Section: If he has set aside an amount equal to the Zakah, intending that it is Zakah, and it is then lost, it remains the responsibility of the owner of the wealth, and the Zakah obligation does not lapse from him by that, regardless of whether he was able to pay it to the recipient or not. The ruling regarding this is the same as the previous issue.

439 - Issue: He said: "And whoever pledges livestock as collateral (rahan), and the Zakah year (hawl) passes over it, he pays from it if he does not have other means to pay for it, and the remainder remains as collateral."

The summary of this is that if he pledges livestock as collateral and the year passes while it is in the possession of the pledgee (murtahin), its Zakah is obligatory upon the pledger (rahin), because his ownership of it is complete. If it is possible for him to pay it from other than the pledged livestock, he must do so, because Zakah is a burden on the collateral, and the burdens of the collateral are the responsibility of the pledger, just like the maintenance of the nisab. He does not take it out of the nisab because the right of the pledgee is attached to it in a manner that prevents the pledger from disposing of it. Since Zakah does not necessarily have to be taken specifically from that [pledged] item, he does not have the right to take it from it, like the Zakah on his other wealth. If he does not have any wealth other than this collateral from which to pay it, it must be that either he has wealth from which he can repay the debt and still have a full nisab remaining—for example, if the livestock is in excess of the nisab to an extent that he can pay the debt from it and the nisab remains—in which case he pays the Zakah from the livestock, and he prioritizes the right of Zakah over the right of the pledgee, because the pledgee has recourse to a substitute, which is the fulfillment of the debt, whereas the rights of the poor in Zakah have no substitute. If he does not have wealth to pay the debt while still leaving a remaining nisab, there are two narrations: One of them is that the Zakah is still obligatory. Debt does not prevent the obligation of Zakah in visible (zahirah) assets, which are livestock and grains. This is stated in the narration of al-Athram. He said: Because if the tax collector (musaddiq) came and found camels and sheep, he would not ask their owner what amount of debt he owes, but would rather take the Zakah from them. Wealth is not treated in this same manner, and this is the manifest view of al-Khiraqi here, because his statement is general regarding all livestock. This is because the obligation of Zakah in visible assets is more emphatic due to their visibility and the attachment of the hearts of the poor to them upon seeing them, and because the need to protect them is greater, and because the tax collector manages the collection of Zakah from them and does not inquire about the debt of their owner. The second narration is that Zakah is not obligatory upon them. Debt prevents the obligation of Zakah in all assets, both visible and hidden. Ibn Abi Musa said: The correct view in his madhhab is that debt prevents the obligation of Zakah in every case. This is the school of Abu Hanifah, and it was narrated from Ibn Abbas, Makhul, and al-Thawri. Ibn al-Mundhir narrated this from them regarding crops when the owner has incurred debt for them, because it is one type of Zakah, so debt prevents its obligation just like the other type. Also, because the debtor is in need, and charity (sadaqah) is only obligatory upon the wealthy, according to his (peace be upon him) statement: "I have been commanded to take charity from their wealthy and return it to their poor." And his statement (peace be upon him): "There is no charity except from what is surplus to one's own need (zahr ghinan)." Abu Ubayd narrated in the book "al-Amwal" from al-Sa'ib ibn Yazid that he heard Uthman ibn Affan...