Abu al-Khattab and Ibn Aqil chose the opinion that it does not suffice between him and Allah the Exalted except with the intention of the wealth owner, because the Imam is either his agent, the agent of the poor, or the agent of both. Whichever of these it may be, his intention cannot suffice for the intention of the wealth owner. Furthermore, Zakat is an act of worship for which an intention is required, so it does not suffice for the one upon whom it is incumbent without an intention, provided he is among those capable of forming an intention, such as in prayer. It is only taken from him without it sufficing as a matter of safeguarding the outward observance, like prayer, for which one is compelled to perform its outward form, yet if one prays without an intention, it does not suffice him before Allah the Exalted. Ibn Aqil said: The meaning of the jurists' saying "it suffices him" is in the outward sense, meaning he will not be asked to pay it a second time, just as we said regarding Islam; for the apostate is required to make the testimony of faith, so once he performs it, his Islam is judged to be valid outwardly, but if he does not believe in the validity of what he is uttering, his Islam is not valid inwardly. He added: And the statement of our companions that "the repentance of the heretic (zindiq) is not accepted" means: the killing that has become due upon him is not lifted, due to our lack of knowledge of the reality of his repentance, because the most that can be said of him is that he has manifested his faith, whereas he had been manifesting his faith for the duration of his life while concealing his disbelief. However, before Allah the Mighty and Majestic, it is valid if the reality of his turning in repentance, the sincerity of his repentance, and his belief in the truth are known from him. Those who supported the view of Al-Khiraqi said: The Imam has authority over the one who refuses, so his intention stood in place of his own, like the guardian of an orphan or an insane person. This differs from prayer, for substitution is not valid in it, so the intention of the one performing it is essential. Regarding his statement that the Imam is not devoid of being an agent for him, or for the poor, or for both—we say: rather, he is a ruler over the owner of the wealth. As for linking Zakat to the division of property, it is not correct, for division is not an act of worship, and an intention is not considered for it, unlike Zakat.