as in the two opinions. For us, concerning the permissibility of paying it personally, it is the payment of a right to its deserving recipient whose disposal of it is valid. Thus, it suffices him, just as if he were to pay a debt to his creditor, or like the Zakat on hidden wealth. Furthermore, it is one of the two types of Zakat, so it resembles the other type, and the verse indicates that the Imam has the right to take it. There is no disagreement on this. Abu Bakr's demanding it from them was because they did not pay it to its rightful recipients. [Had they paid it to its rightful recipients], he would not have fought them over it, because the validity of that is a matter of disagreement, and fighting is not permissible for such a reason. The Imam only demands it by virtue of his authority and his representation of its deserving recipients. When one pays it to them, it is permissible because they are of sound judgment; therefore, payment to them is valid, unlike the case of an orphan.

As for the aspect of the virtue of paying it personally, it is because it is the delivery of the right to its deserving recipient while saving the cost of administration, protecting their right from the danger of betrayal, and directly alleviating the distress of its deserving recipient and enriching him through it, while also giving it to those most deserving of it among his needy relatives and kin, thereby upholding the ties of kinship. Thus, it is superior, just as if its collector were not among the just authorities. If it is said: 'The discussion concerns the just Imam, and betrayal is not to be feared regarding him.' We say: The Imam does not handle this personally; rather, he delegates it to his deputies, so betrayal is not to be ruled out from them. Moreover, sometimes nothing of it reaches the recipient whom the owner knows to be among his kin and neighbors, who are the most deserving of his ties, charity, and support. As for their statement that the Imam's taking of it absolves one outwardly and inwardly, we say: This is invalidated by paying it to someone other than the just [Imam], for that also absolves one, yet they conceded that it is not superior. Furthermore, outward absolution is sufficient. As for their statement that suspicion is removed by it, we say: Once one makes it manifest, suspicion is removed, regardless of whether one distributes it personally or pays it to the Imam. The school does not differ that...