we said it attaches to the liability, then the amount of Zakah is mortgaged by it, and the sale of a mortgaged item (rahn) is not permissible. Our evidence is that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) forbade the sale of fruits until their suitability for harvest becomes apparent. This is agreed upon. Its implication is the validity of selling them once their suitability becomes apparent, and this is general regarding that in which Zakah has become obligatory and other than it. He also forbade the sale of grain until it hardens, and the sale of grapes until they turn black. Both are items in which Zakah is obligatory. Furthermore, because Zakah becomes obligatory in the liability (dhimmah) while the wealth is free from it, its sale is valid, just as if he sold his property while he owed a debt to a human or Zakah al-Fitr. Even if it attached to the physical asset, it is an attachment that does not prevent disposition of a part of the nisaab, so it does not prevent the sale of all of it, just like the indemnity for an injury (arsh al-jinayah). Their statement that 'he sold what he does not own' is not correct, for ownership was not established for the poor in the nisaab, evidenced by the fact that he may pay the Zakah from other than it, and the poor do not have the power to compel him to pay the Zakah from it. It is not a mortgage, for the rulings of a mortgage are not established therein. Thus, if he disposes of the nisaab then pays the Zakah from other than it, [it is valid], otherwise he is compelled to pay it. If he does not possess [the means], he is compelled to acquire it. If he is unable, the Zakah remains in his liability, like other debts, and it is not taken from the nisaab. It is possible that the sale could be annulled to the extent of the Zakah and taken from it, and the seller would have recourse against him for that amount; because there is harm to the poor in completing the sale and a loss of their rights, so it is necessary to annul it, based on the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): 'There shall be no harming nor reciprocating harm.' [And this is more correct].

438 - Issue: He said: (And Zakah becomes obligatory in the liability upon the expiration of the year, even if the wealth perishes, whether he was negligent or not.)

This issue comprises three rulings: First, that Zakah becomes obligatory in the liability. This is one of the two narrations from Ahmad and one of the two opinions of Al-Shafi'i; because paying it from other than the nisaab is permissible, so it was not obligatory in it, like Zakah al-Fitr. Also, because if it were obligatory in it, the owner's disposition of it would be forbidden, the entitled recipients would have the power to compel him to pay the Zakah from its physical substance, or some of the rulings of its attachment would have appeared. Moreover, the Zakah would drop upon the perishing of the nisaab without negligence, just as the indemnity for an injury drops upon the destruction of the perpetrator. The second [opinion] is that it becomes obligatory in the physical asset. This is the second opinion of Al-Shafi'i, and this narration is the manifest one according to some of our companions; due to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): 'In forty sheep, there is a sheep.' And his saying: 'In what is watered by the sky, there is the tithe.'