it is impossible to take it from him because his property cannot be reached, and he has not fought over it, he is called upon to repent for three days. If he repents, that is well; otherwise, he is killed, but he is not judged to be a disbeliever. Aḥmad stated this explicitly in the report transmitted by Abū Ṭālib concerning a man who said, “Zakat is incumbent upon me, but I will not pay it”: “He is told two or three times, ‘Pay zakat.’ If he does not pay it, he is called upon to repent for three days; if he repents, that is well; otherwise, his neck is struck.” Abū Ḥafṣ al-ʿUqbarī transmitted an addition to this report: “I said, ‘So-and-so has narrated from you that you said concerning zakat: his neck is struck immediately and he is not called upon to repent.’ He replied, ‘He did not retain it correctly.’”
As for the Hajj pilgrimage, Aḥmad held that it is an obligation to be performed immediately, so it is conceivable that someone might delay it beyond its proper time. Aḥmad said in the report transmitted by a number of his companions—including ʿAbd Allāh, Isḥāq, Ibrāhīm, and Abū al-Ḥārith—“Whoever is financially able, with no impediment preventing him, yet does not perform Hajj, his testimony is not admissible.” This strongly emphasizes the requirement of performing it immediately, since he has thereby forfeited his probity in a matter on which independent legal reasoning is permissible.
Is he killed for delaying it? Abū Bakr said in the discussion of the rebels in The Book of Legal Disagreement: “Hajj, zakat, fasting, and prayer are all the same: he is called upon to repent; if he repents, that is well; otherwise, he is killed.” This is supported by what we have related from Aḥmad: “His testimony is not accepted.” The apparent meaning of this is that independent legal reasoning is not permissible with regard to delaying it. It is possible, however, that he is not killed, because performing it after the due time still counts as performance of the obligation, not as making it up.