and others. Among the recipients were some for whom taking it was unlawful. Indeed, the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, would say:

“I give one of them a gift, and he leaves carrying it under his arm as fire.” They asked, “O Messenger of Allah, why, then, do you give to them?” He replied, “They insist on asking me, and Allah will not allow me to be miserly.”

No reasonable person would say that this money should be lost to the person from whom it was borrowed. Rather, it is treated just as though it had come directly from zakat and fay’ funds, because the giver was permitted to give, even though the recipient was not permitted to take. This applies even when he gives of his own free will; how much more, then, to someone compelled to pay, for whom payment is permissible or obligatory?

Nor may it be objected, “Here, the ruler borrowed people’s money from them.” The answer is that he borrowed it only to pay that oppressor who sought to seize the Muslims’ wealth. He thus paid the borrowed money on their behalf to avert harm from them, and he must repay it from their shared funds: zakat and fay’ revenues. Nor may it be said, “It is not lawful for him to spend their funds, since what that oppressor took belonged only to some of them.” Rather, paying this small amount to safeguard their lives and property is obligatory.

When payment is obligatory to avert a greater harm, the position of Mālik, the well-known position reported from Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and that of other scholars is that anyone who discharges another person’s obligation is entitled to reimbursement from him, provided he did not do so gratuitously, even if he discharged it without that person’s permission. An example is someone who settles another person’s debt without his permission, whether he had guaranteed the debt without his permission and then paid it without his permission, or paid it on his behalf without having guaranteed it.