its owner, such as property that has been wrongfully seized or lost, or a debt that is denied or owed by someone insolvent or delaying payment. Zakat must be paid without delay on property that can be recovered, such as a debt owed by a solvent person. This is one of al-Shāfiʿī’s two views, and the stronger of them.

Section

There are three views concerning payment of the equivalent value in zakat:

The first is that it is valid in all circumstances, as Abū Hanīfa held.

The second is that it is not valid under any circumstances, as al-Shāfiʿī held.

The third is that it is valid only when there is a need—for example, when someone owes a sheep or goat as zakat on his camels but does not have one, or when someone sells his grapes and fresh dates before they dry. This is Ahmad’s explicitly stated position: he prohibited payment of the equivalent value but allowed it in certain cases because of need. Some of his followers, however, transmitted from him that it was permissible. They therefore treated payment of the equivalent value as an issue on which two positions were reported from him, and preferred prohibition, since that was his well-known position, corresponding to al-Shāfiʿī’s view.

This view is the most balanced of the views, as we have explained in a similar discussion concerning prayer. The evidence requiring payment of the specified item itself, whether based on explicit texts or analogy, is like all other evidence establishing an obligation. It is well known that the benefit served by requiring the specified item may sometimes be outweighed by the greater benefit of paying its equivalent value and by the hardship involved in providing the item itself—a hardship that Islamic law removes.